FC: Judge gives NCAA permission to file new response in Paterno lawsuit(updated w/ new NCAA filing)
- Thread starter LundyPSU
- Start date
Duh. Marsh can't impose any penalties, only the NCAA can, and they admitted it was a bluff. Seriously, are all the bot sycophants really this dumb? And for the record, I did think it was a bluff as any idiot could see there was no legal leg for the NCAA to fall back on.
Huh???? What "different account" was I using??? Please be specific. I'm really interested in what you are going to say here.
Seriously, if you can provide some proof that I was "using a different account to try and show previous numbers were not correct", I'll leave Rivals forever, while ALSO paying you $1000 in cold hard cash. So I've given you some incentive to prove your claims.
Yes, I do own the Count_von_Count moniker here, michnittlion is not my only moniker. But The Count doesn't comment on sanctions related issues. The Count has different interests in life
Did you just forget you cited 2012-2014 numbers?
I just hope the irony of this statement was intentional.
Apologies if you didn't follow my logic there. Let me lay my logic out more specifically:
(1) Penn State definitely committed NCAA violations that were NOT self-reported in the 2012-2014 era. It's documented explicitly in the September 2014 Mitchell Report.
(2) Penn State committed these NON-self-reported violations despite the on-campus presence of an Athletics Integrity Administrator (George Mitchell).
(3) Given that we were committing non-self-reported violations in the 2012-2014 era, I hypothesize that we were also committing non-self-reported violations in the November 2011 era. I have no proof of such, but I think that's a defensible conclusion based on the 2012-2014 era.
(4) I further hypothesize that if Emmert/the NCAA really wanted to, they could provide proof that we committed non-self-reported violations in the pre-November 2011 era. And have something to "nail us against the wall" with.
Hope that helps.
Last edited:
I answered this question in my previous post, of course, but to one of my other questions --- what "other account" was I using?
Haha exactly. Either Marsh was an incompetent idiot for getting bluffed or was in on it with the BOT. Either one doesnt make him look very good.
Before I contribute anything to Penn State, I'll contribute gladly to the Paterno's in this pursuit!
Unfortunately for CR and his pals, attorney fees are no problem for the Paterno side. Unlike the NCAA, the Paterno's have friends in very high places. Money, in this circumstance, is no object. If the NCAA thinks they can bleed the Paterno's dry and force a settlement, then they have a really dumb strategy.
this thing is going to go on for years...I really just want to be alive when this case sees a courtroom
Once again the myth emerges that The Ship of Fools feared a full fledged NCAA Investigation because of some unnamed violations........ The Misanthropes were and are interested in protecting their own interests. Surma and his henchmen and women would have hired another plane to strafe Happy Valley if they found anything that justified their vendetta of 11/11. All of Freeh's Horses and all of Frazier's Men (PH) fueled to the tune of $8.5 million couldn't lay a finger on Joe and the football program. The only "evidence" being protected in Philly is evidence of the hoax orchestrated by the SITF and executed by The hitman for hire.
The Freeh report is credible because the NCAA said so?
I won't deny they've made this claim. In fact it was in one their filings on 6/16 where they argue the Freeh report is credible by citing the credentials of the author (that's a bit circular). They also cite the broad acceptance by 1) Penn State (I'm guessing they're referring to Peetz's acceptance on 7/12/12; but they fail to mention the board has never taken a vote to accept it), 2) the media (yes indeed, the Freeh report is credible because the media said it was; how's that for the NCAA's argument), and 3) numerous other (unnamed) objective observers.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...IFFS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.pdf
The NCAA arguing that Freeh report is credible because of the media's acceptance of it reminds me of the 11/9/11 board meeting in which Surma defended firing Paterno based on the GJP and what the media wrote:
Media: "What was the driving reason behind the removal of Coach Paterno?"
John Surma: "In consideration of all the facts and the difficulties we're encountering during this time, it was the trustees view that it was in the best interests, long-term interests for our university to make that choice."
Media: "What did you learn in the last several days that you didn't already know which would cause you to make this decision today instead of a week or days ago? Some of this information has been out there for awhile."
John Surma: "The board deliberative process is, as it implies, a process that requires some time. There was information we sought, although we don't know any more about the actual details than the grand jury report and whatever you all [the media] write. We were working through the not entirely consistent processes of wanting to act swiftly and decisively but also to be thorough and fair, and that resulted in these actions."
Ref: 11/9/2011 Press Conference, , Starting at the 3:00 minute mark
I can't even watch that again. I am still pissed off from watching it the first time!
I thought your point would have had something to do with the NCAA Finding out something against PSU during the PATERNO era. My God, man, your attention span is short.
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to make that assertion..
Another fantasy. You and I both know Penn State would have prevailed. Get back in the corner, put the hat on, Lenny.
Last edited:
Maybe you should read your post carefully before you reply. Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?
Let's all hope you get charged with a crime you didn't commit, and the only tangible proof that you committed the crime is the fact that you are charged with it. Hopefully they get Freeh to write a report of the same quality he did for PSU, where 99% of those who read it think it is complete garbage, but you are guilty based on 2 vague emails that you didn't send or receive and may not have even been talking about you. See how you feel when the report is deemed credible because the family of your alleged victim said so.
Nothing was as ridiculous as this, which has been parroted on news comments over and over:
Cruising Route 66 said: ↑
Hey Einstein, that's a perfect hat for you. Don't lose it. Do you realize that an injunction would likely have sent PSU and the NCAA into years of protracted litigation with no guarantee PSU would have prevailed? How hard do you think it might have been hiring a top flight coach and recruiting blue chip kids with just only a slight possibility that the NCAA's penalty might be upheld by the court? The continuing existence of all of PSU Athletics would have been on the line and PSU could have been expelled from the conference. Why do you think Gene Marsh recommended taking the deal?
Ridiculous comments from pencil dick is why these cases need to go to trial, once and for all.
A question: isn't this ruling by the Judge a small victory for the NCAA? As I remember people on this board noted that the NCAA first response lacked specifics and therefore was a tacit admission of several charges from the Paterno's suit. The Paterno's law team responded that the NCAA should not be allowed to submit a 2nd modified response because the NCAA had qualified legal counsel and should have known this. This is a small victory for the NCAA as this ruling allows this delay tactic by the NCAA. The NCAA files a "bad" response which requires a response by the Paterno team and then a 2nd response which requires another response by the Paterno team. This tactic results in delaying discovery. Is this correct or am I thinking of another issue.
I seriously can't tell if 1.) you are misinformed or uneducated about what you're talking about, 2.) have reading comprehension issues, or 3.) are a graduate of Freeh University, where half-truths and statements taken out of context are used to form a narrative and "draw conclusions" that have little basis in reality.
Ahhhhh... the 2014 Mitchell Report. The one the NCAA used to pull back the remaining sanctions. Must have been full of nefarious stuff then. First, you are implying by your statement that Penn State didn't self-report violations in that time period. That is blatantly false, as is outlined directly in the very report you quote. The report actually says: "In 2012-13, Penn State committed 24 secondary violations, nine of which were self-reported by teams. In 2013-14, that number increased to 33 secondary violations, 23 of which were self reported by teams." Page 15, if you care to look it up. http://i.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/nc...2014/09/08/ncaamonitorssecondannualreport.pdf
Now, it's important to understand what self reported means. In fact, the Mitchell Report tells us, in a footnote on Page 15: "Self-reported secondary violations are those reported by a member of an athletic program. All other secondary violations discovered by the Athletics Compliance Office, athletics integrity officer, or other channel outside of a Penn State athletic team are considered externally reported violations." So -- all of the violations were, in fact, reported by Penn State to the NCAA. Self reported vs external reported both mean they came from Penn State, odd as the wording is.
If you read the report, it would appear that Athletics Integrity Officer Julie Del Giorno didn't find these secondary violations on her own. The AIA doesn't have someone out there actively looking for secondary violations. They were all reported to her (Page 13)... one anonymously, some in person, some via email and phone. She just follows up with them. In the past, those violations could have just as easily been reported to someone else in the Athletic Department. Now, it's probably reasonable to conclude that this extra layer of separation might result in a few more reports being made, as opposed to someone in the past calling up Curley's office to complain... but that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way either.
It is virtually impossible, AIA presence or not, to NOT commit secondary violations. Schools report them all the time, and nothing happens. The NCAA recently has, or is about to, transition to a 4 tier level of labeling violations, but here we're using the old term "secondary" (vs. major). What are secondary violations? A lot are rules where the NCAA, in it's zeal to have relevance, has gone overboard in either the inclusions of rules, or the interpretation of said rules. You know, like where 3 Oklahoma football players had to pay for the excessive spaghetti they ate at a team function. Or what the esteemed Mark Emmert himself referred to as the "bagel rule." For more on some of these rules, see http://articles.latimes.com/2014/fe...lahoma-athletes-penalized-over-pasta-20140219
In fact, the NCAA actually EXPECTS that you will commit secondary violations, an acknowledgement of just how bloated and convoluted the rule book is. Your favorite report, the Mitchell Report, says as much on, what else, Page 15, when it says: "The NCAA considers self-reporting of secondary violations to be indicative of a healthy athletics compliance program." Why does the NCAA believe that? Shouldn't all of the rules be followed to the nth degree? One must conclude that the NCAA knows the rules are a bit (or very much) ridiculous and overreaching at times, and as long as you are a good soldier and someone in Athletics is watching and catching these items and reporting them, all is right with the world.
Don't believe me? Let's ask our friends at the NCAA for their definition: "Secondary violations are isolated or inadvertent and provide only minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantages. They do not include significant impermissible benefits. If an institution commits several secondary violations, the violations may be collectively considered a major infraction. Secondary violations occur frequently, are usually resolved administratively and are not typically made public. Any violation that is not considered secondary is a major violation. Major violations usually provide an extensive recruiting or competitive advantage, are investigated by NCAA enforcement staff, and can lead to severe penalties against the school and involved individuals." This can be found at: http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/enforcement-process-charging
Well, I suppose it's entirely possible, maybe even likely, that there were some secondary violations that didn't get reported prior to 2011. Still, they were SECONDARY VIOLATIONS that are resolved administratively. Look, the NCAA's definition even says "secondary violations occur frequently." They don't seem overly concerned about it, do they?
OK, you got me, the NCAA was going to bring the hammer down on us for not reporting a series of secondary violations. Yeah, that would have played well with the member institutions. Even if they didn't like PSU and thought we were all a bunch of pedophile enablers, this is not a road the NCAA, or the schools, want to go down. It would have to be really egregious, with a large number and a pattern of behavior. Hell, if the NCAA wanted to go down that road, they'd do it anywhere they could when they couldn't actually nail someone for legitimate cheating. The NCAA, in the Miami case, should have just gave up the ghost and started sniffing around for unreported secondary violations to nail them with, instead of what they did. But they didn't, so what does that tell you?
The only thing I agree with you on is the NCAA was out to throw it's weight around, and it wanted blood, and it didn't care about right or wrong. But there's a limit to what they could do, as evidenced by the route they went, with the BOT and Freeh providing cover to them.
Sure did. Helps me show you have faulty logic.
Ahhhhh... the 2014 Mitchell Report. The one the NCAA used to pull back the remaining sanctions. Must have been full of nefarious stuff then. First, you are implying by your statement that Penn State didn't self-report violations in that time period. That is blatantly false, as is outlined directly in the very report you quote. The report actually says: "In 2012-13, Penn State committed 24 secondary violations, nine of which were self-reported by teams. In 2013-14, that number increased to 33 secondary violations, 23 of which were self reported by teams." Page 15, if you care to look it up. http://i.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/nc...2014/09/08/ncaamonitorssecondannualreport.pdf
Now, it's important to understand what self reported means. In fact, the Mitchell Report tells us, in a footnote on Page 15: "Self-reported secondary violations are those reported by a member of an athletic program. All other secondary violations discovered by the Athletics Compliance Office, athletics integrity officer, or other channel outside of a Penn State athletic team are considered externally reported violations." So -- all of the violations were, in fact, reported by Penn State to the NCAA. Self reported vs external reported both mean they came from Penn State, odd as the wording is.
If you read the report, it would appear that Athletics Integrity Officer Julie Del Giorno didn't find these secondary violations on her own. The AIA doesn't have someone out there actively looking for secondary violations. They were all reported to her (Page 13)... one anonymously, some in person, some via email and phone. She just follows up with them. In the past, those violations could have just as easily been reported to someone else in the Athletic Department. Now, it's probably reasonable to conclude that this extra layer of separation might result in a few more reports being made, as opposed to someone in the past calling up Curley's office to complain... but that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way either.
It is virtually impossible, AIA presence or not, to NOT commit secondary violations. Schools report them all the time, and nothing happens. The NCAA recently has, or is about to, transition to a 4 tier level of labeling violations, but here we're using the old term "secondary" (vs. major). What are secondary violations? A lot are rules where the NCAA, in it's zeal to have relevance, has gone overboard in either the inclusions of rules, or the interpretation of said rules. You know, like where 3 Oklahoma football players had to pay for the excessive spaghetti they ate at a team function. Or what the esteemed Mark Emmert himself referred to as the "bagel rule." For more on some of these rules, see http://articles.latimes.com/2014/fe...lahoma-athletes-penalized-over-pasta-20140219
In fact, the NCAA actually EXPECTS that you will commit secondary violations, an acknowledgement of just how bloated and convoluted the rule book is. Your favorite report, the Mitchell Report, says as much on, what else, Page 15, when it says: "The NCAA considers self-reporting of secondary violations to be indicative of a healthy athletics compliance program." Why does the NCAA believe that? Shouldn't all of the rules be followed to the nth degree? One must conclude that the NCAA knows the rules are a bit (or very much) ridiculous and overreaching at times, and as long as you are a good soldier and someone in Athletics is watching and catching these items and reporting them, all is right with the world.
Don't believe me? Let's ask our friends at the NCAA for their definition: "Secondary violations are isolated or inadvertent and provide only minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantages. They do not include significant impermissible benefits. If an institution commits several secondary violations, the violations may be collectively considered a major infraction. Secondary violations occur frequently, are usually resolved administratively and are not typically made public. Any violation that is not considered secondary is a major violation. Major violations usually provide an extensive recruiting or competitive advantage, are investigated by NCAA enforcement staff, and can lead to severe penalties against the school and involved individuals." This can be found at: http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/enforcement-process-charging
Well, I suppose it's entirely possible, maybe even likely, that there were some secondary violations that didn't get reported prior to 2011. Still, they were SECONDARY VIOLATIONS that are resolved administratively. Look, the NCAA's definition even says "secondary violations occur frequently." They don't seem overly concerned about it, do they?
OK, you got me, the NCAA was going to bring the hammer down on us for not reporting a series of secondary violations. Yeah, that would have played well with the member institutions. Even if they didn't like PSU and thought we were all a bunch of pedophile enablers, this is not a road the NCAA, or the schools, want to go down. It would have to be really egregious, with a large number and a pattern of behavior. Hell, if the NCAA wanted to go down that road, they'd do it anywhere they could when they couldn't actually nail someone for legitimate cheating. The NCAA, in the Miami case, should have just gave up the ghost and started sniffing around for unreported secondary violations to nail them with, instead of what they did. But they didn't, so what does that tell you?
The only thing I agree with you on is the NCAA was out to throw it's weight around, and it wanted blood, and it didn't care about right or wrong. But there's a limit to what they could do, as evidenced by the route they went, with the BOT and Freeh providing cover to them.
Sure did. Helps me show you have faulty logic.
Another reason this will drag on is that the Paternos are not specifically looking for a monetary payout. There is no settling for a high dollar figure. Doesn't mean they won't get one in the end but they are after the Freeh source files and the answers to how this debacle was really handled and meted to the press. When the plaintiff has extremely deep pockets, as is the case here, and they are not interested in being bought, then the case will take years.
In a hole, digging...
It doesn't work that way. You can self-report or have the NCAA investigate. As it turned out and as we on BWI said at the time -- THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CORRUPT NCAA.
But "we" meaning our esteemed gang of assh_ts on the BOT decided we would shop our phony report to Emmert. What was he going to say? No, I won't take it? Of course not. It was ready made, he gets the PR and everyone gets to 'move on'.
The only problem is that lies don't hold up if people fight for the truth.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
So if Freeh is right, then Frank Fina is wrong? Despite having subpoena power and having access to more evidence?
You Freehbots keep talking about all this evidence, but can never seem to produce it. I can't get much more out of your response, given the grammar issues, and general theme of distraction.
Are you really going to spend the rest of your life saying the world is flat when everyone else is saying it is round?
CR and the BOT have continually said "PSU never officially accepted the results of the Freeh report except for the limited purpose of the NCAA consent decree in order to put the matter behind it".
Has anyone else heard such nonsense in their life? A public school/company never fully voted on accepting/ratifying a report but accepted the results for the limited purpose of some other agreement?? How can the accept it for a limited purpose without FIRST accepting it in general via a vote??
This makes ZERO sense. I'm sick and tired of this nonsense...you can't have it both ways....either PSU accepted the findings or it didn't...you can't "kind of" accept findings for one purpose but not for another.
Instead of that duplicitous stance, how about you know, actually having the full BOT vote on whether or not to allow the report to be accepted for the limited purpose of the CD or even agreeing to the CD itself?? But nope, the BOT exec comm took it upon themselves to speak on PSU's behalf on both of the above issues without ANY input from the full BOT. How convenient....
If the BOT leaders (BOT exec comm) told the NCAA they accepted the freeh report, even if only for the "limited purpose of the CD", then PSU accepted it (see the NCAA legal filings in the lawsuits against them).
The BOT exec comm/Erickson also told the WORLD via press releases that they accepted responsibilities for the failures mentioned in the report. So, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, PSU accepted the report.
Technically the full BOT never voted on it, but the duplicitous manner in which the BOT exec comm handled the report, it was accepted as far as the NCAA and the rest of the world is concerned.
Also, PSU has NEVER come out and publicly distanced itself from the FR conclusions/findings or taken a neutral stance since it was never voted on and that says a lot (frazier has a little bit but this was in a deposition, not a press release, etc).
Has anyone else heard such nonsense in their life? A public school/company never fully voted on accepting/ratifying a report but accepted the results for the limited purpose of some other agreement?? How can the accept it for a limited purpose without FIRST accepting it in general via a vote??
This makes ZERO sense. I'm sick and tired of this nonsense...you can't have it both ways....either PSU accepted the findings or it didn't...you can't "kind of" accept findings for one purpose but not for another.
Instead of that duplicitous stance, how about you know, actually having the full BOT vote on whether or not to allow the report to be accepted for the limited purpose of the CD or even agreeing to the CD itself?? But nope, the BOT exec comm took it upon themselves to speak on PSU's behalf on both of the above issues without ANY input from the full BOT. How convenient....
If the BOT leaders (BOT exec comm) told the NCAA they accepted the freeh report, even if only for the "limited purpose of the CD", then PSU accepted it (see the NCAA legal filings in the lawsuits against them).
The BOT exec comm/Erickson also told the WORLD via press releases that they accepted responsibilities for the failures mentioned in the report. So, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, PSU accepted the report.
Technically the full BOT never voted on it, but the duplicitous manner in which the BOT exec comm handled the report, it was accepted as far as the NCAA and the rest of the world is concerned.
Also, PSU has NEVER come out and publicly distanced itself from the FR conclusions/findings or taken a neutral stance since it was never voted on and that says a lot (frazier has a little bit but this was in a deposition, not a press release, etc).
PSU never officially accepted the results of the Freeh report except for the limited purpose of the NCAA consent decree in order to put the matter behind it which was precisely the right course of action based on what was known/unknown at the time.
Nonsense. The matter will not go away. This is a university and that means there are these troubling people called alumni around. You and the BOT will be fought forever by said troublemakers. Pack your lunch.
As for Freeh. He's a joke and its well-known among law firms that his services are bogus. It's only fitting our junior captains of industry hired him -- they got the report they wanted and cast Sandusky on someone else. No doubt Emmert and his 92 IQ decided to come to the party when the CYA report was being created.
BTW, those 300 interviews? Yeah, okay. Speak to some of the staff at Pepper. They are leaking -- it was nonsense as we suspected from the beginning.
Hopelessly wrong and wrong-minded. Nowhere in the NCAA's infractions judicial process does it say the NCAA cannot do their own investigation & must rely on a third-party report produced by the institution under investigation -- as a matter of FACT the NCAA's own bylaws & procedures say the diametric opposite. Furthermore, you have entirely skipped the FACT that PSU says they NEVER submitted the Freeh Report to the NCAA as a self-reported infraction internal investigation report nor did they tell the NCAA to use it in that fashion. The NCAA choose to use the report which is outside of their own policies and bylaws (and their contractual agreements with member institutions which clearly states that the NCAA will not make accusations and sanctions without investigating the member institution and providing the findings of the NCAA's investigation to the accused party for response & basic due process. The NCAA can accept the member institutions report if the member institution is SELF-REPORTING an infraction & going through that infraction process -- that is clearly not what took place here because PSU NEVER TOLD THE NCAA THAT THEY THOUGHT JS BEING CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED 12 YEARS AFTER HIS RETIREMENT FOR CRIMES THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS PSU COACHING RESPONSIBILITIES OR GAVE PSU AN ADVANTAGE ON THE FIELD WAS AN NCAA INFRACTION OF ANY KIND).
Again, the NCAA choose of their own free will to use a report that violates their own bylaws, policies & procedures as a basis for their findings and proposed sanctioning of PSU. Therefore they must take ownership and accept responsibiliy for the consequences of those actions! In other words, your repeated nonsense about PSU forcing them to violate their own bylaws, policies & procedures is complete hogwash which is pretty much par for the course with your incessant bulll-shat.
And yet those same prosecutors say there is zero evidence that Paterno did anything wrong - in fact, the AG said Paterno was one of the heros in the case at their November 2011 Press Conference announcing the results of the SWIGJ and their Indictments. Go figure, Freeh & NCAA make clearly false accussations about Paterno that patently contrdict what the prosecutors and their investigation you love to reference have said about Paterno, but you always neatly fail to mention those hugely important FACTS!
A hero? ---- when was this? ... and is there a link? I must have missed that.
Thanks.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/paterno_praised_for_acting_app.html
Penn State coach Paterno praised for acting appropriately in reporting Jerry Sandusky sex abuse suspicions
By SARA GANIM, The Patriot-News The Patriot-News
Follow on Twitter
on November 05, 2011 at 12:25 PM, updated November 07, 2011 at 1:22 PM
Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno did the right thing and reported an eye-witness report of child sex abuse by Jerry Sandusky in the football locker room in 2002, according to the indictment released this morning by the state Attorney General.
A source close to the investigation tells The Patriot-News that Paterno will not be charged, and will be a prosecution witness who will testify.
The sources said the deputy state prosecutor handling the case said that Paterno did the right thing, and handled himself appropriately in 2002 and during the three-year investigation that ended Friday.
Penn State coach Paterno praised for acting appropriately in reporting Jerry Sandusky sex abuse suspicions
By SARA GANIM, The Patriot-News The Patriot-News
Follow on Twitter
on November 05, 2011 at 12:25 PM, updated November 07, 2011 at 1:22 PM
Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno did the right thing and reported an eye-witness report of child sex abuse by Jerry Sandusky in the football locker room in 2002, according to the indictment released this morning by the state Attorney General.
A source close to the investigation tells The Patriot-News that Paterno will not be charged, and will be a prosecution witness who will testify.
The sources said the deputy state prosecutor handling the case said that Paterno did the right thing, and handled himself appropriately in 2002 and during the three-year investigation that ended Friday.
When the charges against JS and CS were announced the AG of PA praised Joe for being a cooperative and helpful witness. The AG even expressed dismay at how PSU was treating Joe b/c it may deter others from cooperating with their prosecutions....not shocking you seemed to have missed that as you are way out to left field on a number of things....
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting Levenson's Takeaways: Star power on display at Rivals Camp Series in Dallas- Latest: Marshall Levenson
-
-
-
