NCAA to subpoena Clemente, Berlin, and Thornburgh's firm
- Thread starter LundyPSU
- Start date
I'm sure they're frightened to death of that subpoena. Can these people possibly get any more stupid?
A
anon_is9z1n0h3zblb
Guest
I think this is more of an attempt to distract and drown in paperwork. Good thing the Paterno's have the resources to fight this bullshit.
Yep. Desperation. They know there's no getting out of this with a settlement where they claim victory while giving in- so they've finally come to grips with needing to get depositions for the inevitable trial.
Last edited:
I'll wait until CR66 comes on and says what a brilliant legal move this is before I form an opinion about it.
I would not say "brilliant" but I would say "standard" the NCAA attorneys will look to trip them up in deposition and use that in trial. So they can create some doubt in the minds of the jurists.
Yes,there is. Just another way for Donnie Remy's old law firm to rack up more billable hours.
I bet they make a big deal about Dr. Berlin not having seen any records of previous psych treatment received by JVP.
Don Remy is going to be soooooo disappointed to find that the reviewers did not engage in any of the backchannel cooperating that Mr "Independent" Louis Freeh did.
Couldn't this actually be good news? Seems like they are setting up a trap that could end up coming back and getting their asses.
I dunno. Maybe they'll ask Dr. Berlin about this statement:
"In contemporary society, having a pedophilic sexual orientation (whether of the exclusive or nonexclusive form) is considered to be a bad thing. In a society that felt otherwise, such a condition might not be construed as psychiatric pathology. To suggest that the inclusion of pedophilia in the DSM is not at least partially dependent on making such a value judgment would be disingenuous."
So, whether pedophilia is good or bad is a "value judgment."
I could see that going over well with a jury.
I don't know what genius thought that of all the psychiatrists in the world they could hire, they should pick this guy.
http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/2/242.full
Since two out of the three aren't licensed attorneys and the other wasn't hired to give legal advice or representation, it might be a reach.Hmm, you think the Paterno's try to claim attorney client privilege?
But, then again, Penn State is claiming attorney/client privilege for a guy who wasn't their attorney (Freeh) and Curley, Schultz and Spanier are claiming attorney/client privilege for non-privileged communications, so maybe it's time for the Paterno Family to jump on the Krazy Train.
The Krazy Train has been sold out for at least two years, dude.
Someone will need to explain to me how those guys could possibly help the cause of the NCAA. They were critics of the Freeh drivel so apparently the NCAA is going all in to try to defend Freeh's "reasonable conclusions". Apparently the NCAA doesn't think the Freeh fiction to stand on it own merits so now they're contemplating attacking the people who attacked Freeh? I don't claim to be a legal genius but that seems just plain stupid.
I assume they know these 3 will be called to refute Freeh and they are trying to find some weakness or area they can confuse the issue prior to trial. Make no mistake- the NCAA is 'all in' on Freeh. Even when they were forced to settle in court cases they insisted they were right- despite losing.
Seems like they are interested in the engagement letter/contract with the Paternos, compensation, drafts of the report, and likely how the Paternos may have steered the conclusions. As for compensation, they are requesting documentation of any comp or benefits offered by the Paternos (or their agent) going back to 2005.
I couldn't figure out PSU was claiming Freeh was attorney client privilege. Then I read the filing to alumni trustees. PSU claims the interviewees were promised their interviews with Freeh's group would be protected by attorney privilege. Essentially, interviewees were represented by Freeh. Not sure I agree with it, but that is what PSU is claiming.
And then they will use that to justify why the employees were not allowed to have their own attorneys present. You can't make this stuff up. As Tom Clancy said "The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense"
And what exactly does that have to do with the Paternos' commercial disparagement claim?
It's flat-out wrong. Omar McNeill testified that interviewees were given Upjohn warning, which means they were specifically told that confidentiality was NOT guaranteed.
I don't think that it's relevant at all to the commercial disparagement claim, but at any rate, Don Remy is going to be mighty disappointed to find that the Paternos aren't lying rat bastards like the Board of Trustees.
All he has to do is refer them to existing cultures in our contemporary world. Of course, he can resort to historical examples if the need arises. It is what it is.
I don't disagree, though, that it is a tough sell to a 2015 American jury.
The only psychiatrist they could get to defend Paterno's actions regarding a pedophile is a guy who thinks pedophilia isn't necessarily wrong (Hey, Sandusky wasn't doing anything wrong in the first place!). Like hiring a toxicologist in a DWI case to say that driving with a .15 blood/alcohol isn't a big deal.
Total twisting on your part. Amazing, really.
Are you saying Joe knew Sandusky was a pedophile? If so, can you support that?
It's been said thousands of times here that Joe reported his conversation with McQueary to his superiors as he should have done. Joe didn't have the benefit of hindsight, but you seem to rely totally on hindsight in making your claims.
I read the whole thing, Art. I'm very familiar with Dr. Berlin and his former partner, who thought that sexual relations between a "consenting" child and an adult shouldn't be illegal.
I suppose you're referring to the paragraph that begins:
In today's world [as compared to what? Another "better" world], for good reasons, having a pedophilic sexual makeup can be a bad thing [because of society's values?], which is not to say that persons with such a makeup are bad people [pedophile's aren't bad people? I wouldn't try to sell that to a jury.].
And then ends:
" The fact that such persons may be in need of mental health assistance constitutes an important basis for considering pedophilia to be a psychiatric disorder, even if that consideration is based, at least in part, on an implicit set of values."
So, it's society and its "implicit set of values" that is to blame.
Get it?
Last edited:
You're either incapable of understanding Berlin's point or you simply choose not to because it doesn't fit your agenda. I'm going to follow Bernard Shaw's dictum on wrestling with pigs and not even attempt to explain it to you.
just ask yourself 2 questions:
when was CDW CORRECT about something, anything?
so why does he keep posting his babbling nonsense?
Well, you also have the attorney general defending his actions. The lead prosecutor doesn't defend his actions, but he does admit he wasn't involved in a cover-up. There have been many reports that have defended his actions. There is actually only one instance that claims Joe's actions were inappropriate, the often debunked Freeh report, written by the disgraced former FBI director.
Given the issue, I'm not even sure why a psychiatrist's opinion is even relevant.
When was I correct?
1. When I predicted the trial court would deny the Gang of Three's motion to dismiss the Gang of Three's Motion to dismiss on the grounds of inadequate counsel. Got that right.
2. When I predicted that the trial court would deny the Gang of Three's motion to dismiss on attorney/client grounds? Got that right as well.
3. When I predicted that the federal court would reject Spanier's suit contending that his constitutional rights were being violated. Nope, got that right, too.
4. When I predicted that the only part of the whole Paterno suit (including the other plaintiffs) that would survive to trial might be the Paterno Estate's commercial disparagement claim? Well, 85% of the case has already been dismissed and the rest is hanging on by a thread.
I'll give you another prediction. The court of appeals will deny the Gang of Three's appeals completely. We'll get an answer in 2-3 months. Let's see if I'm right.
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting 2025 LB target scheduled for Penn State OV in June- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
