Freeh Resolution

[grad83psu]

Someone with "Things To Do"?

And a window AC unit in his "mansion" along with a financial interest in an airplane?

 

[BW Lion]

Boom. I’ve been trying to make this point inside the Boardroom for six years. Unfortunately the political correctness crowd has control presently.

Do you desire to opine on what PSU looks like 5 and 10 years from now (based upon your examination of the financial records) with recurring years in the future when revenues are likely to lag expenses coupled with lower than expected alumni donations?

In short, I’m interested to learn of your thoughts of PSU as a going concern.

 

[francofan]

Very interesting search warrant podcast interview with John Zimmerman who was indicted by Tom Corbett/Frank Fina in the Computergate scandal. He didn't do anything wrong and charges were dropped after he was prevented from being a witness in other cases. He believes that he was targeted because he worked for John Perzel, a Republican rival of Tom Corbett who was looking at running for Governor against Corbett. Zimmerman had no love lost for Fina and said that Fina's first question to him when he was interviewed after he was indicted was about what he knew of the sex room in the capital building and it seemed to him that Fina was obsessed by sex.

Zimmerman said he was naive in believing that criminal cases should be decided by the facts in the case and not the prosecutor's political agenda. He said that some grand jury information was ignored. He said that Fina manipulated the public which was influencing the future jury pool.

Snedden pointed out the similarities with the Computergate case Penn State case included that Corbett wanted Perzel out of the way and also wanted Spanier out of the way and that charges were filed against Zimmerman to prevent him from being a witness when charges were filed against Curley and Schultz to prevent them from being witnesses. In addition both cases were motivated by a political agenda as opposed to finding the truth. Zimmerman said the public should be concerned as he stated that "What they [the OAG] did to me, they could do to anyone."

Snedden pointed out that the OAG has become a politically weaponized arm of state government and that the OAG is incapable of policing themselves. He said that what is needed is an investigation by an independent arm of the federal government.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...sodeGuid=5d5886b9-d440-4c03-942d-ff6c20b3fa14

View embedded media

Here is Ralph Cipriano's bigtrial blog post on John Zimmerman's interview on the search warrant podcast
------------

Inside The Frank Fina Dirty Tricks Playbook

On the latest Search Warrant podcast, John Zimmerman, a former White House aide, gives some insights into the Frank Fina Dirty Tricks Playbook.

Zimmerman has seen Fina's act up close. In 2009, he was indicted and subsequently cleared by the state attorney general's office in the so-called Computergate scandal in Harrisburg.

Zimmerman believes the indictment was issued to keep him from appearing as a witness in the case, and giving testimony that did not jibe with the attorney general's story line. When Fina got a chance to interview Zimmerman, his first question concerned the location of a so-called "sex room" in the state Capitol building.

"It seems like he was obsessed with sex," Zimmerman said. Zimmerman also sees some interesting parallels between Computergate and the so-called Penn State sex abuse scandal. The episode of the cop-hosted podcast can be heard here.

https://www.bigtrial.net/2020/06/inside-frank-fina-dirty-tricks-playbook.html

 

[ouirpsu]

So, who are you related to on the OGBOT?

Interesting how this person tends to disappear after a while, and is able to stay emotionally detached from an issue (PSUs ruined reputation) that I, and many of us, take personally.

 

[PearlSUJam]

I believe you are kidding yourself if you believe the problems are the failed grand jury system. That is the smallest part of the mess that law enforcement mess has become:

• Police that have come to believe that they are not liable for criminal and civil remediations for actions they undertook while on the job (and, often, while not on the job)
• The Unions that negotiated these special situations
• Prosecutors that want to prosecute for anything using any means available to get a conviction
• Politicians that have aligned themselves with this as a way to win at politics and gain a way to make more money for their community
• DA's who are former police, prosecutors and politicians that align and ride to larger offices
• Probation systems that are almost impossible to navigate
• The length of time one has to endure to fight charges, unconstitutional, and not being able to hold down a job while a felony lingers over your head.

I'll stop there and quit responding to this thread to not hijack it. But "the system" is complete and totally corrupt from a low end weed user to Tim Curly to Frank Fina. I am 100% certain of it and it is, perhaps, the second largest problem this country faces today (to COVID 19).

And right on cue.

 

[Bobpsu]

Freeh is golden. Has a bank account in outer limits.
See where Nichols has his own first-hand experiences with Louie Fresh's team of investigators, who interviewed Nichols four times. The tenor of the interviews still rankles Nichols.

"A lot of their questions were accusatory," he said; "It was not looking for the truth." Instead, Fresh's investigators were looking for "evidence or information that might support a predetermined conclusion that would scapegoat certain individuals," he said. Or support the "highly inflammatory and highly accusatory" claims that Freeh made at his press conference announcing the findings of his report.

For example, Nichols said, Fresh's investigators asked him, since he was a campus insider, at what point did he know about Sandusky's sex crimes. Nichols insisted that he didn't know anything about the subject.

But Freeh's guys weren't buying it. Their attitude was, "Obviously you knew as well, everybody knew," Nichols said. "It led me to believe . . . that they had already reached the conclusion that everybody knew that Sandusky was doing this but they were looking the other way to protect football. They had already reached the conclusion," he said, and they "wanted me to verify that."

But when Nichols read the Freeh Report, "the evidence [for a cover up] wasn't there," Nichols said. "I was taken back, I was shocked."

"It became clear to me," he said, that "the executive summary and Freeh's oral comments [at his press conference] were wild accusations that had no basis in factual support in the main report."

"His goal was not to find the truth and help Penn State, the people who paid him to $8 million to do this, but to build a case like a prosecutor, but without evidence or with flimsy evidence."

John Snedden, the former NCIS special agent who hosted the podcast, said it was clear from email exchanges and a copy of Freeh's preliminary report that Freeh didn't care that he was making unfounded accusations. In the emails, and in handwritten notes on a preliminary draft of the report, Fresh's own investigators pointed out that Freeh's accusations had no basis in facts or evidence.

But Freeh made his unfounded accusations anyway, because, according to Freeh's own emails, the "media was clamoring for what he intended to say," Snedden said.

Nichols recalled that Freeh's investigators were also "pretty intimidating" when they interviewed him.

"It was made clear to all that were interviewed [that] we must cooperate fully and freely with the Freeh investigators at the cost of our employment," Nichols said.

Snedden described the interviews conducted by Fresh's team of investigators as an "exercise in support of their predetermined conclusions."

Nichols said when he talked it over with his senior colleagues, "Every faculty senate chair came to the same conclusion that the Freeh report in our view was at odds with the truth." But that didn't stop the NCAA with issuing "huge, massive, unprecedented sanctions based on the Freeh Report," Nichols said.

When a group of former faculty Senate chairs put out a joint statement attacking the conclusions of the Freeh Report, "the board of trustees, they didn't care," Nichols said. "They didn't want to be knocked off their story line." Ditto for the media, Nichols said.

Nichols said it was "outrageous" for the NCAA to hire Freeh and his investigators as employees.
But he added, "I think the NCAA lost its moral compass long before they hired Louie Freeh."

About Graham Spanier, Nichols said, "they destroyed a great university president's career based on a hyperbolic, mean spirited, sell interested fact-void report."

And that's just the first episode of the podcast, which concludes that the Freeh Report found no smoking gun at Penn State, nor any evidence to backup their claims that it was Penn State's football-mad culture that inspired university officials to cover up and look the other way when it came to Sandusky's alleged crimes against children.

In the Smoking Gun? Part 2, Snedden and Nichols continued the discussion. Nichols said the unfounded charges in the Freeh Report, such as that Penn State "had a culture of supporting football over the well being of their own children."

"That's what Freeh alleged and that's what the NCAA parroted," Nichols said. It led to a "media feeding frenzy," the idea that the Penn State community "was so corrupt as to throw their children to the lions to protect football."

Do you really think people read really long posts? Stop wasting your time

 

[francofan]

@lubrano has recently done a search warrant podcast primarily with John Snedden and Ralph Cipriano and it is a must listen. It is long, 2 hours and 14 minutes and entitled "Anatomy of Cover Up - Part 1;" but it well worth the listen if you have the time and interest to learn how things have transpired with the board of trustees over the last decade.

Anthony talked about his proposed Freeh resolution and says that he will try to introduce it in the not so distant future. Anthony explained that he is a due process person and that clearly due process was violated in many ways to many people in this entire ordeal.

I recommend listening to the entire podcast, but if you only have limited time, I would recommend listening to the last 20 - 30 minutes where Anthony discusses what may happen next in the BOT (he states that a lot of it depends of what happens in Spanier's case as well as with Jerry's appeal) and that the best way for people to help out is to vocalize their support (or lack of support) for finding out what exactly has happened in the saga.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aH...EwjNluDt4avqAhUbmXIEHbqwB18QieUEegQICxAG&ep=6

 

[nits74]

@lubrano has recently done a search warrant podcast primarily with John Snedden and Ralph Cipriano and it is a must listen. It is long, 2 hours and 14 minutes and entitled "Anatomy of Cover Up - Part 1;" but it well worth the listen if you have the time and interest to learn how things have transpired with the board of trustees over the last decade.

Anthony talked about his proposed Freeh resolution and says that he will try to introduce it in the not so distant future. Anthony explained that he is a due process person and that clearly due process was violated in many ways to many people in this entire ordeal.

I recommend listening to the entire podcast, but if you only have limited time, I would recommend listening to the last 20 - 30 minutes where Anthony discusses what may happen next in the BOT (he states that a lot of it depends of what happens in Spanier's case as well as with Jerry's appeal) and that the best way for people to help out is to vocalize their support (or lack of support) for finding out what exactly has happened in the saga.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aH...EwjNluDt4avqAhUbmXIEHbqwB18QieUEegQICxAG&ep=6

Franco, any feel for when a decision will be forthcoming on Spanier's case?

 

[francofan]

Franco, any feel for when a decision will be forthcoming on Spanier's case?

Not really. I am not familar with how long it might take the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit to announce their decision. It seemed to me that it was an easy decision to make denying Shapiro's appeal based on trying Spanier on the law in place on the date of the alleged crime as opposed to a newly enacted law. That was before we knew that Mike Fisher was going to be part of the 3 judge panel that makes the decision. Mike Fisher may be biased as he is connected to Tom Corbett. That said, you only need 2 judges to deny Shapiro's appeal and it is even possible that Judge Fisher may rule against Shapiro. It should be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[WyomingLion]

Not really. I am not familar with how long it might take the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit to announce their decision. It seemed to me that it was an easy decision to make denying Shapiro's appeal based on trying Spanier on the law in place on the date of the alleged crime as opposed to a newly enacted law. That was before we knew that Mike Fisher was going to be part of the 3 judge panel that makes the decision. Mike Fisher may be biased as he is connected to Tom Corbett. That said, you only need 2 judges to deny Shapiro's appeal and it is even possible that Judge Fisher may rule against Shapiro. It should be interesting to see how this plays out.

Franco
Your keeping us informed is very much appreciated, many thanks.

 

[francofan]

@lubrano has recently done a search warrant podcast primarily with John Snedden and Ralph Cipriano and it is a must listen. It is long, 2 hours and 14 minutes and entitled "Anatomy of Cover Up - Part 1;" but it well worth the listen if you have the time and interest to learn how things have transpired with the board of trustees over the last decade.

Anthony talked about his proposed Freeh resolution and says that he will try to introduce it in the not so distant future. Anthony explained that he is a due process person and that clearly due process was violated in many ways to many people in this entire ordeal.

I recommend listening to the entire podcast, but if you only have limited time, I would recommend listening to the last 20 - 30 minutes where Anthony discusses what may happen next in the BOT (he states that a lot of it depends of what happens in Spanier's case as well as with Jerry's appeal) and that the best way for people to help out is to vocalize their support (or lack of support) for finding out what exactly has happened in the saga.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aH...EwjNluDt4avqAhUbmXIEHbqwB18QieUEegQICxAG&ep=6

Here is a link to the second part of the podcast entitled "Anatomy of Cover Up - Part 2." This part is 1 hour 27 minutes and is every bit as good, if not better, than part 1 imo. In addition to questions from John Snedden and Ralph Cipriano, it also includes questions from Anna Mydlarz and Tom Purcell.

The podcast includes Anthony's interactions with Joe Paterno as well as his thoughts on Penn State paying 36-38 claimants over $120 million in settlements with no vetting. Anthony discussed his dealings with Ira Lubert relative to the settlements and his reasons and regrets voting to approve the initial settlement package of $60 million.

Snedden concluded the podcast by offering Anthony 150% support behind everything he is doing to uncover what exactly happened. Snedden also stated that the story will continue to unfold into the foreseeable future and that if you take a look at any part of the story that you will find major problems.

I will say again, if you are interested in a better understanding of what took place in the saga, then this podcast is a must listen.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aH...EwjwmK7MvqzqAhWNl3IEHeqmAH8QieUEegQIARAE&ep=6

 

[Fizz1]

@lubrano has recently done a search warrant podcast primarily with John Snedden and Ralph Cipriano and it is a must listen. It is long, 2 hours and 14 minutes and entitled "Anatomy of Cover Up - Part 1;" but it well worth the listen if you have the time and interest to learn how things have transpired with the board of trustees over the last decade.

Anthony talked about his proposed Freeh resolution and says that he will try to introduce it in the not so distant future. Anthony explained that he is a due process person and that clearly due process was violated in many ways to many people in this entire ordeal.

I recommend listening to the entire podcast, but if you only have limited time, I would recommend listening to the last 20 - 30 minutes where Anthony discusses what may happen next in the BOT (he states that a lot of it depends of what happens in Spanier's case as well as with Jerry's appeal) and that the best way for people to help out is to vocalize their support (or lack of support) for finding out what exactly has happened in the saga.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aH...EwjNluDt4avqAhUbmXIEHbqwB18QieUEegQICxAG&ep=6

I listened to part I and want to reinforce it is well worth the time. It is a good timeline, including some lesser known information, with details about how decisions unfolded, the signing of the consent decree, Freeh's press conference, etc. presented in a factual way. Not sensationalized.

 

[lionville]

I listened to part I and want to reinforce it is well worth the time. It is a good timeline, including some lesser known information, with details about how decisions unfolded, the signing of the consent decree, Freeh's press conference, etc. presented in a factual way. Not sensationalized.

Some info on the inner workings of the BOT as well.

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[PSURoar]

I just listened and if you care about Penn State you should listen to Part 1 and 2 in its entirety. Long but well worth it.

 

[Zenophile]

https://anchor.fm/jr-snedden/episodes/Anatomy-of-a-Cover-Up---Part-1-eg5cju

https://anchor.fm/jr-snedden/episodes/Anatomy-of-a-Cover-Up---Part-2-eg5gj1

 

[PSU_Chicago]

Could someone summarize Anthony's high level comments for all of us? Thank you

 

[PSU2UNC]

Could someone summarize Anthony's high level comments for all of us? Thank you

I mean...it's 3 hours and 41 minutes. Lots of info there. I strongly recommend listening to it.

Some of the stuff he talked about I think many of us on this board are familiar with (e.g. part of why the board is so messed up is because of its exceedingly large size and that most members are appointed and therefore not accountable to the university community).

He was careful at times about what he said; i.e. there are things he knows but cannot say due to a court order, but he alluded that these things make his case even more clear.

He was very clear about stating that Sandusky deserves a new trial.

He danced around it a bit, but talked some about how board members do not properly recuse themselves when financial COIs come up.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Could someone summarize Anthony's high level comments for all of us? Thank you

Some other tidbits:

At one point, Lubert threatened to withdraw his financial support to the university. This worried Spanier to the extent that he asked Paterno to buy Lubert Super Bowl tickets (Paterno never went to Super Bowls) to schmooze him back into the fold.

Lubert thinks the only way to measure your value of a person is net wealth. He doesn't care about the reputation of the university. He only cares about tangible dollars and cents.

A lot of the financial stuff is really hard for Trustees to even find out (which is absurd). He gave the example of putting critical financial numbers in footnotes in the hopes that people wouldn't discover them.

Lubrano never voted to approve any settlements with alleged victims.

Lubrano is very concerned about tuition costs at PSU (i.e. he's not just thinking about Paterno/Freeh etc) contrary to what some on this board think.

Lubrano saw Joe very shortly before died. They talked about how he had agree to retire after the season and had provided the names of four potential candidates: Mike Riley, Gary Patterson, Greg Schiano and Urban Meyer. Urban wanted the job and would have taken a pay cut to follow Joe. Urban had photos of Joe in his office in Columbus. Urban came to campus and looked at properties in Boalsburg. After Joe was fired, Urban called him and asked him who he should talk to about the job and Joe said that given what had happened, he had no idea.

 

[psuro]

Some other tidbits:

At one point, Lubert threatened to withdraw his financial support to the university. This worried Spanier to the extent that he asked Paterno to buy Lubert Super Bowl tickets (Paterno never went to Super Bowls) to schmooze him back into the fold.

Lubert thinks the only way to measure your value of a person is net wealth. He doesn't care about the reputation of the university. He only cares about tangible dollars and cents.

A lot of the financial stuff is really hard for Trustees to even find out (which is absurd). He gave the example of putting critical financial numbers in footnotes in the hopes that people wouldn't discover them.

Lubrano never voted to approve any settlements with alleged victims.

Lubrano is very concerned about tuition costs at PSU (i.e. he's not just thinking about Paterno/Freeh etc) contrary to what some on this board think.

Lubrano saw Joe very shortly before died. They talked about how he had agree to retire after the season and had provided the names of four potential candidates: Mike Riley, Gary Patterson, Greg Schiano and Urban Meyer. Urban wanted the job and would have taken a pay cut to follow Joe. Urban had photos of Joe in his office in Columbus. Urban came to campus and looked at properties in Boalsburg. After Joe was fired, Urban called him and asked him who he should talk to about the job and Joe said that given what had happened, he had no idea.

Urban was not employed as a coach when the PSU job opened up right? What pay cut was he going to take? And not sure what pictures of Joe in CBus have to do with anything. UM Became coach at OSU after Joe was gone.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Urban was not employed as a coach when the PSU job opened up right? What pay cut was he going to take? And not sure what pictures of Joe in CBus have to do with anything. UM Became coach at OSU after Joe was gone.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, as I was typing and listening at the same time.

You are correct, Meyer was between jobs when Paterno was fired. PSU contacted him and in conversations with him told him that they couldn't pay him what Florida had been paying him, to which he responded "It wasn't about the money, he just wanted to follow Joe." In other words, he would be willing to take less than the market rate (a pay cut) to coach at PSU because of his high regard for Joe.

Regarding the photos, I think Anthony said in Columbus, but maybe he just said in his office. It's obviously possible that he (Urban) had photos of Joe in his office in Columbus (after Joe died).

 

[Achowalogan]

Sorry, I wasn't clear, as I was typing and listening at the same time.

You are correct, Meyer was between jobs when Paterno was fired. PSU contacted him and in conversations with him told him that they couldn't pay him what Florida had been paying him, to which he responded "It wasn't about the money, he just wanted to follow Joe." In other words, he would be willing to take less than the market rate (a pay cut) to coach at PSU because of his high regard for Joe.

Regarding the photos, I think Anthony said in Columbus, but maybe he just said in his office. It's obviously possible that he (Urban) had photos of Joe in his office in Columbus (after Joe died).

Anthony noted Joe’s pictures in Myers office in Columbus, but nowhere to be found in PSU Lasch Football Bldg...

 

[MacNit07]

Anthony noted Joe’s pictures in Myers office in Columbus, but nowhere to be found in PSU Lasch Football Bldg...

That is almost criminal...and to think, we like to lambast Urban.

 

[KCLion]

Anthony noted Joe’s pictures in Myers office in Columbus, but nowhere to be found in PSU Lasch Football Bldg...

liked your post because I agreed this is what he said, not that I like the point Anthony was making about “Dear Ole State”.

 

[Achowalogan]

liked your post because I agreed this is what he said, not that I like the point Anthony was making about “Dear Ole State”.

Thanks for clarifying your position...

 

[PSUMATT85]

liked your post because I agreed this is what he said, not that I like the point Anthony was making about “Dear Ole State”.

I didn’t like the post, but I liked the point that Anthony was making

 

[KCLion]

I didn’t like the post, but I liked the point that Anthony was making

And exactly what I said. LOL! It’s disgusting that PSU shuns Joe Paterno while the Head Coach at Ohio State reveres Joe Paterno. It’s as f’d up as the rest of this country.

 

[Fizz1]

Could someone summarize Anthony's high level comments for all of us? Thank you

I echo the difficulty in summarizing. Very difficult. What makes the interviews very worthwhile are the anecdotes, color and context Anthony provides. Known and lesser known information has more depth after listening, I believe even for those well informed.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

So, who are you related to on the OGBOT?

Like moths attracted to fire, he is attracted to Lubrano posts and chronically exudes infatuation with all things OGBOT. He likely used to be known as:

 

[indynittany]

Some other tidbits:

At one point, Lubert threatened to withdraw his financial support to the university. This worried Spanier to the extent that he asked Paterno to buy Lubert Super Bowl tickets (Paterno never went to Super Bowls) to schmooze him back into the fold.

Lubert thinks the only way to measure your value of a person is net wealth. He doesn't care about the reputation of the university. He only cares about tangible dollars and cents.

A lot of the financial stuff is really hard for Trustees to even find out (which is absurd). He gave the example of putting critical financial numbers in footnotes in the hopes that people wouldn't discover them.

Lubrano never voted to approve any settlements with alleged victims.

Lubrano is very concerned about tuition costs at PSU (i.e. he's not just thinking about Paterno/Freeh etc) contrary to what some on this board think.

Lubrano saw Joe very shortly before died. They talked about how he had agree to retire after the season and had provided the names of four potential candidates: Mike Riley, Gary Patterson, Greg Schiano and Urban Meyer. Urban wanted the job and would have taken a pay cut to follow Joe. Urban had photos of Joe in his office in Columbus. Urban came to campus and looked at properties in Boalsburg. After Joe was fired, Urban called him and asked him who he should talk to about the job and Joe said that given what had happened, he had no idea.

I believe it was Jay who visited Urban and wrote about the pictures of Joe in his OSU office.

Tim Curley has confirmed to me that much of what we have heard regarding Meyer replacing Joe was true.

 

[francofan]

If there isn't going to be any action on the gridiron this Fall, I hope there will be at least some action in the board room (PSU BOT) or at least the court room (either in Pennsylvania or Federal courts). Search Warrant is promoting their 2 part podcast that took place recently with Anthony Lubrano on Anatomy of a Cover-Up which cover the some of the behind the scenes action that has taken place in the biggest story that has taken place in Penn State's history and that will continue to unfold for the foreseeable future. John Snedden and Ralph Cipriano ask a lot of very insightful questions. They are a must listen for anyone interested in understanding what has exactly happened in this whole ordeal. If you haven't listened to them, you should; if you have already listened to them, listen to them again. There will be developments regarding the story in the BOT and in the courts going forward and listening to these podcasts are a good primer to understanding what has happened in the past and that will happen in the future imo.

 

[PearlSUJam]

 

[francofan]

View embedded media

@PearlSUJam - please explain the meaning of your Frankenstein video clip. I don’t get it. Are you suggesting that the Search Warrant podcast isn’t worth the time to listen it?

 

[PSUSignore]

@PearlSUJam - please explain the meaning of your Frankenstein video clip. I don’t get it. Are you suggesting that the Search Warrant podcast isn’t worth the time to listen it?

Whoooosh. It's because someone bumped a thread that had been dead for a month. A thread that probably should be dead but won't die.

 

[Locolion]

Before I call it a night, I thought I would share with this all-knowing board what I’m readying for my return to the BOT.

This entire mess continues to keep me up at nights. I have no doubt based on my review of documents that Louis Freeh knowingly represented his opinion as facts. Moreover, he had absolutely no basis to reach his conclusions.

I would like your input on the following resolution. Thanks in advance.

Proposed Resolution

Re: the July 12, 2012 “Report of the Special Investigative Counsel” issued by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP (“Freeh Report”)

Whereas, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP (“Freeh”) was engaged on December 2, 2011 by the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees (the “Board”) to investigate allegations of sexual abuse by a former employee of The Pennsylvania State University (the “University”) and the alleged failure of University personnel to report the alleged sexual abuse to law enforcement;

Whereas, Freeh was to perform an independent investigation and issue a report to the University concerning (i) whether failures occurred in the reporting process; (ii) the cause of those failures; (iii) the identities of persons with knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and (iv) how those allegations were handled by the Trustees, University administrators, coaches and other staff;

Whereas, Freeh was engaged to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation, leaving no stone unturned, and without fear or favor;

Whereas, Freeh publicly announced the conclusions and issued the report (the “Freeh Report”) on July 12, 2012, the same date Freeh provided the Freeh Report to the University;

Whereas, Freeh’s investigation was subject to severe limitations including the inability to subpoena testimony and the production of relevant documents, lack of access to documents in the possession of governmental and regulatory bodies and the inability to interview all relevant witnesses;

Whereas, Freeh, without justification, elected not to pursue interviews of certain key witnesses;

Whereas, subsequent criminal and civil proceedings, governmental and administrative proceedings and other factual investigations (“Related Proceedings”) have shed further factual light on the issues covered by the Freeh Report;

Whereas, Louis Freeh testified under oath that the conclusions in the Freeh Report are nothing more than his opinions;

Whereas, the University has not formally accepted or denied any of the conclusions in the Freeh Report;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report regarding the University’s culture have severely and negatively impacted the University’s general wellbeing;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report have damaged the reputation of the University;
1

Whereas, on July 23, 2012, the University accepted a binding consent decree (the “Consent Decree”) imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) in which the University agreed, among other sanctions, to pay a $60 million fine;

Whereas, the NCAA subsequently acknowledged that it did not complete its own investigation of the University, and instead relied upon the Freeh Report to justify the Consent Decree;

Whereas, the imposition of the Consent Decree on the University by the NCAA has caused financial and reputational damage to the University;

Whereas, the University relied on Freeh’s representation, that the Freeh Report was accurate, complete, independent and the product of a comprehensive investigation;

Whereas, the NCAA’s imposition of the Consent Decree upon the University was based upon such representation, and the Executive Committee of the Board accepted the Consent Decree on the basis of such representation;

Whereas, the Executive Committee of the Board of the University believed that the NCAA complied with its own governance charter and bylaws and was authorized to impose the Consent Decree;

Whereas, since the Freeh Report was issued, credible criticisms of the Freeh Report have emerged both with respect to the purported conclusions and with respect to the manner in which Freeh conducted the investigation;

Whereas, publicly available documents confirm that, at the time that Freeh was purportedly acting independently, one or more representatives of Freeh were covertly seeking to curry favor with, and become engaged by, the NCAA;

Whereas, representatives of Freeh have since acknowledged that the purported “conclusions” within the Freeh Report are not based in fact but are instead the personal opinions of the author or authors;

Whereas, in the nearly eight years since the Consent Decree was imposed, credible criticisms of the process by which the NCAA adopted the purported investigative findings in the Freeh Report and the NCAA’s failure to adhere to its own charter and bylaws in imposing punishments on the University, have emerged;

Whereas, on January 16, 2015, the Consent Decree was repealed and replaced by another agreement (the “New NCAA Agreement”);

Whereas, certain terms and conditions of the Consent Decree remain in the New NCAA Agreement, including the imposition of the $60 million fine;

Whereas, neither the University nor the Board ever undertook a review of the information (the “Source Material”) upon which the Freeh Report is based;
2

Whereas, on April 15, 2015 Trustees Edward B. Brown, III, Barbara L. Doran Robert C. Jubelirer, Anthony P. Lubrano, Ryan J. McCombie, William F. Oldsey and Alice W. Pope (the “Plaintiff Trustees”) made a Formal Demand to Inspect and Copy Corporate Records under Section 5512 (a) of the Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation Law of 1988 (“the Inspection Demand”) the Source Material;

Whereas, after the Inspection Demand was rejected by the University, on April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff Trustees filed a Petition to Compel the Inspection of Corporate Documents in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) of Centre County, PA;

Whereas, on November 19, 2015 the Court Ordered the University to provide the Plaintiff Trustees access to the Source Materials;

Whereas, on January 21, 2016, the Alumni-Elected Trustees and the University entered into a Stipulation and Order providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided;

Whereas, other Trustees entered into an agreement with the University providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided to such Trustees;

Whereas, after more than 27 months of review, Plaintiff Trustees presented its written report of the findings (the “Report”) to the Board in an Executive Privileged session;

Whereas, other Trustees who have been provided access to the Source Materials have today presented findings to the Board in an Executive Privileged session today;

Whereas, based on the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees and other Trustees, the Board questions the accuracy, independence and completeness of the Freeh Report and believes that it may not be conclusive in all material respects;

Whereas, in light of the above, including the review and findings of the Plaintiff Trustees and the other Trustees, the Board has determined that the public release of the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees is in the best interest of the University.
3

Therefore, be it Resolved that
The Board rejects the conclusions of the Freeh Report and officially repudiates the Freeh Report; and,

The Board hereby authorizes the public release of the Report that the Plaintiff Trustees presented to the Board; and

The Board authorizes General Counsel to engage specialized independent outside litigation counsel to evaluate and recommend claims against Freeh and others, as are appropriate, including but not limited to an action to recover the more than $8.3 million paid by the University to Freeh for the work associated with the Freeh Report.

Punch them in the face Anthony! Stop the machine.

 

[PearlSUJam]

@PearlSUJam - please explain the meaning of your Frankenstein video clip. I don’t get it. Are you suggesting that the Search Warrant podcast isn’t worth the time to listen it?

No I'm just waiting for all of THEM to show up and start posting again. You know who I mean.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Whoooosh. It's because someone bumped a thread that had been dead for a month. A thread that probably should be dead but won't die.

I disagree that the thread should die. If there is new information, I encourage discussion. Not picking on Franco, but that podcast is actually a couple of months old. It is very good (and everyone should listen to it), but it isn't new.

 

[francofan]

Whoooosh. It's because someone bumped a thread that had been dead for a month. A thread that probably should be dead but won't die.

Some people believe we should move on, but I am not of that opinion. There is no statute of limitations of the truth. The is a lot of truth in what @lubrano has to say. Specifically Lubrano knows that the Freeh Report is a piece of crap and that the BOT should renounce it.

 

[psu7113]

I see no use of the word "cover up" in the executive summary.


So tell me then. If the media shredded Freeh's "primary conclusion" that there was a "concerted cover up" as you described it, why were CSS charged with crimes and why did they serve time in jail (Spanier skating on a technicality? I guess the media got it wrong. No?

Oh good lord. 1. Being charged with a crime based on a law that was not in effect at the time is NOT a technicality. Spaniel didn’t skate. He won on the merits, as he should have. 2. Curley and Schultz pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor violation of that same failure to report law. They were not tried and convicted. That could have taken the same route as Spanier, but decided minimal white collar jail time was better than risking their pensions at trial or on appeal. Anyone who understands how prosecutors overcharge and can squeeze people (which you obviously don’t) knows this. Now go home son, and don’t forget your shine box. End of lesson.

 

[indynittany]

Oh good lord. 1. Being charged with a crime based on a law that was not in effect at the time is NOT a technicality. Spaniel didn’t skate. He won on the merits, as he should have. 2. Curley and Schultz pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor violation of that same failure to report law. They were not tried and convicted. That could have taken the same route as Spanier, but decided minimal white collar jail time was better than risking their pensions at trial or on appeal. Anyone who understands how prosecutors overcharge and can squeeze people (which you obviously don’t) knows this. Now go home son, and don’t forget your shine box. End of lesson.

I would simply add that C/S plead guilty with the expectation that there would be no jail time. All that changed, of course, when Tim wouldn't flip on Spanier.