I thought I saw this posted before........PSU BOT brief in Trustees Suit to access Freeh File..

[bjf1984]

But I don't seem to be able to find it. So here it is (made public just a hour or two ago):

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/82wi6zfj9pm3mr2/AAChRotpn-7erAmbqClY6IqCa?dl=0

For those looking for a quick overview - who may not be completely up to date......may want to start with the first item:
Brief in Support of Petition to Compel (the Trustees argument)
and the last item:
PSU Post Argument Brief (PSU's argument)


A lot of the other stuff is Attachments of previous information (the folks who have been following closely probably are already quite familiar with most of that stuff)


Where this stands right now - and some others can elaborate with more precision - is that both sides (PSU and the Elected Trustees) have made their arguments for why the Freeh File documents should be kept away from the Trustees, or made available for Trustee review.

The PSU arguments have essentially been, chronologically:

1 - No.....you have no reason to review those documents. They (those documents) have no importance to any matters facing the University.
[EDIT....uh, yeah, OK Hold on while I try to control my laughter]

2 - No.....you can't be trusted
[EDIT....uh, yeah, OK Who is it that is passing judgment on "trustworthiness"? Really?]

3 - Sure.....we'll allow you access to the information. After we have redacted any evidence that might make it possible to determine "who said what"....or any other information (at our discretion) that we might find embarrassing. Oh....and BTW......that thorough review we are going to ALLOW you to have:

- You gotta' do it in our Lawyers office.

- You can't share it - not even with YOUR lawyers. [are you kidding me? How can they even write this? You have to come to OUR lawyers office to review the info.....but you can't so much as share/discuss the information with YOUR lawyers? Orwell was an optimist!!]

- You cannot make any record of the information.


LMAO.....or cry. Not sure which.


The PSU arguments are - obviously - ludicrous.
This ruling - IMHO, and this isn't the first time I have had this contention - will be a real litmus test for just how deep and pervasive the corruption/co-opting goes.



I will try to remain hopeful as we await the ruling......but I will not be naïve.

 

[bjf1984]

But I don't seem to be able to find it. So here it is (made public just a hour or two ago):

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/82wi6zfj9pm3mr2/AAChRotpn-7erAmbqClY6IqCa?dl=0

For those looking for a quick overview - who may not be completely up to date......may want to start with the last item "PSU Post Argument Brief"

A lot of the other stuff is Attachments of previous information (the folks who have been following closely probably are already quite familiar with most of that stuff)


Where this stands right now - and some others can elaborate with more precision - is that both sides (PSU and the Elected Trustees) have made their arguments for why the Freeh File documents should be kept away from the Trustees, or made available for Trustee review.

The PSU arguments have essentially been, chronologically:

1 - No.....you have no reason to review those documents. They (those documents) have no importance to any matters facing the University.
[EDIT....uh, yeah, OK Hold on while I try to control my laughter]

2 - No.....you can't be trusted
[EDIT....uh, yeah, OK Who is it that is passing judgment on "trustworthiness"? Really?]

3 - Sure.....we'll allow you access to the information. After we have redacted any evidence that might make it possible to determine "who said what"....or any other information (at our discretion) that we might find embarrassing. Oh....and BTW......that thorough review we are going to ALLOW you to have:

- You gotta' do it in our Lawyers office.

- You can't share it - not even with YOUR lawyers. [are you kidding me? How can they even write this? You have to come to OUR lawyers office to review the info.....but you can't so much as share/discuss the information with YOUR lawyers? Orwell was an optimist!!]

- You cannot make any record of the information.


LMAO.....or cry. Not sure which.


The PSU arguments are - obviously - ludicrous.
This ruling - IMHO, and this isn't the first time I have had this contention - will be a real litmus test for just how deep and pervasive the corruption/co-opting goes.



I will try to remain hopeful as we await the ruling......but I will not be naïve.

BTW....for those who wonder why so many folks despise "lawyers" (as a group).

This is a perfect example of something I've written in the past. The ass-clowns who have been supporting PSU....I would imagine most others in the "lawyer" world would probably say they are somewhere between "competent", "smart", and "top-notch attorneys"........I assume.

The difference between "competent", "smart", and "top-notch" in the Lawyer-World vs the rest of the world comes down to this:

Lawyers are the only profession (at least the only one that comes to mind) where the following holds true:

I've used this analogy before, bear with me:

"If you take a group of scientists, engineers, theologians, or physicians….and put them in a room to discuss an issue about which they have different viewpoints, and you ask them “What is the desired outcome of the meeting?”, they will tell you it is to solve the problem, get it right, make it better, or get closer to the truth. That is a reflection of the way they are trained, the way they are educated. It is what is expected of those in their chosen professions.

If you put lawyers into a room, to resolve an issue that they have differences about and you ask them “What is the desired outcome of the meeting?”, they will tell you – if the lawyers are being honest - that the desired outcome is that their side, their client, gets what they want, while not giving up anything of importance to them. That, when the lawyer is hired by a client, is a reasonable response. That is their job, which is what they are trained and hired to do. They are, by and large, paid advocates. It is a reasonable expectation when the lawyer is retained by a defendant in a civil or criminal case. It is a reasonable expectation when the lawyer is retained by one side or the other in a contested divorce proceeding. It is a simple basic difference in the thought processes and training between contracted lawyers and other professionals."

And - it is why - unless it is someone YOU hired, most of us HATE the legal profession.
It is the only so-called profession where it is generally considered good practice to manipulate, distort, extort, obfuscate etc in the name of serving your master.....and it is not only considered OK - it is considered a sign (by most of those within the profession) of competency. SAD. Just SAD.

There is obviously a HUGE, broad spectrum of folks in the "lawyer" profession....and a broad spectrum of personal and professional ethics exhibited. Much of that difference will influence exactly which field of law the individual practices in......but scumbags like the guys on the PSU legal team (much like the scumbags in the Corbett OAG) are generally at the "top of the heap" for detestability.




[My apologies.....in advance....for possibly offending the "good guy" lawyers on the board ]

 

[Obliviax]

BTW....for those who wonder why so many folks despise "lawyers" (as a group).

This is a perfect example of something I've written in the past. The ass-clowns who have been supporting PSU....I would imagine most others in the "lawyer" world would probably say they are somewhere between "competent", "smart", and "top-notch attorneys"........I assume.

The difference between "competent", "smart", and "top-notch" in the Lawyer-World vs the rest of the world comes down to this:

Lawyers are the only profession (at least the only one that comes to mind) where the following holds true:

I've used this analogy before, bear with me:

"If you take a group of scientists, engineers, theologians, or physicians….and put them in a room to discuss an issue about which they have different viewpoints, and you ask them “What is the desired outcome of the meeting?”, they will tell you it is to solve the problem, get it right, make it better, or get closer to the truth. That is a reflection of the way they are trained, the way they are educated. It is what is expected of those in their chosen professions.

If you put lawyers into a room, to resolve an issue that they have differences about and you ask them “What is the desired outcome of the meeting?”, they will tell you – if the lawyers are being honest - that the desired outcome is that their side, their client, gets what they want, while not giving up anything of importance to them. That, when the lawyer is hired by a client, is a reasonable response. That is their job, which is what they are trained and hired to do. They are, by and large, paid advocates. It is a reasonable expectation when the lawyer is retained by a defendant in a civil or criminal case. It is a reasonable expectation when the lawyer is retained by one side or the other in a contested divorce proceeding. It is a simple basic difference in the thought processes and training between contracted lawyers and other professionals."

And - it is why - unless it is someone YOU hired, most of us HATE the legal profession.
It is the only so-called profession where it is generally considered good practice to manipulate, distort, extort, obfuscate etc in the name of serving your master.....and it is not only considered OK - it is considered a sign (by most of those within the profession) of competency. SAD. Just SAD.

There is obviously a HUGE, broad spectrum of folks in the "lawyer" profession....and a broad spectrum of personal and professional ethics exhibited. Much of that difference will influence exactly which field of law the individual practices in......but scumbags like the guys on the PSU legal team (much like the scumbags in the Corbett OAG) are generally at the "top of the heap" for detestability.




[My apologies.....in advance....for possibly offending the "good guy" lawyers on the board ]

Well, the problem is that lawyers always are more interested in the rules than justice. They will cite chapter and verse of all kinds of rulings in similar historical cases, but go to pieces when pointed out that this case is unique. And then, when losing will try to bury you in nuance and volume; delay and confuse. This is where PSU and Freeh are today, their 100% effort is to delay and confuse. They are hopeful that people give up, forget, lose their ambition. Even if not, they get to keep their cushy jobs for a little while longer.

 

[royboy]

Well, the problem is that lawyers always are more interested in the rules than justice. They will cite chapter and verse of all kinds of rulings in similar historical cases, but go to pieces when pointed out that this case is unique. And then, when losing will try to bury you in nuance and volume; delay and confuse. This is where PSU and Freeh are today, their 100% effort is to delay and confuse. They are hopeful that people give up, forget, lose their ambition. Even if not, they get to keep their cushy jobs for a little while longer.

Another good point, The meter is running all the time.