Interesting Brief by J. Andrew Salemme re subject matter jurisdiction

[francofan]

Sandusky lawyer J. Andrew Salemme recently submitted a brief regarding subject matter jurisdiction that was posted this morning to the Centre County web pages. IMO, he destroys the Commonwealth's arguments that the OAG had subject matter jurisdiction in the Grand Jury that was impaneled to investigate alleged Victim 1's accusations against Sandusky.

Salemme asserts that the Commonwealth conflates the distinction between power to investigate and subject matter jurisdiction. He states that Sandusky has never contended that the OAG doesn't have power to prosecute under the Commonwealth Attorney's Act, but rather the salient issue is the jurisdiction of a statewide investigative Grand Jury. The plain language of the Investigating Grand Jury Act provides that a multi-county investigating Grand Jury only has jurisdiction into public corruption and organized crime and those were not circumstances in the Sandusky case. Salemme's painstaking review of the history of multi-county investigative Grand Jury shows that they were clearly meant only for public corruption and organized crime cases and not cases focused at individuals primarily nor the commission of ordinary crimes.

Salemme concludes, that because the Grand Jury that investigated alleged Victim 1's accusation lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that that information and investigation served as the primary basis for the November 2011 Grand Jury presentment, that the presentment must be quashed.

It will be very interesting to see how Judge Cleland rules on this matter. If he rules against Sandusky, I think that Sandusky would have a very strong case on appeal.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY REPLY BRIEF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ISSUE.pdf

 

[Obliviax]

Sandusky lawyer J. Andrew Salemme recently submitted a brief regarding subject matter jurisdiction that was posted this morning to the Centre County web pages. IMO, he destroys the Commonwealth's arguments that the OAG had subject matter jurisdiction in the Grand Jury that was impaneled to investigate alleged Victim 1's accusations against Sandusky.

Salemme asserts that the Commonwealth conflates the distinction between power to investigate and subject matter jurisdiction. He states that Sandusky has never contended that the OAG doesn't have power to prosecute under the Commonwealth Attorney's Act, but rather the salient issue is the jurisdiction of a statewide investigative Grand Jury. The plain language of the Investigating Grand Jury Act provides that a multi-county investigating Grand Jury only has jurisdiction into public corruption and organized crime and those were not circumstances in the Sandusky case. Salemme's painstaking review of the history of multi-county investigative Grand Jury shows that they were clearly meant only for public corruption and organized crime cases and not cases focused at individuals primarily nor the commission of ordinary crimes.

Salemme concludes, that because the Grand Jury that investigated alleged Victim 1's accusation lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that that information and investigation served as the primary basis for the November 2011 Grand Jury presentment, that the presentment must be quashed.

It will be very interesting to see how Judge Cleland rules on this matter. If he rules against Sandusky, I think that Sandusky would have a very strong case on appeal.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY REPLY BRIEF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ISSUE.pdf

Sounds like another supreme court case in the not too distant future.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Sandusky lawyer J. Andrew Salemme recently submitted a brief regarding subject matter jurisdiction that was posted this morning to the Centre County web pages. IMO, he destroys the Commonwealth's arguments that the OAG had subject matter jurisdiction in the Grand Jury that was impaneled to investigate alleged Victim 1's accusations against Sandusky.

Salemme asserts that the Commonwealth conflates the distinction between power to investigate and subject matter jurisdiction. He states that Sandusky has never contended that the OAG doesn't have power to prosecute under the Commonwealth Attorney's Act, but rather the salient issue is the jurisdiction of a statewide investigative Grand Jury. The plain language of the Investigating Grand Jury Act provides that a multi-county investigating Grand Jury only has jurisdiction into public corruption and organized crime and those were not circumstances in the Sandusky case. Salemme's painstaking review of the history of multi-county investigative Grand Jury shows that they were clearly meant only for public corruption and organized crime cases and not cases focused at individuals primarily nor the commission of ordinary crimes.

Salemme concludes, that because the Grand Jury that investigated alleged Victim 1's accusation lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that that information and investigation served as the primary basis for the November 2011 Grand Jury presentment, that the presentment must be quashed.

It will be very interesting to see how Judge Cleland rules on this matter. If he rules against Sandusky, I think that Sandusky would have a very strong case on appeal.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY REPLY BRIEF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ISSUE.pdf

Not mentioned in the brief (probably because it is not "procedurally required") is the fact that the MISUSE of the SWIGJ by partners in judicial corruption Corbett & Feudale caused V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint to be referred to a court, the PA Court of Common Pleas, that has NO JURISDICTION to hear the case under PA Child Protective Services Law, the governing statute of V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint! (the Clinton County Court unequivocally has jurisdiction over V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint under CPSL, the governing statute for the subject matter in question). So not only did the SWIGJ lack subject-matter jurisdiction, but so did the PA Court of Common Pleas which I would assume it's findings are therefore similarly subject to appeal as being "null and void" under CPSL (the governing statute V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint was made under) due to "Lack of Jurisdiction".

In addition, the PA Court of Common Pleas LACKED JURISDICTION under CPSL to overturn the "Findings of Fact" of the "Judicial Administrative Authority" under CPSL in regards to the 1998 Incident (which was clearly the DPW and the unequivocally marked the incident "Unfounded") and the PA Court of Common Pleas overturning the "Judicial Administrative Authority's Finding of Fact" in the 1998 Incident without JURISDICTION to do so amounts to "double jeopardy"......and the 2011 Ruling by a court lacking jurisdiction in the matter under the applicable statute, CPSL, is also subject to appeal with a request to render it "null and void".

 

[francofan]

Geoff Rushton of statecollege.com has an article on this topic.

http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...-battle-over-grand-jury-jurisdiction,1468113/

 

[canuckhal]

I noticed they didn't address the OAG's claim that the Grand Jury was valid b/c the original county prosecutor had a conflict of interest, so he referred to the OAG. This allowed OAG to conduct a Grand Jury. The other argument not addressed was that the Grand Jury was used to entice victims to come forward anonymously. I guess they feel they have a better chance with the argument about public corruption and organized crime, or it would render the other two moot.

 

[demlion]

Sandusky lawyer J. Andrew Salemme recently submitted a brief regarding subject matter jurisdiction that was posted this morning to the Centre County web pages. IMO, he destroys the Commonwealth's arguments that the OAG had subject matter jurisdiction in the Grand Jury that was impaneled to investigate alleged Victim 1's accusations against Sandusky.

Salemme asserts that the Commonwealth conflates the distinction between power to investigate and subject matter jurisdiction. He states that Sandusky has never contended that the OAG doesn't have power to prosecute under the Commonwealth Attorney's Act, but rather the salient issue is the jurisdiction of a statewide investigative Grand Jury. The plain language of the Investigating Grand Jury Act provides that a multi-county investigating Grand Jury only has jurisdiction into public corruption and organized crime and those were not circumstances in the Sandusky case. Salemme's painstaking review of the history of multi-county investigative Grand Jury shows that they were clearly meant only for public corruption and organized crime cases and not cases focused at individuals primarily nor the commission of ordinary crimes.

Salemme concludes, that because the Grand Jury that investigated alleged Victim 1's accusation lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that that information and investigation served as the primary basis for the November 2011 Grand Jury presentment, that the presentment must be quashed.

It will be very interesting to see how Judge Cleland rules on this matter. If he rules against Sandusky, I think that Sandusky would have a very strong case on appeal.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY REPLY BRIEF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ISSUE.pdf

Let's imagine that the reason they convened a SWIGJ was because they suspected TSM was a criminal enterprise. Then they found out the toes thet were getting ready to step on were attached to some very big feet w/ties to T Corbett.

 

[francofan]

Let's imagine that the reason they convened a SWIGJ was because they suspected TSM was a criminal enterprise. Then they found out the toes thet were getting ready to step on were attached to some very big feet w/ties to T Corbett.

A multi-county investigative Grand Jury would seem to be an appropriate vehicle for looking into the public corruption within Corbett's OAG and the organized crime connections that the OAG and PSU BOT seem to have.

Larry, are you a member of the Pennsylvania Bar? Are you familiar with Pennsylvania's Investigating Grand Jury Act? Do you have an opinion of whether an Investigative Grand Jury would have subject matter jurisdiction to looking into v1's initial accusations that don't appear to have any public corruption or organized crime link?

 

[francofan]

I noticed they didn't address the OAG's claim that the Grand Jury was valid b/c the original county prosecutor had a conflict of interest, so he referred to the OAG. This allowed OAG to conduct a Grand Jury. The other argument not addressed was that the Grand Jury was used to entice victims to come forward anonymously. I guess they feel they have a better chance with the argument about public corruption and organized crime, or it would render the other two moot.

I believe they addressed the issue of COI as the brief states that a multi-county investigative Grand Jury only has subject matter jurisdiction in cases of public corruption and/or organized crime. The COI issues does not come into play.

The purpose of a Grand Jury is certainly not to entice accusers to come forward anonymously.

 

[demlion]

A multi-county investigative Grand Jury would seem to be an appropriate vehicle for looking into the public corruption within Corbett's OAG and the organized crime connections that the OAG and PSU BOT seem to have.

Larry, are you a member of the Pennsylvania Bar? Are you familiar with Pennsylvania's Investigating Grand Jury Act? Do you have an opinion of whether an Investigative Grand Jury would have subject matter jurisdiction to looking into v1's initial accusations that don't appear to have any public corruption or organized crime link?

Not a PA lawyer. Seems a rather basic claim to just be coming up now, but I have no knowledge of the Act other than what I've read here and other places online.

 

[francofan]

Not a PA lawyer. Seems a rather basic claim to just be coming up now, but I have no knowledge of the Act other than what I've read here and other places online.

Thanks Dem. The tardiness of the claim may be due to Sandusky's trial counsel being ineffective. The adage better late than never may be relevant in this case.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I noticed they didn't address the OAG's claim that the Grand Jury was valid b/c the original county prosecutor had a conflict of interest, so he referred to the OAG. This allowed OAG to conduct a Grand Jury. The other argument not addressed was that the Grand Jury was used to entice victims to come forward anonymously. I guess they feel they have a better chance with the argument about public corruption and organized crime, or it would render the other two moot.

Mr. Salemme's response to the OAG addresses this point. The OAG having authority to investigate via the "Commonwealth Attorney's Act" has nothing to do with "jurisdiction" of a SWIGJ under the PA Investigating Grand Jury Act. Beyond that, the Clinton County Court would retain jurisdiction of V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint as PA CPSL prescribes - PA CPSL would remain the governing statute of the prosecution regardless of the OAG's involvement via the COI claim (which was bull$hit as CPSL clearly states that the JURISDICTION of V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint should have never been moved out of Clinton County as the DPW's County-Level Filing Office was the Clinton County CYS Office!) or the OAG's involvement via The Second Mile (in PA the Attorney General is the Primary Regulator of charities and all charities/nonprofits serve at the AG's pleasure....and are subject to investigation and inspection without notice whenever the AG feels like it).

But again, CPSL, the governing Statute (and even the SWIGJ Law) is quite clear that proper JURISDICTION is to be respected even if the OAG gets involved. Proper jurisdiction for prosecution of V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint was clearly and unequivocally the Clinton County Court and the Clinton County DA regardless of whether the OAG was involved in the investigation or not (and also again, the AG did not need to make a SWIGJ Application to become involved as all charities and nonprofits in Pennsylvania report to, and are accountable to, the AG!).

 

[Black Elmo 2]

How will the Judge rule? Like this:

MOTION DENIED.

 

[Talpsu]

Let's imagine that the reason they convened a SWIGJ was because they suspected TSM was a criminal enterprise. Then they found out the toes thet were getting ready to step on were attached to some very big feet w/ties to T Corbett.

Lol that's what I think every time I read GJ was was meant for public corruption and organized crime. That's probably perfect for TSM!!! Yet they chose not to look that way

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

How will the Judge rule? Like this:

MOTION DENIED.

Really? That would be an absurdly dangerous ruling for the citizens of PA as such a ruling completely rewrites both the "PA Investigating Grand Jury Law" and the "PA Child Protective Services Law" exposing them to the corruption and tyranny of scumbag lawyers such as yourself.....go figure that you have no problem with such a thing...

 

[Black Elmo 2]

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

"Black Elmo 2, post: 1887165, member: 36896"

 

[wensilver]

Just my thoughts on using a grand jury - but would love to hear from some actual PA prosecutors or defense attorneys.

The cause of this "divisiveness" is not from among Penn Staters - it's the stinky, smoldering remnants of this greasy, graffiti-marked dumpster that Fina purposely parked and ignited to rage away on campus.

PSU needs to address this with the AG's Office & the media. The smoldering remains must be properly extinguished and the stinky dumpster hauled away.

It now is simply attracting vermin & sports writers.

 

[marshall23]

A governor appears to have orchestrated a political "hit." He intended to send a message to any and all potential dissenters, demonstrating who was "in charge."He was confident that he controlled "justice" in the state.There are no other logical explanations.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Just my thoughts on using a grand jury - but would love to hear from some actual PA prosecutors or defense attorneys

View embedded media

No doubt Wendy, good summary - one thing you forgot in your list at the bottom is that corrupt AG turned Governor personally hijacked the PSU BOT when he actively assumed his Board Ex-Officio seat (the first Governor in over 100 years to active assume his seat on the PSU Board rather than name a "proxy" -- telling!).