Here's the link: "Prosecutors Argue Against Sandusky Grand Jury Claim"
This is really lame - first of all, the OAG did not have "jurisdiction" regarding the criminal prosecution of V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint under the governing statute of that complaint, which was the PA Child Protective Services Law (CPSL). The OAG had authority to become involved via The Second Mile and the fact that the OAG regulates all charities, and charitable fraud, in PA, but that does not change the jurisdiction of V1's discreet complaint or the fact that CPSL was still the governing statute of V1's discreet complaint! Beyond that, the OAG references a wholly separate Act (the Commonwealth Attorneys Act) which is a completely separate Act from the Act empowering "Statewide Investigating Grand Juries"!
The lameness of their arguments is demonstrated by the BEYOND CLEAR wording of the SWIGJ Act itself, within both Section 4542 and Section 4544 linked below directly from the State Legislature's website listing of PA Laws:
Contrary to the lame and bull$hit arguments made by the OAG, the Act empowering PA SWIGJs is quite clear and specific on the topic of "Subject Matter Jurisdiction" and the requirements for the approval of a SWIGJ Application by the OAG - standards which were very clearly NOT MET by Corrupt Corbutt's mis-plead 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application regarding V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint which was being processed under the CORRECT PA Statute, CPSL, before the OAG hijacked the process with a SWIGJ Application asking for powers to investigate The Second Mile when the OAG already had all of the "Investigative Powers" it was asking for in regards to The Second Mile as the PRIMARY REGULATOR of Charities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The OAG's "bait and switch" SWIGJ to shift responsibility to PSU from TSM via a clearly mis-plead SWIGJ Appication as stated in Section 4544 above resulted in V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint under CPSL being moved to a court, the PA Court of Common Pleas, that had NO JURISDICTION under the governing statute, CPSL, to hear the case (the Clinton County District Court very clearly had JURISDICTION over V1's DPW-filed Complaint under CPSL, the governing PA statute for V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint).
Not only that, but the same court, the PA Court of Common Pleas, which LACKED JURISDICTION on CPSL cases turned over the "Findings of Fact" of the Judicial Administrative Authority under CPSL in regards to the DPW Investigation and "Findings of Fact" in regards to the 1998 Incident! This is illegal and effectively amounts to "Double Jeopardy" as "Findings of Fact" made by a Judicial Administrative Authority named as such within an Act (the PA Child Protective Services Law in this case) cannot be "turned over" especially by a court that WHOLLY LACKS JURISDICTION under the statute in question! (again, CPSL in this case in regards to both V1's 2008 CSA Complaint and the 1998 Incident). I know this to absolutely be true via personal experience with rulings of "Judicial Administrative Authorities" named under governing statutes - specifically the rulings of Municipal School Districts and State-Level DOEs which are named "Judicial Administrative Authorities" in statutes; their rulings as to "Findings of Fact" as the "Judicial Administrative Authority" cannot be turned over by the court in regards to the "Findings of Fact", least of all by a court that has ZERO JURISDICTION under the applicable governing statute!!!
This is really lame - first of all, the OAG did not have "jurisdiction" regarding the criminal prosecution of V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint under the governing statute of that complaint, which was the PA Child Protective Services Law (CPSL). The OAG had authority to become involved via The Second Mile and the fact that the OAG regulates all charities, and charitable fraud, in PA, but that does not change the jurisdiction of V1's discreet complaint or the fact that CPSL was still the governing statute of V1's discreet complaint! Beyond that, the OAG references a wholly separate Act (the Commonwealth Attorneys Act) which is a completely separate Act from the Act empowering "Statewide Investigating Grand Juries"!
The lameness of their arguments is demonstrated by the BEYOND CLEAR wording of the SWIGJ Act itself, within both Section 4542 and Section 4544 linked below directly from the State Legislature's website listing of PA Laws:
Contrary to the lame and bull$hit arguments made by the OAG, the Act empowering PA SWIGJs is quite clear and specific on the topic of "Subject Matter Jurisdiction" and the requirements for the approval of a SWIGJ Application by the OAG - standards which were very clearly NOT MET by Corrupt Corbutt's mis-plead 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application regarding V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint which was being processed under the CORRECT PA Statute, CPSL, before the OAG hijacked the process with a SWIGJ Application asking for powers to investigate The Second Mile when the OAG already had all of the "Investigative Powers" it was asking for in regards to The Second Mile as the PRIMARY REGULATOR of Charities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The OAG's "bait and switch" SWIGJ to shift responsibility to PSU from TSM via a clearly mis-plead SWIGJ Appication as stated in Section 4544 above resulted in V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint under CPSL being moved to a court, the PA Court of Common Pleas, that had NO JURISDICTION under the governing statute, CPSL, to hear the case (the Clinton County District Court very clearly had JURISDICTION over V1's DPW-filed Complaint under CPSL, the governing PA statute for V1's DPW-filed CSA Complaint).
Not only that, but the same court, the PA Court of Common Pleas, which LACKED JURISDICTION on CPSL cases turned over the "Findings of Fact" of the Judicial Administrative Authority under CPSL in regards to the DPW Investigation and "Findings of Fact" in regards to the 1998 Incident! This is illegal and effectively amounts to "Double Jeopardy" as "Findings of Fact" made by a Judicial Administrative Authority named as such within an Act (the PA Child Protective Services Law in this case) cannot be "turned over" especially by a court that WHOLLY LACKS JURISDICTION under the statute in question! (again, CPSL in this case in regards to both V1's 2008 CSA Complaint and the 1998 Incident). I know this to absolutely be true via personal experience with rulings of "Judicial Administrative Authorities" named under governing statutes - specifically the rulings of Municipal School Districts and State-Level DOEs which are named "Judicial Administrative Authorities" in statutes; their rulings as to "Findings of Fact" as the "Judicial Administrative Authority" cannot be turned over by the court in regards to the "Findings of Fact", least of all by a court that has ZERO JURISDICTION under the applicable governing statute!!!
Last edited:
