ADVERTISEMENT

Kawalski told to resign PSU position to assist in Defense of JS

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2001
120,645
79,571
1
So Linda Kawalski was encouraged to not help Amendola because it "wasn't in the best interests of the community???"

According to her affidavit:
  • She was contacted by Amendola to help in JS defense
  • She contacted her boss at PSU who referred her to Cynthia Baldwin
  • Baldwin sent her to outside counsel, Mustokoff
  • She was told she could not take a leave, but would have to resign to join the defense because it was "against community interests"
  • She resigned and joined the defense just three weeks before the trial.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hemo
So Linda Kawalski was encouraged to not help Amendola because it "wasn't in the best interests of the community???"

According to her affidavit:
  • She was contacted by Amendola to help in JS defense
  • She contacted her boss at PSU who referred her to Cynthia Baldwin
  • Baldwin sent her to outside counsel, Mustokoff
  • She was told she could not take a leave, but would have to resign to join the defense because it was "against community interests"
  • She resigned and joined the defense just three weeks before the trial.

I'm not sure what to make of that. It sure wasn't in PSU's interest that JS was found guilty.
 
I am surmising that the University did not want any of the rank and file to have a connection with Jerry - hence the termination of Joe, C/S/S, McQ, and all football coaches that worked with Jerry. I am guessing that did that per direction of outside counsel.
 
So Linda Kawalski was encouraged to not help Amendola because it "wasn't in the best interests of the community???"

According to her affidavit:
  • She was contacted by Amendola to help in JS defense
  • She contacted her boss at PSU who referred her to Cynthia Baldwin
  • Baldwin sent her to outside counsel, Mustokoff
  • She was told she could not take a leave, but would have to resign to join the defense because it was "against community interests"
  • She resigned and joined the defense just three weeks before the trial.
link?
 
So which party uses this information in which venue against what other party?
 
Why is this such a bid deal? As I understand, the University didn't want one of its employees to also be employed on behalf of the defense of a former employee.
 
So Linda Kawalski was encouraged to not help Amendola because it "wasn't in the best interests of the community???"

According to her affidavit:
  • She was contacted by Amendola to help in JS defense
  • She contacted her boss at PSU who referred her to Cynthia Baldwin
  • Baldwin sent her to outside counsel, Mustokoff
  • She was told she could not take a leave, but would have to resign to join the defense because it was "against community interests"
  • She resigned and joined the defense just three weeks before the trial.
Which insurance carrier is she referring to that Amendola had to check with? Was the Second Miles' carrier picking up some of the tab or did Jerry have personal liability insurance that would honor some or all of a claim? If the latter were the case I would think Jerry would carry a couple of million given his risk exposure dealing with disadvantaged boys. That should have afforded him a more qualified (and ethical) defense team.
 
Last edited:
Why is this such a bid deal? As I understand, the University didn't want one of its employees to also be employed on behalf of the defense of a former employee.
I am not sure how important it is, honestly. However, the notion that it "isn't in the best interests of the community" would suggest that PSU determined the community's best interests to be if JS is found guilty. Had they said it was a conflict of interest, that would be another thing. Also, one has to wonder how much input Baldwin may have had in marginalizing JS' defense opportunity.
 
The affidavit mentions that Amendola had to check with the insurance carrier. Does that mean that the Second Mile's carrier was picking up some or all of the tab or did Jerry have liability insurance to cover his risk in dealing with disadvantaged boys and young men? If the latter were true on would assume he would have a million or more in coverage and could have afforded a more competent and ethical defense team and that they could have afforded more help to prepare the case in the compressed time frame.
 
The affidavit mentions that Amendola had to check with the insurance carrier. Does that mean that the Second Mile's carrier was picking up some or all of the tab or did Jerry have liability insurance to cover his risk in dealing with disadvantaged boys and young men? If the latter were true on would assume he would have a million or more in coverage and could have afforded a more competent and ethical defense team and that they could have afforded more help to prepare the case in the compressed time frame.
Maybe, but I am not sure any good lawyer wanted to defend JS. He was going to be found guilty, period. I am not saying he was innocent, but lawyers don't want to soil their reputations and this was very politically charged. I feel like Amendola was hired, tried to get out of it once he saw what he was up against, and phoned in his effort to mitigate personal damage. The other guy tried to use it as a platform to fame and fortune, briefly having a radio show.

Again, I am not saying I think JS is innocent. I am saying that his defense was horrible. I'd have taken a good 5th grader with a penchant to lie about why he skipped school over those two bozos. And, with his awful defense, it made PSU look even worse as the rest of the world was left to wonder why PSU didn't do more on such an easy, black-and-white situation.
 
Why is this such a bid deal? As I understand, the University didn't want one of its employees to also be employed on behalf of the defense of a former employee.
You have to be kidding me? This is a classic case of threat of constructive discharge and furthermore obstruction of justice. In fact, the firing of C/S/S and Joe (call it what they want) ahead of their day in court (Joe was and never has been charged of anything) reeks of legal irresponsibility, If the BOT wanted to suspend C/S/S awaiting trial...fine.... firing Joe based on Louis Freehs BOT managed report (what?) Now this ..... All legal teams with cases against PSU are thrilled by this announcement. There is no other University in the nation that has done anything as insane as what our BOT did. They have been fighting to hide what they did at every turn. They have tried to buy the image of transparency through the Mitchell BS....while road blocking and stall all access to pertinent information in this case.... At each moment of revelation in this case .... Our top BOT members look more and more like conspirators....protecting their own a$$es !
 
You have to be kidding me? This is a classic case of threat of constructive discharge and furthermore obstruction of justice. In fact, the firing of C/S/S and Joe (call it what they want) ahead of their day in court (Joe was and never has been charged of anything) reeks of legal irresponsibility, If the BOT wanted to suspend C/S/S awaiting trial...fine.... firing Joe based on Louis Freehs BOT managed report (what?) Now this ..... All legal teams with cases against PSU are thrilled by this announcement. There is no other University in the nation that has done anything as insane as what our BOT did. They have been fighting to hide what they did at every turn. They have tried to buy the image of transparency through the Mitchell BS....while road blocking and stall all access to pertinent information in this case.... At each moment of revelation in this case .... Our top BOT members look more and more like conspirators....protecting their own a$$es !

Joe was actually "fired" 7 months before the freeh report even came out but your point stands. ALL the BOT had at the time they fired Joe/Spanier was a freaking GJP and press reports....that's it. Let that sink in for a moment. And don't forget PSU had lawyers such as Kenny Frazier sitting on our BOT at the time who were fully aware of what a GJP is and that ZERO decisions should be based on it.

Any other school/business would have wiped their ass with that GJP and told the media to stick it...that GJP's are one sided prosecutorial documents that don't even need to be factual.....but nope... our BOT used that garbage as the basis for making ALL of their decisions in 11/11...including terminating a man who had given 60 YEARS of his life to PSU....what a complete and absolute joke and travesty the OG BOT members are.
 
PSU only fired one person. Graham Spanier resigned, Gary Schultz re-retired, Tim Curley and Mike McQueary were placed on administrative leave and their contracts were not re-extended when they expired. In effect, Spanier and Schultz left to avoid being fired and to preserve their retirement pension. Curley and McQueary couldn't retire, but the university couldn't fire them without losing a lawsuit so they paid them out through their contract. All pretty much the standard way any company would handle it with the obvious exception of Paterno's situation.

I'm not defending PSU's legal strategy, just pointing out that their handling of C/S/S & McQueary's employment did not deprive those men of any legal rights.
 
The affidavit mentions that Amendola had to check with the insurance carrier. Does that mean that the Second Mile's carrier was picking up some or all of the tab or did Jerry have liability insurance to cover his risk in dealing with disadvantaged boys and young men? If the latter were true on would assume he would have a million or more in coverage and could have afforded a more competent and ethical defense team and that they could have afforded more help to prepare the case in the compressed time frame.
The Second Mile's insuror paid $500,000 towards Sandusky's defense.
 
So Linda Kawalski was encouraged to not help Amendola because it "wasn't in the best interests of the community???"

According to her affidavit:
  • She was contacted by Amendola to help in JS defense
  • She contacted her boss at PSU who referred her to Cynthia Baldwin
  • Baldwin sent her to outside counsel, Mustokoff
  • She was told she could not take a leave, but would have to resign to join the defense because it was "against community interests"
  • She resigned and joined the defense just three weeks before the trial.
And? What's the issue? First off Ms Kawalski wasn't "told" to resign. She was given the option to stay and continue working for the university, or at her discretion, resign to accept another job offer. Of her own free will she chose to accept another job offer. The university's position is clearly understandable and defensible. Employers have rights (such as denying an employee request for a leave of absence) to run their organizations as they see fit and operate in what they deem to be their own best interests. Further, was Ms Kawalski the only person Jerry's defense team could dig up? Much to do about nothing IMO.
 
And? What's the issue? First off Ms Kawalski wasn't "told" to resign. She was given the option to stay and continue working for the university, or at her discretion, resign to accept another job offer. Of her own free will she chose to accept another job offer. The university's position is clearly understandable and defensible. Employers have rights (such as denying an employee request for a leave of absence) to run their organizations as they see fit and operate in what they deem to be their own best interests. Further, was Ms Kawalski the only person Jerry's defense team could dig up? Much to do about nothing IMO.



Go read up on constructive discharge "counselor" and I use that term loosely.
 
All good points, 66 (unusually, LOL). While I agree with what you said, it is another example of a) tampering and b) the challenge JS got in gaining competent representation in a timely manner. I also have to add that Baldwin's role is, again, suspect. And why not a leave of absence? Why was this woman's job tacitly threatened? Why did she have to resign her position? why did she feel so strongly to resign her position?

All excellent questions that this episode brings up.
 
And? What's the issue? First off Ms Kawalski wasn't "told" to resign. She was given the option to stay and continue working for the university, or at her discretion, resign to accept another job offer. Of her own free will she chose to accept another job offer. The university's position is clearly understandable and defensible. Employers have rights (such as denying an employee request for a leave of absence) to run their organizations as they see fit and operate in what they deem to be their own best interests. Further, was Ms Kawalski the only person Jerry's defense team could dig up? Much to do about nothing IMO.

You don't even know how to spell her name.

Why would we think that you are right about any other part of this?
 
I am not sure how important it is, honestly. However, the notion that it "isn't in the best interests of the community" would suggest that PSU determined the community's best interests to be if JS is found guilty. Had they said it was a conflict of interest, that would be another thing. Also, one has to wonder how much input Baldwin may have had in marginalizing JS' defense opportunity.

I don't think they felt a guilty verdict was in PSUs best interest-I think they just assumed he was guilty and didn't want any involvement with him.
 
I can understand the University's position in this as far as it relates to the defense of Jerry. It seemed clear to me that one of their primary acts after November 2011 was to distance themselves from Jerry as much as possible. And that included, as I mentioned before, getting rid of anyone who was close to Jerry - starting with Joe. Was it correct what they did with Joe, without so much as even speaking to him? Not in my opinion. They allowed other coaches - including those who may have socialized with Jerry after he left the University, to stay with the team. However, they clearly made a media splash (intended or not) with terminating Joe.

As far as this issue, the thing that makes me SMH is the comment about "good for the community". If outside counsel is retained in the interests of PSU, then the community aspect is a bit bizarre. My guess is that it was an offhand comment/poorly chosen words, as opposed to anything more nefarious than that.
 
PSU only fired one person. Graham Spanier resigned, Gary Schultz re-retired, Tim Curley and Mike McQueary were placed on administrative leave and their contracts were not re-extended when they expired. In effect, Spanier and Schultz left to avoid being fired and to preserve their retirement pension. Curley and McQueary couldn't retire, but the university couldn't fire them without losing a lawsuit so they paid them out through their contract. All pretty much the standard way any company would handle it with the obvious exception of Paterno's situation.

I'm not defending PSU's legal strategy, just pointing out that their handling of C/S/S & McQueary's employment did not deprive those men of any legal rights.


wrong! do not speculate what others did and why.
 
ADVERTISEMENT