Ray Blehar: Evidence in 2001 Twisted, Tainted, and Incomplete

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Investigations into charities fraud is handled by the Bureau of Consumer Protection, not the Criminal Prosecutions Division. The former acts on complaints filed by consumers.

Obviously, not the case when AF complained.

Believe the AG and OAG is permitted to act "at will" when presented with credible evidence of fraud and "institutional criminality" within a State Registered and Licensed Charity - charities have no "Corporate Veil" or other protections from the AG, exist at the AG's pleasure and their files are subject to search and seizure by the AG, one of their primary regulators, at any time.

Given the information included in the 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application made, and signed, by AG Corbett himself, how can you say that the AG did not have credible evidence submitted to them (in this case by the State Agency that co-regulates the charity) that The Second Mile was engaged in "Institutional Criminality", including fraud and much worse, by the founder of the charity which was his primary motivation for founding the charity???

Complete nonsense that the AG needs SWIGJ authority to investigate a charity when receiving such credible information of institutional criminality at the charity by its Founder and most powerful "Control Person". The AG has authority to investigate the charity and its most powerful "Control Person" Founder (which effectively made him a "Sole Director" via his Charter Powers) and does not need to ask a SWIGJ for those powers - that's complete nonsense. BTW, State powers and authority over charities is vested in the AG themselves, not "Divisions" of the OAG, which is why the AG was able to step in at Hershey and prevent purchases, mergers, etc... through the years.

 

[sarasotan]

From our buddies at PennLies --

Asked if the indictments will impact The Second Mile, Dottie Huck, a member of the state board of directors, said “it shouldn’t.”

“The Second Mile is a separate group,” Huck said. “We work very hard in the Second Mile and it should have no influence in it.”

And: Speaking personally, Huck said Sandusky has “done some wonderful things in his lifetime and we should try to help him ... We all make little mistakes in our lives.”

As exemplified by her statement above, I sincerely doubt that esteemed PSU BoT member Lloyd Huck's wife had any clue what was going on. But potential personal liabilitiy exposure perfectly accounts for Frazier showing up when he did. He had no significant involvement as a PSU alumni until Sandusky became a significant problem for TSM. Likewise fraud exposure risk just added another twist and the AG, as Corbett's agent, had NO incentive to expose that, either.

 

[Stufftodo]

I would not be surprised if that is part of the goulash of motivators - in fact, I expect it was

The Board is indemnified, the corporate assets would be hit first.

 

[bjf1991]

The Board is indemnified, the corporate assets would be hit first.

Is that supposed to be a cogent point? Or, just some random collection of words - with a bit of punctuation tossed in?

(don't bother to answer.....the question was rhetorical )

 

[Stufftodo]

Is that supposed to be a cogent point? Or, just some random collection of words - with a bit of punctuation tossed in?

(don't bother to answer.....the question was rhetorical )

Since you lack the intelligence to understand (much less serve on the Board), indemnification, in this instance means that if Penn State is sued, the Trustees are not personally liable. The monet comes from Penn State, not from any Trustee's own pocket.

 

[bjf1991]

Since you lack the intelligence to understand (much less serve on the Board), indemnification, in this instance means that if Penn State is sued, the Trustees are not personally liable. The monet comes from Penn State, not from any Trustee's own pocket.

The fact that you would think that anyone capable of even logging on to this board, would not know the meaning of the term - or the implications of - "indemnification".......illustrates just how shallow your gene pool is.

Thanks STD...... you're a hoot!!!


BTW - I don't think anyone is suing the Board of PSU (or of the 2nd Mile, which was the original issue at hand ) for some artwork by a 19th century French Impressionist.

 

[Osprey Lion]

The fact that you would think that anyone capable of even logging on to this board, would not know the meaning of the term - or the implications of - "indemnification".......illustrates just how shallow your gene pool is.

Thanks STD...... you're a hoot!!!


BTW - I don't think anyone is suing the Board of PSU (or of the 2nd Mile, which was the original issue at hand ) for some artwork by a 19th century French Impressionist.

Do you have a life that extends beyond this board and the scandal?

 

[Stufftodo]

The fact that you would think that anyone capable of even logging on to this board, would not know the meaning of the term - or the implications of - "indemnification".......illustrates just how shallow your gene pool is.

Thanks STD...... you're a hoot!!!


BTW - I don't think anyone is suing the Board of PSU (or of the 2nd Mile, which was the original issue at hand ) for some artwork by a 19th century French Impressionist.

It would seem that you don't know the difference, or would not have made such a stupid remark.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

Since you lack the intelligence to understand (much less serve on the Board), indemnification, in this instance means that if Penn State is sued, the Trustees are not personally liable. The monet comes from Penn State, not from any Trustee's own pocket.

Which MONET is it? So PSU has to raise funds by selling off it's art collection?

 

[drblue1977]

Believe the AG and OAG is permitted to act "at will" when presented with credible evidence of fraud and "institutional criminality" within a State Registered and Licensed Charity - charities have no "Corporate Veil" or other protections from the AG, exist at the AG's pleasure and their files are subject to search and seizure by the AG, one of their primary regulators, at any time.

Given the information included in the 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application made, and signed, by AG Corbett himself, how can you say that the AG did not have credible evidence submitted to them (in this case by the State Agency that co-regulates the charity) that The Second Mile was engaged in "Institutional Criminality", including fraud and much worse, by the founder of the charity which was his primary motivation for founding the charity???

Complete nonsense that the AG needs SWIGJ authority to investigate a charity when receiving such credible information of institutional criminality at the charity by its Founder and most powerful "Control Person". The AG has authority to investigate the charity and its most powerful "Control Person" Founder (which effectively made him a "Sole Director" via his Charter Powers) and does not need to ask a SWIGJ for those powers - that's complete nonsense. BTW, State powers and authority over charities is vested in the AG themselves, not "Divisions" of the OAG, which is why the AG was able to step in at Hershey and prevent purchases, mergers, etc... through the years.

So would it be fair to say, based on the duties assigned to the then AG Corbutt, that he ..............Endangered the welfare of all the children in Pennsylvania by his inaction?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Investigations into charities fraud is handled by the Bureau of Consumer Protection, not the Criminal Prosecutions Division. The former acts on complaints filed by consumers.

Obviously, not the case when AF complained.

Ray, I think you had it far more correct in this piece you published 3/16/2016 - hit following hotlink:

Corbett's Grand Jury Lie
Former AG Tom Corbett's rationale for the inpaneling of the Sandusky grand jury in 2009 doesn't square with the facts in evidence
By
Ray Blehar​

Corbett's stated reason for convening a SWIGJ to Brad Bumsted does not square with his own stated reasons in the 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application submitted and signed by Corbett himself. The comments section to this article is also very interesting as well. Corbett's statement to Bumsted about "why he convened a SWIGJ" is not only a clear misrepresentation (again, as clearly demonstrated by the 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application), but it is also a misdirection play to cover for the fact that the AG does not need to make a SWIGJ Application for the reasons stated in his 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application - the power to investigate charities for "institutional criminal behavior", including both financial and charitable mission fraud (let alone the fraud of founding the charity to create a victim farm for the rape of children) - is already vested in the enumerated powers of the Pennsylvania AG.

There was no need for Corbett to ask the PA Judiciary for SWIGJ powers that he ALREADY HAD -- especially nonsensical to wait 2 months to submit such a superfolous application from the time he received the V1 Criminal Investigation File on 3/3/2009 when he believed a Pennsylvania Charity was being used to provide access to the child victims, including via PA Public School based programs, for the purpose of sexual victimization of children -- IOW, leave thousands of PA Children "at risk" to "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties" without ever putting the AG's "Child Predator Special Investigatory Unit", or any AG investigators into action, on the case and waiting two months to submit a redundant SWIGJ Application which would grant powers the AG already had in regards to investigating charities given that charities operate under the auspice of the AG, and at their pleasure, in Pennsylvania??? Huh??? And Corbett very clearly did admit that he had these allegations given that the 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application, including the following enumerated reason, was signed, and submitted, by Corbett himself:

The Pennsylvania State Police are pursuing an investigation based upon a founded Clinton County Children and Youth Services complaint alleging sexual assault by a Centre county adult male upon a juvenile male with whom he became acquainted through his sponsorship of a· charity for disadvantaged youth. It is believed that other minor males have been similarly assaulted through this connection. The investigation concerns allegations of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties.​

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Ray, I think you had it far more correct in this piece you published 3/16/2016 - hit following hotlink:

Corbett's Grand Jury Lie
Former AG Tom Corbett's rationale for the inpaneling of the Sandusky grand jury in 2009 doesn't square with the facts in evidence
By
Ray Blehar​

Corbett's stated reason for convening a SWIGJ to Brad Bumsted does not square with his own stated reasons in the 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application submitted and signed by Corbett himself. The comments section to this article is also very interesting as well. Corbett's statement to Bumsted about "why he convened a SWIGJ" is not only a clear misrepresentation (again, as clearly demonstrated by the 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application), but it is also a misdirection play to cover for the fact that the AG does not need to make a SWIGJ Application for the reasons stated in his 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application - the power to investigate charities for "institutional criminal behavior", including both financial and charitable mission fraud (let alone the fraud of founding the charity to create a victim farm for the rape of children) - is already vested in the enumerated powers of the Pennsylvania AG.

There was no need for Corbett to ask the PA Judiciary for SWIGJ powers that he ALREADY HAD -- especially nonsensical to wait 2 months to submit such a superfolous application from the time he received the V1 Criminal Investigation File on 3/3/2009 when he believed a Pennsylvania Charity was being used to provide access to the child victims, including via PA Public School based programs, for the purpose of sexual victimization of children -- IOW, leave thousands of PA Children "at risk" to "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties" without ever putting the AG's "Child Predator Special Investigatory Unit", or any AG investigators into action, on the case and waiting two months to submit a redundant SWIGJ Application which would grant powers the AG already had in regards to investigating charities given that charities operate under the auspice of the AG, and at their pleasure, in Pennsylvania??? Huh??? And Corbett very clearly did admit that he had these allegations given that the 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application, including the following enumerated reason, was signed, and submitted, by Corbett himself:

The Pennsylvania State Police are pursuing an investigation based upon a founded Clinton County Children and Youth Services complaint alleging sexual assault by a Centre county adult male upon a juvenile male with whom he became acquainted through his sponsorship of a· charity for disadvantaged youth. It is believed that other minor males have been similarly assaulted through this connection. The investigation concerns allegations of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties.​

IOW Ray, you're an investigator and you understand that investigator 101 is that anybody who makes an intentional misrepresentation about something (i.e., a "lie"), as Corbett did in the instance you reference in your article, has a "motivation" for the misrepresentation. Corbett's motivation is clear imho....he is attempting to avoid the topic that he was told that Sandusky created TSM as a "victim farm" in the first days of March 2009 and that thousands of children were at risk throughout Central Pennsylvania and he sat on the information with zero urgency despite being a direct Regulatory Agent of charities in PA (the fact that he did not put the AG's "Child Predator Special Investigative Unit" on the case immediately is extremely telling imho).

 

[Stufftodo]

IOW Ray, you're an investigator and you understand that investigator 101 is that anybody who makes an intentional misrepresentation about something (i.e., a "lie"), as Corbett did in the instance you reference in your article, has a "motivation" for the misrepresentation. Corbett's motivation is clear imho....he is attempting to avoid the topic that he was told that Sandusky created TSM as a "victim farm" in the first days of March 2009 and that thousands of children were at risk throughout Central Pennsylvania and he sat on the information with zero urgency despite being a direct Regulatory Agent of charities in PA (the fact that he did not put the AG's "Child Predator Special Investigative Unit" on the case immediately is extremely telling imho).

By March 2009, Sandusky could be around. He was on DPW's no contact list. That is why he was banned from several high schools.

 

[francofan]

BTW, let me get this straight, you're saying you couldn't give a $hit if the OAG intentionally trampled both PA CPS and SWIGJ Law in trampling and tyrannizing the fundamental civil rights, as guaranteed by both the PA and US Constitutions, of all of the parties they "Indicted" for criminal conviction (which included Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier)??? Seriously??? IOW, you wouldn't have cared if you had been one of the innocent parties of their collateral damage??? Yea, sure, right.....LMFAO.....why do I get the feeling you're a hypocritical, lying @sshole like the perpetrators of this tyranny???

LaJolla is absolutely being hypocritical. He thinks he knows everything, but in fact he doesn't know anything. He doesn't care about whether the OAG played fast and loose with the facts and whether or not due process occured. He claims that he cares about how Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz were treated, but he actions speak otherwise. Makes you wonder what his motive is when he protests so much. He has made every excuse in the book to make his case for injustice.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

By March 2009, Sandusky could be around. He was on DPW's no contact list. That is why he was banned from several high schools.

Wrong doodle-brains, neither DPW or Corbutt cut-off Sandusky's access to the children directly via the The Second Mile as is supposed to happen. In fact, Sandusky continued to be the primary face of the charity and primary fundraiser through 2010!

 

[Stufftodo]

Wrong doodle-brains, neither DPW or Corbutt cut-off Sandusky's access to the children directly via the The Second Mile as is supposed to happen. In fact, Sandusky continued to be the primary face of the charity and primary fundraiser through 2010!

He could have contact with children from 2008, I believe.

Moulton says that Sandusky had begun the appeal process of the "indicated" designation. It notes:
As the criminal investigation proceeded through the first nine months of 2009, Sandusky pursued his right to challenge the Clinton County CYS determination, made in January, that
A.F.’s allegations against Sandusky were “indicated.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/230973065/

It is on page 48.

The footnote indicates that, at that point, he was entered into the Childeline registry. That was several months prior to OAG getting the case.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

didn't the state have special unit to investigate sex crimes against children? why wasn't this unit utilized to investigate Sandusky?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

He could have contact with children from 2008, I believe.

Moulton says that Sandusky had begun the appeal process of the "indicated" designation. It notes:
As the criminal investigation proceeded through the first nine months of 2009, Sandusky pursued his right to challenge the Clinton County CYS determination, made in January, that
A.F.’s allegations against Sandusky were “indicated.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/230973065/

It is on page 48.

The footnote indicates that, at that point, he was entered into the Childeline registry. That was several months prior to OAG getting the case.

Gee, do tell why The Second Mile was telling donors in the Spring 2011 after the publication of Ganim's piece on 3/31/2011 that they had no idea what the article was about in regards to a "investigation" of Sandusky and the charity in regards to V1, that the article was just rumor and innuendo AND the donors should maintain their gift giving to TSM (some of whom were contributing massive sums of money)??? If DPW had indeed put a CPSL mandated "Protection Plan" in place in late 2008 as you claim, they would have had to tell TSM the nature of the allegations given to the AG by DPW according to Corbett's own 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application were: "The investigation concerns allegations of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties."

How is it possible that Jack Raykovitz sent a response to HPN and Ganim's article on 3/31/2011 that was published by HPN at the same time as the article where Raykovitz denies any knowledge of any "investigation" let alone a "Protection Plan" at TSM to protect the children against the potential of "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties" by TSM Employees??? Why hadn't TSM told donors of these accusations back in 2009 when TSM supposedly became aware of them then, genius??? Why would TSM allow a guy being accused of "The investigation concerns allegations of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties." be their primary face and fundraiser for the charity through 2010 when he supposedly "retired" from the charity????

 

[LaJolla Lion]

LaJolla is absolutely being hypocritical. He thinks he knows everything, but in fact he doesn't know anything. He doesn't care about whether the OAG played fast and loose with the facts and whether or not due process occured. He claims that he cares about how Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz were treated, but he actions speak otherwise. Makes you wonder what his motive is when he protests so much. He has made every excuse in the book to make his case for injustice.

Those guys didn't molest children. Jerry did you delusional mope.

 

[Stufftodo]

Gee, do tell why The Second Mile was telling donors in the Spring 2011 after the publication of Ganim's piece on 3/31/2011 that they had no idea what the article was about in regards to a "investigation" of Sandusky and the charity in regards to V1, that the article was just rumor and innuendo AND the donors should maintain their gift giving to TSM (some of whom were contributing massive sums of money)??? If DPW had indeed put a CPSL mandated "Protection Plan" in place in late 2008 as you claim, they would have had to tell TSM the nature of the allegations given to the AG by DPW according to Corbett's own 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application were: "The investigation concerns allegations of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties."

How is it possible that Jack Raykovitz sent a response to HPN and Ganim's article on 3/31/2011 that was published by HPN at the same time as the article where Raykovitz denies any knowledge of any "investigation" let alone a "Protection Plan" at TSM to protect the children against the potential of "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties" by TSM Employees??? Why hadn't TSM told donors of these accusations back in 2009 when TSM supposedly became aware of them then, genius??? Why would TSM allow a guy being accused of "The investigation concerns allegations of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties." be their primary face and fundraiser for the charity through 2010 when he supposedly "retired" from the charity????

There clearly was such a plan, according to Moulton. I have no idea what TSM was or was not saying to donors. I am only looking at Sandusky's access to children. It is clear, from Moulton, that, as of January 2009, Sandusky was placed on the Childline registry.

Now, that is Moulton saying that. He had full access to the records, and he had no connection with anyone in the case, except Kane, who hired him (her one good choice).

 

[francofan]

Those guys didn't molest children. Jerry did you delusional mope.

Do you believe in due process?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Do you believe in due process?

Those guys haven't had a trial you delusional Sandusky loving freak show. They have not had their day in court. Jerry did and you can keep asking me if poor Jerry got a bum deal and I'll say those swallowing his penis kind of got it worse. Jerry loved touching and showering with little boys, sorry you can't handle that. F--k Jerry!!! Is this clear now?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

There clearly was such a plan, according to Moulton. I have no idea what TSM was or was not saying to donors. I am only looking at Sandusky's access to children. It is clear, from Moulton, that, as of January 2009, Sandusky was placed on the Childline registry.

Now, that is Moulton saying that. He had full access to the records, and he had no connection with anyone in the case, except Kane, who hired him (her one good choice).

There clearly was not a "Protection Plan" put in place as the Charity would be told the details of the investigation and would PARTICIPATE in the creation of the "Protection Plan". You're full of $hit that there is any evidence that a "Protection Plan" was put in place in 2009 and TSM could say that they have no idea about any investigation of "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties." by one of their employees who remained the primary face of the charity and fundraiser through 2010 - to make such a claim only proves what a moronic troll "know nothing" @sshole you are!

 

[francofan]

Those guys haven't had a trial you delusional Sandusky loving freak show. They have not had their day in court. Jerry did and you can keep asking me if poor Jerry got a bum deal and I'll say those swallowing his penis kind of got it worse. Jerry loved touching and showering with little boys, sorry you can't handle that. F--k Jerry!!! Is this clear now?

Methink you protest too much. Why are you such a champion of injustice?

Jerry has not had his day in court. His trial was patently unfair. His attorneys have identified 34 issues in the PCRA, none of which are specious. The case is a long way from settled no matter what you say.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Methink you protest too much. Why are you such a champion of injustice?

Jerry has not had his day in court. His trial was patently unfair. His attorneys have identified 34 issues in the PCRA, none of which are specious. The case is a long way from settled no matter what you say.

You not liking the outcumb doesn't make you a champion is anything. This is still all about Joe to you.

 

[francofan]

You not liking the outcumb doesn't make you a champion is anything. This is still all about Joe to you.

I never claimed to be a champion of anything. You are the undisputed champion of injustice.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I never claimed to be a champion of anything. You are the undisputed champion of injustice.

LOL, yeah because of Jerry I hate justice. Funny thing is I think you care more about Joe's rep than the kids Jerry molested. So your justice comments about me are more about making yourself feel justified I guess. I'm all for real justice and locking up serial pedophiles is pretty high up there. JZ fed you a line of shit and you ate it up. Ask Ray what he thinks about Jerry. Clemente or the Paterno's too you freak.

Palm to glass for me the next time you visit the beast. Draw him a little pecker and cheer him up!

 

[francofan]

LOL, yeah because of Jerry I hate justice. Funny thing is I think you care more about Joe's rep than the kids Jerry molested. So your justice comments about me are more about making yourself feel justified I guess. I'm all for real justice and locking up serial pedophiles is pretty high up there. JZ fed you a line of shit and you ate it up. Ask Ray what he thinks about Jerry. Clemente or the Paterno's too you freak.

Palm to glass for me the next time you visit the beast. Draw him a little pecker and cheer him up!

Jerry may or may not have molested any kids. You can't rely on any of the verdicts from a patently unfair trial.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Jerry may or may not have molested any kids. You can't rely on any of the verdicts from a patently unfair trial.

Can you see my tiny violin? You saying it wasn't fair doesn't make it a fact. It's a biased opinion nutbag! Do you really think you are the one to convince anyone of anything. Let alone me. Jerry had a trial and was EASILY convicted by a jury of his peers. Tough luck Steve, he's guilty as sin.

 

[francofan]

Can you see my tiny violin? You saying it wasn't fair doesn't make it a fact. It's a biased opinion nutbag!

Whatever you say doesn't make it a fact. Are you saying your opinions aren't biased??

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Ira and several Emeritus Trustees are connected to The Lie. A few others sold their souls for a seat.

Don't forget that any B&I or Ag Trustees that replaced the 2011 version were handpicked by their predecessors. The Ag trustees are "supposed" to be elected, but we know how that really works.

They stick to their own kind, and no way were they going to take the chance of letting somebody in by accident that was going to run the gravy train off the tracks.

Like a customer in my aunt's bar used to say, you never see robins flying with crows.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Whatever you say doesn't make it a fact. Are you saying your opinions aren't biased??

I'm saying you're a delusional nutbag who visits pedophiles in prison.

 

[francofan]

I'm saying you're a delusional nutbag who visits pedophiles in prison.

Call me whatever you want. You need to resort to ad hominem attacks when you can't argue the facts.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Call me whatever you want. You need to resort to ad hominem attacks when you can't argue the facts.

Your opinion isn't a fact. Jerry is in prison after his trial is a fact. You're not getting it, but you keep trying.

 

[francofan]

Your opinion isn't a fact. Jerry is in prison after his trial is a fact. You're not getting it, but you keep trying.

I never said my opinion was a fact. I am just saying your opinion is not a fact.

 

[rmb297]

There clearly was such a plan, according to Moulton. I have no idea what TSM was or was not saying to donors. I am only looking at Sandusky's access to children. It is clear, from Moulton, that, as of January 2009, Sandusky was placed on the Childline registry.

Now, that is Moulton saying that. He had full access to the records, and he had no connection with anyone in the case, except Kane, who hired him (her one good choice).

Members of the charity admitted that Sandusky was kept around after 2009 for fundraising purposes but was not supposed to be involved in children's programs. However there are several instances where Jerry was attending activities for children, including the 2010 Summer Challenge Camp, a banquet in Clearfield, and another banquet in Philadelphia.

 

[rmb297]

didn't the state have special unit to investigate sex crimes against children? why wasn't this unit utilized to investigate Sandusky?

The child predator unit specializes in catching on-line predators. That wasn't Jerry's MO.
https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/Criminal/Child_Predator_Section/

 

[rmb297]

Gee, do tell why The Second Mile was telling donors in the Spring 2011 after the publication of Ganim's piece on 3/31/2011 that they had no idea what the article was about in regards to a "investigation" of Sandusky and the charity in regards to V1, that the article was just rumor and innuendo AND the donors should maintain their gift giving to TSM (some of whom were contributing massive sums of money)??? If DPW had indeed put a CPSL mandated "Protection Plan" in place in late 2008 as you claim, they would have had to tell TSM the nature of the allegations given to the AG by DPW according to Corbett's own 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application were: "The investigation concerns allegations of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties."

How is it possible that Jack Raykovitz sent a response to HPN and Ganim's article on 3/31/2011 that was published by HPN at the same time as the article where Raykovitz denies any knowledge of any "investigation" let alone a "Protection Plan" at TSM to protect the children against the potential of "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties" by TSM Employees??? Why hadn't TSM told donors of these accusations back in 2009 when TSM supposedly became aware of them then, genius??? Why would TSM allow a guy being accused of "The investigation concerns allegations of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties." be their primary face and fundraiser for the charity through 2010 when he supposedly "retired" from the charity????

Raykovitz's response was a dodge. He gave this very qualified statement.

Throughout our history, there have never been allegations made with regard to misconduct occurring during any Second Mile program.

Yes, no one approached them in during an event. Perhaps hours after or the morning after, BUT never during.

Friend Fitness? Jerry working out with kids. Complaints always happened after.

Raykovitz is a pretty good liar.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/message_from_the_second_mile_o.html

 

[Stufftodo]

Members of the charity admitted that Sandusky was kept around after 2009 for fundraising purposes but was not supposed to be involved in children's programs. However there are several instances where Jerry was attending activities for children, including the 2010 Summer Challenge Camp, a banquet in Clearfield, and another banquet in Philadelphia.

The banquets would not be children's activities, however. It would be like being in a theater or church, where children are present.

My point is, however, that as of 2008-09 he could no longer get clearance to be involved children's programs.

I would note that trying to get donations would not involve being with children.

 

[rmb297]

The banquets would not be children's activities, however. It would be like being in a theater or church, where children are present.

My point is, however, that as of 2008-09 he could no longer get clearance to be involved children's programs.

Did you miss the part about him being at Summer Camp in 2010? I also wouldn't conclude that Sandusky couldn't access a kid at a banquet given that NONE of the parents were told that Jerry wasn't allowed access. They were so used to seeing him one on one with kids that they'd have thought nothing if he and a child went somewhere.

Clinton County CYS admitted that it didn't put a protection plan in place. Rather, CYS called TSM to tell them they were severing ties.

The clearance issue wasn't being enforced by TSM.

We also have two victims who stated they were victimized by him into late 2009. Regardless of his appeal pending, he was supposed to stay away from kids.