ADVERTISEMENT

Recent motion in Paterno et al vs NCAA

Interrogatory number 12 (page 64 of the PDF) ........ it appears that the Paternos want the NCAA to answer this question:

"Please state with all specificity all facts that demonstrate the truth of the statement that Jay Paterno "ignored red flags of Jerry Sandusky's behaviors, and describe all steps taken by the NCAA before entering the Consent Decree to determine the accuracy of the statement."

For God's sakes ---- NOBODY ever claimed Jay Paterno screwed up as regards Jerry Sandusky. Nobody --- not Louis Freeh, the NCAA, me, or anybody else.

I'm sorry, but it looks like today's motion is a partial attempt to hit a Home Run as regards the Jay Paterno lawsuit against Penn State. Which is a lawsuit that is without merit.

It is NOT Louis Freeh or the NCAA's fault that Jay Paterno --- a man who is mentioned zero (!!!!!) times in the Freeh Report --- is not coaching football today!

UGH! Yes, I am 100% sick of Jay and wish he would go away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdahmus
PSU-Knocker said:
I'm sure a lot of posters would state that about you.
Click to expand...

Well, I teed that one up for you, right? :)

To my larger point, Jay Paterno was mentioned zero times in the Freeh Report and I think it's kind of silly how Jay is trying to tie Paterno v. NCAA to his own lawsuit versus Penn State.
 
michnittlion said:
Well, I teed that one up for you, right? :)

To my larger point, Jay Paterno was mentioned zero times in the Freeh Report and I think it's kind of silly how Jay is trying to tie Paterno v. NCAA to his own lawsuit versus Penn State.
Click to expand...

The consent decree relies on the "factual findings" of the Freeh Report to conclude, "Some coaches, administrators and program staff members ignored the red flags of Sandusky's behaviors and no one warned the public about him."

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Binding Consent Decree.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile, Victor E. Bell, Sharkies and 4 others
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile and Hotshoe
Chris92 said:
The consent decree relies on the "factual findings" of the Freeh Report to conclude, "Some coaches, administrators and program staff members ignored the red flags of Sandusky's behaviors and no one warned the public about him."

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Binding Consent Decree.pdf
Click to expand...

Nobody ---- and I mean literally nobody --- thinks that Jay Paterno is a part of that subset of "some coaches, administrators and program staff members ......."

Anyway, I predict Jay's lawsuit against Penn State will fail, and I'll tell you exactly why:

Sentence 176 on page 31. The statement "Before the execution of the consent decree, Jay Paterno was a top candidate for head coaching positions at comparable universities."

Uh huh. I'm sorry, but I find this claim rather incredible to believe.

There are many people here who like to see "proof" of things. I'd like to turn the tables and ask for "proof" of this claim. Jay, please name those schools seriously considering you for Head Coach, prior to the July 2012 consent decree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdahmus
michnittlion said:
Interrogatory number 12 (page 64 of the PDF) ........ it appears that the Paternos want the NCAA to answer this question:

"Please state with all specificity all facts that demonstrate the truth of the statement that Jay Paterno "ignored red flags of Jerry Sandusky's behaviors, and describe all steps taken by the NCAA before entering the Consent Decree to determine the accuracy of the statement."

For God's sakes ---- NOBODY ever claimed Jay Paterno screwed up as regards Jerry Sandusky. Nobody --- not Louis Freeh, the NCAA, me, or anybody else.

I'm sorry, but it looks like today's motion is a partial attempt to hit a Home Run as regards the Jay Paterno lawsuit against Penn State. Which is a lawsuit that is without merit.

It is NOT Louis Freeh or the NCAA's fault that Jay Paterno --- a man who is mentioned zero (!!!!!) times in the Freeh Report --- is not coaching football today!

UGH! Yes, I am 100% sick of Jay and wish he would go away.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine ANYONE in ANY SITUATION being more out to left field than you are wrt the meaning of this motion.

It is simply not worth any more of a comment than to say that you are either just intentionally trying to get a rise out of folks.......or you are the most obtuse creature to ever rise out of primordial ooze.

That little diatribe would put CR to the test.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe, step.eng69, pkg5002 and 2 others
bjf1984 said:
I can't imagine ANYONE in ANY SITUATION being more out to left field than you are wrt the meaning of this motion.

It is simply not worth any more of a comment than to say that you are either just intentionally trying to get a rise out of folks.......or you are the most obtuse creature to ever rise out of primordial ooze.

That little diatribe would put CR to the test.
Click to expand...

Interrogatory numbers 1 through 10 are absolutely valid questions to ask of the NCAA, as pertains to this particular lawsuit.

You know why I feel that way? Because all of interrogatory numbers 1 through 10 involve JOE Paterno. A man specifically mentioned several times in both the Freeh Report and the Consent Decree.

Now, JAY paterno ---- and Bill Kenney for that manner (interrogatory number 11) --- are absolutely irrelevant as regards the Freeh Report and Consent Decree. They're never mentioned even once in either of those documents! Why the hell do interrogatory numbers 11 and 12 imply that they are?

If I'm the NCAA, I just answer questions 11 and 12 as follows: "Kenney and Jay Paterno are NOT part of the 'some' in terms of 'some (PSU people) ignored the red flags of Sandusky's behaviors.' We never implied such, and I challenge the plantiffs to find one person on Planet Earth who thought they were part of said 'some.' As such, we find these two questions to be absurd and we refuse to answer beyond this."

Shoot, by Jay's logic, I guess our secretaries and training staff and uniform managers --- they may as well go sue Penn State too. Freeh and the Consent Decree indicated they are part of "some" too .............
 
Then the report should have specified who those coaches were. When you say some coaches it is up to each person's own discretion to determine who they believe to be those coaches. I am sure there are people who see "some coaches" and assume the head coach's son to be one of those coaches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victor E. Bell, BBrown, psuken and 1 other person
michnittlion said:
Interrogatory numbers 1 through 10 are absolutely valid questions to ask of the NCAA, as pertains to this particular lawsuit.

You know why I feel that way? Because all of interrogatory numbers 1 through 10 involve JOE Paterno. A man specifically mentioned several times in both the Freeh Report and the Consent Decree.

Now, JAY paterno ---- and Bill Kenney for that manner (interrogatory number 11) --- are absolutely irrelevant as regards the Freeh Report and Consent Decree. They're never mentioned even once in either of those documents! Why the hell do interrogatory numbers 11 and 12 imply that they are?

If I'm the NCAA, I just answer questions 11 and 12 as follows: "Kenney and Jay Paterno are NOT part of the 'some' in terms of 'some (PSU people) ignored the red flags of Sandusky's behaviors.' We never implied such, and I challenge the plantiffs to find one person on Planet Earth who thought they were part of said 'some.' As such, we find these two questions to be absurd and we refuse to answer beyond this."

Shoot, by Jay's logic, I guess our secretaries and training staff and uniform managers --- they may as well go sue Penn State too. Freeh and the Consent Decree indicated they are part of "some" too .............
Click to expand...
Don't be such a dope Michie.......you can take out every one of the items that makes mention of Jay in any way, and the gist of the motion doesn't change one iota.

Either you are the dumbest "lawyer" on the planet (and THAT is saying something) or you are so GD conflicted that you can't see straight - or - you are knowingly spewing propaganda based on any morsel of bullshit you can attempt to spin into gold.........or maybe a little of all three.

th
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown, richmin3 and simons96
bjf1984 said:
Don't be such a dope Michie.......you can take out every one of the items that makes mention of Jay in any way, and the gist of the motion doesn't change one iota.

Either you are the dumbest "lawyer" on the planet (and THAT is saying something) or you are so GD conflicted that you can't see straight - or - you are knowingly spewing propaganda based on any morsel of bullshit you can attempt to spin into gold.........or maybe a little of all three.

th
Click to expand...

Kick his ass, Seabass!

:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile, richmin3 and simons96
michnittlion said:
Because for the last 20 years, no person outside of Jay's father has found Jay worthy of offering a (football coaching) job to.
Click to expand...
Has Jay pursued such positions?

If it comes to a trial, how does the NCAA refute being the position coach of a Big offense POY and 1st Team QB?
 
According to the suit, Jay applied for head coaching positions at Connecticut, James Madison, Colorado and Boston College. Jay had worked at both Connecticut and James Madison. He also was turned down as a sports commentator. The contention is that the consent decree disparaged the coaches and the Paterno name. Jay was never given the opportunity of an interview. Their contention isn't that he should have gotten the job, but he was denied the opportunity due to Penn State's and the NCAA actions. At least, that's my interpretation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile, aferrelli, therod and 2 others
How seriously Jay was considered as a head coach somewhere, will be determined in court. As will everything else in this matter. However, the blanket statement about coaches could certainly include Jay and Bill Kenney.
 
ForesterGump said:
According to the suit, Jay applied for head coaching positions at Connecticut, James Madison, Colorado and Boston College. Jay had worked at both Connecticut and James Madison. He also was turned down as a sports commentator. The contention is that the consent decree disparaged the coaches and the Paterno name. Jay was never given the opportunity of an interview. Their contention isn't that he should have gotten the job, but he was denied the opportunity due to Penn State's and the NCAA actions. At least, that's my interpretation.
Click to expand...

That's as salient an observation as could be made.
 
ForesterGump said:
According to the suit, Jay applied for head coaching positions at Connecticut, James Madison, Colorado and Boston College. Jay had worked at both Connecticut and James Madison. He also was turned down as a sports commentator. The contention is that the consent decree disparaged the coaches and the Paterno name. Jay was never given the opportunity of an interview. Their contention isn't that he should have gotten the job, but he was denied the opportunity due to Penn State's and the NCAA actions. At least, that's my interpretation.
Click to expand...
Agree. Claiming also that at least some of these considered PSU coaches toxic b/c of the NCAA and consent decree
 
michnittlion said:
If I'm the NCAA, I just answer questions 11 and 12 as follows: "Kenney and Jay Paterno are NOT part of the 'some' in terms of 'some (PSU people) ignored the red flags of Sandusky's behaviors.' We never implied such, and I challenge the plantiffs to find one person on Planet Earth who thought they were part of said 'some.' As such, we find these two questions to be absurd and we refuse to answer beyond this."
Click to expand...

That would be a rather foolish response, as the obvious follow up is then "In that case, please state the specific names of the coaches, as well as the specific names of the administrators and program staff members, who you accused of ignoring the red flags of Sandusky's behaviors and failing to warn the public about him." The NCAA would then have to specifically name at least 2 Penn State coaches, at least 2 administrators, and at least 2 program staff members. Let's say Joe Paterno is one of the coaches, then who is the other? The response you suggest would force the NCAA to specifically name, and thereby effectively accuse, at minimum 6 people. Rock, meet hard place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doctornick, kgilbert78, LundyPSU and 1 other person
LundyPSU said:
Agree. Claiming also that at least some of these considered PSU coaches toxic b/c of the NCAA and consent decree
Click to expand...
Does anyone besides me think that Tom Bradley would have been immediately considered for a head coaching job were it not for the consent decree and Freeh's broad brush on implication and the fear of blow back?
 
robbrunskill said:
Does anyone besides me think that Tom Bradley would have been immediately considered for a head coaching job were it not for the consent decree and Freeh's broad brush on implication and the fear of blow back?
Click to expand...

There was enough rampant rumors about Urban Meyer that I feel compelled to believe the University was going to go outside the current staff to fill the head coaching position. I don't think Bradley would have gotten the job. I do think a lot fans assumed he would though.
 
robbrunskill said:
Does anyone besides me think that Tom Bradley would have been immediately considered for a head coaching job were it not for the consent decree and Freeh's broad brush on implication and the fear of blow back?
Click to expand...

UCLA wanted to hire him as DC a couple of years ago but had to wait for the situation to cool down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown
LionFan96 said:
That would be a rather foolish response, as the obvious follow up is then "In that case, please state the specific names of the coaches, as well as the specific names of the administrators and program staff members, who you accused of ignoring the red flags of Sandusky's behaviors and failing to warn the public about him." The NCAA would then have to specifically name at least 2 Penn State coaches, at least 2 administrators, and at least 2 program staff members. Let's say Joe Paterno is one of the coaches, then who is the other? The response you suggest would force the NCAA to specifically name, and thereby effectively accuse, at minimum 6 people. Rock, meet hard place.
Click to expand...

Why would they have to name 2 coaches? The definition of "some" doesn't imply more than one.

There are 10 cookies sitting on my desk. I take one cookie and eat it. I have eaten some of the 10 cookies.
 
robbrunskill said:
Does anyone besides me think that Tom Bradley would have been immediately considered for a head coaching job were it not for the consent decree and Freeh's broad brush on implication and the fear of blow back?
Click to expand...
Well, Bradley is not a plaintiff. However, we do know he was considered for head coaching positions in prior years.
 
michnittlion said:
Why would they have to name 2 coaches? The definition of "some" doesn't imply more than one.

There are 10 cookies sitting on my desk. I take one cookie and eat it. I have eaten some of the 10 cookies.
Click to expand...
some (pronoun) - an unspecified number or amount of people or things

Note that is says "people". So using Louis the Liar language it is reasonable to conclude "some" means more than one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMS1950
michnittlion said:
Why would they have to name 2 coaches? The definition of "some" doesn't imply more than one.

There are 10 cookies sitting on my desk. I take one cookie and eat it. I have eaten some of the 10 cookies.
Click to expand...

"coaches" = plural, as in more than 1. 2 is the minimum whole number that is more than 1. Hence, they would have to name at least 2 coaches. If it said "a coach", that would be singular, meaning 1. Furthermore, the word "some" is an indefinite pronoun and can be singular or plural, depending on what it's referring to. In this case, it's referring to "coaches" and is therefore plural.
 
joeparules said:
some (pronoun) - an unspecified number or amount of people or things

Note that is says "people". So using Louis the Liar language it is reasonable to conclude "some" means more than one.
Click to expand...
Here's a ridiculous scenario to show the stupidity of the NCAA. Imagine if someone came forward claiming they were in possession of a video which showed "some" BoT members engaging in sexual activity with an animal. That is certainly an activity which others would find deviant and highly offensive. Since the claim is vague and only claims it was "some" BoT members, the general public would naturally cast a suspicious eye toward "all" BoT members since there would be no way of knowing exactly which BoT members were the deviants. That is the problem with broad brush accusations. When something is that serious the accuser needs to be prepared to offer specifics. Offer up your evidence and if no such evidence exists be prepared to issue apologies and a public admission of error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pkg5002, aferrelli, Keyser Soze 16801 and 2 others
michnittlion said:
Why would they have to name 2 coaches? The definition of "some" doesn't imply more than one.

There are 10 cookies sitting on my desk. I take one cookie and eat it. I have eaten some of the 10 cookies.
Click to expand...


And - the true pity - is that he is NOT really that stupid.
 
michnittlion said:
Why would they have to name 2 coaches? The definition of "some" doesn't imply more than one.

There are 10 cookies sitting on my desk. I take one cookie and eat it. I have eaten some of the 10 cookies.
Click to expand...

If you take one cookie, it demonstrates two things.

1. One does not equate to some. It's only one.
2. You have far more willpower than I do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 71camaro
In a recent Michigan government conference (at a fancy resort, of course), a State Rep stated that Michigan was in terrible shape -- just like a 'Third World Country'.

No recycling, no car inspections, no road repair, coal fired electric plants, high taxes..........seems MichNitLion has been infected by this loser mentality. It pervades the entire state -- unfortunately visiting recruits are not shown these daily headlines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
retsio said:
In a recent Michigan government conference (at a fancy resort, of course), a State Rep stated that Michigan was in terrible shape -- just like a 'Third World Country'.

No recycling, no car inspections, no road repair, coal fired electric plants, high taxes..........seems MichNitLion has been infected by this loser mentality. It pervades the entire state -- unfortunately visiting recruits are not shown these daily headlines.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, in a recent poll, the #1 state in the United States was deemed to be Michigan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 71camaro
retsio said:
In a recent Michigan government conference (at a fancy resort, of course), a State Rep stated that Michigan was in terrible shape -- just like a 'Third World Country'.

No recycling, no car inspections, no road repair, coal fired electric plants, high taxes..........seems MichNitLion has been infected by this loser mentality. It pervades the entire state -- unfortunately visiting recruits are not shown these daily headlines.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I would use state government in an argument for either the state of Michigan or Pennsylvania. IMO both states suck the big one in that category.
 
michnittlion said:
Why would they have to name 2 coaches? The definition of "some" doesn't imply more than one.

There are 10 cookies sitting on my desk. I take one cookie and eat it. I have eaten some of the 10 cookies.
Click to expand...
But you know the answer and a legal mind would say you took one. Some implies an unknown amount. Here, let me educate you

You plan on taking a cookie. I tell you some of the cookies have ex-lax in them. You still gonna take one?
 
psuro said:
There was enough rampant rumors about Urban Meyer that I feel compelled to believe the University was going to go outside the current staff to fill the head coaching position. I don't think Bradley would have gotten the job. I do think a lot fans assumed he would though.
Click to expand...

Yes. Look at the other hires for PSU jobs over the 5 years or so preceding 2011. I think only one had any kind of PSU credential at all--and that was as a volunteer coach early in that coach's career.
 
robbrunskill said:
Does anyone besides me think that Tom Bradley would have been immediately considered for a head coaching job were it not for the consent decree and Freeh's broad brush on implication and the fear of blow back?
Click to expand...

Of course. Just not at PSU. He was toxic for a year or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ten Thousan Marbles

More to ignore, Book 13....

Replies
95
Views
3K
Current Events Board
Ten Thousan Marbles
Ten Thousan Marbles
B

For my friends on the left wondering why everything they were told and believed RE Covid turned out to be wrong....

Replies
84
Views
8K
Current Events Board
interrobang
I
B

RE Masks, for those who can understand science and prefer it guide us rather than politics...

Replies
81
Views
5K
Current Events Board
m.knox
M
J

Blue Tribe vs Red Tribe

Replies
12
Views
2K
Current Events Board
bourbon n blues
B
Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy

GUESS WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF AMERICA'S "PIZZA CONNECTION" ...Go ahead and guess!

Replies
0
Views
2K
Penn State Football
Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy
Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back