Spanier

[PSU2UNC]

Why can't Spanier rely on the newly discovered information that it was reported to CYS?

I don't think that's how the process works. Spanier won his appeal and got his case thrown out based on the ex post facto nature of the charge.

The OAG is appealing that. So that is the legal portion they can argue now.

I guess is Spanier loses, he could appeal based on new evidence being found, but am not 100% sure how that works.

 

[Cletus11]

If such an email existed, the TSM likely destroyed it in the shredder. Without evidence of the email, wouldn't they have to call someone as a witness to say there was an email? Would members of Freeh's team be willing to see men be charged and found guilty without saying anything? Do none have a conscience? Would it exist on a PSU server? How come nobody remembers it was in the file? How come nobody from PSU came forward including the person who reported it? Sounds fishy to me.

All this could have been avoided if one of them just said I believe it was reported. Prove otherwise.

so there was no true document that was ever unearthed that definitely showed the CYS/DPW was contacted by PSU. Jack Raycoviz is scum and the fact he got off scott free in all of this is second only to Jeffrey Epstein on obviously he was protected by some high priced people considering what he did and didn't do. The evidence that they are pointing to is basically circumstantial which is highly believable in my mind, but still circumstantial.

Did they ever actually get the notes from the attorney (i think his name was Wendall) that Schultz called and went over this situation with. I am still shocked to this day that those notes did not have information in them that would have been key to this whole ordeal.

 

[ouirpsu]

so there was no true document that was ever unearthed that definitely showed the CYS/DPW was contacted by PSU. Jack Raycoviz is scum and the fact he got off scott free in all of this is second only to Jeffrey Epstein on obviously he was protected by some high priced people considering what he did and didn't do. The evidence that they are pointing to is basically circumstantial which is highly believable in my mind, but still circumstantial.

Did they ever actually get the notes from the attorney (i think his name was Wendall) that Schultz called and went over this situation with. I am still shocked to this day that those notes did not have information in them that would have been key to this whole ordeal.

Maybe they did? How would anyone other than the Freeh team know?

 

[interrobang]

Looks like the federal courts sided with Shapiro. Unbelievable.

Ex-Penn State President Again Faces Jail Over Sandusky Abuse (1)

Former Penn State president Graham Spanier is again facing jail time for child-endangerment stemming from his decision not to report sexual abuse allegations against assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky to state authorities, after the Third Circuit on Tuesday reinstated his 2017 conviction...

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[nits74]

Unreal, but not unexpected. Not with one of Corbett's allies on the court. All politics, nothing more. Took them nearly six fuc#ing months to come up with this sh#t?

 

[francofan]

Looks like the federal courts sided with Shapiro. Unbelievable.

Ex-Penn State President Again Faces Jail Over Sandusky Abuse (1)

Former Penn State president Graham Spanier is again facing jail time for child-endangerment stemming from his decision not to report sexual abuse allegations against assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky to state authorities, after the Third Circuit on Tuesday reinstated his 2017 conviction...

news.bloomberglaw.com

I am guessing that former AG Mike Fisher voted to reinstate the conviction. Fisher is buddies with Tom Corbett and Frank Fina and it seems to me that he wants to prevent his friends from being held to account.

 

[francofan]

Looks like the federal courts sided with Shapiro. Unbelievable.

Ex-Penn State President Again Faces Jail Over Sandusky Abuse (1)

Former Penn State president Graham Spanier is again facing jail time for child-endangerment stemming from his decision not to report sexual abuse allegations against assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky to state authorities, after the Third Circuit on Tuesday reinstated his 2017 conviction...

news.bloomberglaw.com

Does anybody have a link to the third circuit opinion or can post the Bloomberg Law article as it is behind a paywall.

 

[interrobang]

That's the only reference to it I've found.

 

[slykens]

I grabbed the order and decision and dropped them here for people to view:

Spanier - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Just starting to look through, perhaps unsurprisingly Fisher wrote the opinion.

edit -

Fisher is wrong right off the bat. I'm amazed smart people can be as dumb as some of these people are.

Now I'm 15 pages in and up to my eyeballs in bullshit. Right now I'm happy I never became a lawyer. So far it seems the idea that Spanier had a tangential supervisory role of minor children allowed the charges under the 1995 act even though that wording didn't exist until 2007 - how that is when the children had no affiliation to the University whatsoever is beyond me. This is relying on the decision made in the Lynn case out of Philly in regards to Catholic abuse - they did the same to him and the state Supreme Court signed off on it.

Now up to page 20 - the Court has rejected two of the state's arguments here - that Spanier had not exhausted his appeals in state court and that the federal court is "bound to accept" the state court's interpretation. Continuing on the Court believes the judicial interpretation expanding the 1995 statute is not "unexpected and indefensible," and it is on this basis that the Court reverses the District Court.

I finished reading through it and there's a lot of bullshit in it - this line is particularly chilling in that it represents a moving goalpost allowing the government to change the rules to maintain a conviction:

Under clearly established federal law, state courts have considerable latitude to rule on the meaning of statutes, and this latitude extends to announcing a new rule of law to uphold a conviction—so long as the new rule is not unexpected and indefensible.

To be clear, that's not a decision here - I've just never seen a Court so plainly state that they'll change the rules to uphold a conviction if they feel like it.

 

[interrobang]

I would assume Spanier would appeal

 

[interrobang]

I grabbed the order and decision and dropped them here for people to view:

Spanier - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Just starting to look through, perhaps unsurprisingly Fisher wrote the opinion.

edit -

Fisher is wrong right off the bat. I'm amazed smart people can be as dumb as some of these people are.

Now I'm 15 pages in and up to my eyeballs in bullshit. Right now I'm happy I never became a lawyer. So far it seems the idea that Spanier had a tangential supervisory role of minor children allowed the charges under the 1995 act even though that wording didn't exist until 2007 - how that is when the children had no affiliation to the University whatsoever is beyond me.

Did Corbet himself write that opinion?

 

[lionville]

I am guessing that former AG Mike Fisher voted to reinstate the conviction. Fisher is buddies with Tom Corbett and Frank Fina and it seems to me that he wants to prevent his friends from being held to account.

When Fisher's name showed up as one of the judges it was all over for Spanier.

 

[odshowtime]

The only good thing to say about this right now is there are worse travesties to worry about. I think I'm finally over this.

The bad guys won and we live in a new world of lies and power.

 

[francofan]

Did Corbet himself write that opinion?

No, it was disgraced prosecutor Frank Fina.

It started with the knowingly false grand jury presentment of November, 2011 where Fina and Eshbach wrote in their statement of fact that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape.

Why won't the powers to be take a look at this case?? There is corruption in plain view. Fina has lost his license to practice law in Pennsylvania for a year and a day and now there is further clear and convincing evidence of his misdeeds. There is collusion between the OAG and the Freeh Group as well as the leaking of grand jury materials in plain view in the McChesney diary. Why is it so difficult to get a real investigation organized in a case that screams travesty of justice?

 

[francofan]

I grabbed the order and decision and dropped them here for people to view:

Spanier - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Just starting to look through, perhaps unsurprisingly Fisher wrote the opinion.

edit -

Fisher is wrong right off the bat. I'm amazed smart people can be as dumb as some of these people are.

Now I'm 15 pages in and up to my eyeballs in bullshit. Right now I'm happy I never became a lawyer. So far it seems the idea that Spanier had a tangential supervisory role of minor children allowed the charges under the 1995 act even though that wording didn't exist until 2007 - how that is when the children had no affiliation to the University whatsoever is beyond me. This is relying on the decision made in the Lynn case out of Philly in regards to Catholic abuse - they did the same to him and the state Supreme Court signed off on it.

Now up to page 20 - the Court has rejected two of the state's arguments here - that Spanier had not exhausted his appeals in state court and that the federal court is "bound to accept" the state court's interpretation. Continuing on the Court believes the judicial interpretation expanding the 1995 statute is not "unexpected and indefensible."

Thank you very much @slykens !

It is very interesting reading. The opinion is 34 pages and should be read by anyone who is interested in the case. I don't believe this will be the last word. The case still has a lot of legs imho.

 

[nits74]

No, it was disgraced prosecutor Frank Fina.

It started with the knowingly false grand jury presentment of November, 2011 where Fina and Eshbach wrote in their statement of fact that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape.

Why won't the powers to be take a look at this case?? There is corruption in plain view. Fina has lost his license to practice law in Pennsylvania for a year and a day and now there is further clear and convincing evidence of his misdeeds. There is collusion between the OAG and the Freeh Group as well as the leaking of grand jury materials in plain view in the McChesney diary. Why is it so difficult to get a real investigation organized in a case that screams travesty of justice?

I have to agree with odshowtime. Time to move on. It's all over.

 

[odshowtime]

I have to agree with odshowtime. Time to move on. It's all over.

Well I want the fight to continue, why not we're already totally disgraced? I just hope to not hang on every word anymore. The country is totally corrupt and now... [redacted for forum rules]

 

[francofan]

The only good thing to say about this right now is there are worse travesties to worry about. I think I'm finally over this.

The bad guys won and we live in a new world of lies and power.

I am not over this. There is no statute of limitations on the truth.

The bad guys may have won a few rounds, but the fat lady has not sung.

This story in still unfolding. Too many people know the truth for it to be burried forever.

 

[francofan]

I have to agree with odshowtime. Time to move on. It's all over.

You can move on if you want. Not me. I am here for the duration.

 

[odshowtime]

I am not over this. There is no statute of limitations on the truth.

The bad guys may have won a few rounds, but the fat lady has not sung.

This story in still unfolding. Too many people know the truth for it to be burried forever.

I wish Spanier the best but Chinatown was two hour movie not a decade long humiliation.

Keep fighting man I appreciate it.

 

[Obliviax]

I've seen enough of the criminal justice system to know that it is cleaner than the pit under a portapotty. If a prosecutor wants to take you down, they will. They have unlimited resources and a ton of ways to intimidate you. I know several people, totally innocent, who's lives have been ruined by the justice system refusing to drop bogus charges but keeping a felony charge over their heads for years and years. The only way to win is stop defending, and go after them.

 

[PearlSUJam]

Well I want the fight to continue, why not we're already totally disgraced? I just hope to not hang on every word anymore. The country is totally corrupt and now... [redacted for forum rules]

 

[odshowtime]

So glad I got to see Carlin live. At the Zembo Shrine in Harrisburg no less. He was not happy to be there which just made it better.

 

[bwifan]

I've seen enough of the criminal justice system to know that it is cleaner than the pit under a portapotty. If a prosecutor wants to take you down, they will. They have unlimited resources and a ton of ways to intimidate you. I know several people, totally innocent, who's lives have been ruined by the justice system refusing to drop bogus charges but keeping a felony charge over their heads for years and years. The only way to win is stop defending, and go after them.

You are so correct. 1 of my best friends spent 12 years in jail wrongly as it turned out the federal appeals judge and federal prosecutor were on the take with quid pro quo.... U.S. Govt still tried to play hardball even when the judge admitted on his death bed what happened and where the evidence was to back it up. The government has unlimited resources and will keep digging until they find something even if its unrelated to what you are currently charged with.... luckily my friend had the money to fight the U.S. Govt where his case was heard twice by the U.S. Supreme Court ... Stunned what he spent on the best lawyers out there and if he didn't have the money he would still be in prison. How many other people who don't have the funds to defend themselves have been wrongly sent to prison ... If the government wants you to take you down they will find a way...

 

[interrobang]

 

[bwifan]

View embedded media

Ahhhh the media all about clickbait and hype.... rather than post a pic of Spanier let's him the emotional button with clickbait pic of Sandusky

 

[Raffycorn]

I grabbed the order and decision and dropped them here for people to view:

Spanier - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Just starting to look through, perhaps unsurprisingly Fisher wrote the opinion.

edit -

Fisher is wrong right off the bat. I'm amazed smart people can be as dumb as some of these people are.

Now I'm 15 pages in and up to my eyeballs in bullshit. Right now I'm happy I never became a lawyer. So far it seems the idea that Spanier had a tangential supervisory role of minor children allowed the charges under the 1995 act even though that wording didn't exist until 2007 - how that is when the children had no affiliation to the University whatsoever is beyond me. This is relying on the decision made in the Lynn case out of Philly in regards to Catholic abuse - they did the same to him and the state Supreme Court signed off on it.

Now up to page 20 - the Court has rejected two of the state's arguments here - that Spanier had not exhausted his appeals in state court and that the federal court is "bound to accept" the state court's interpretation. Continuing on the Court believes the judicial interpretation expanding the 1995 statute is not "unexpected and indefensible," and it is on this basis that the Court reverses the District Court.

I finished reading through it and there's a lot of bullshit in it - this line is particularly chilling in that it represents a moving goalpost allowing the government to change the rules to maintain a conviction:

Under clearly established federal law, state courts have considerable latitude to rule on the meaning of statutes, and this latitude extends to announcing a new rule of law to uphold a conviction—so long as the new rule is not unexpected and indefensible.

To be clear, that's not a decision here - I've just never seen a Court so plainly state that they'll change the rules to uphold a conviction if they feel like it.

I think this passage is also instructive. It's a narrow issue, and they certainly appear to be setting it up for either the 3d Circuit's en banc review or review by the Supremes - which, of course, isn't guaranteed. There's a conflict in the federal case law, and in that case, they were deferential to what the state court decided. But typically, when a federal court takes the time to point out a conflict in its own laws, it's essentially asking a higher court to figure it out.

We acknowledge that, in some respects, this case is like Bouie—where there was a due process violation in the application of a state supreme court decision that changed the meaning of a state statute. Bouie, 378 U.S. at 361. But in other respects, this case is like Metrish—where there was no due process violation in the application of a state supreme court decision that struck down a widely relied-upon defense to criminal liability. Metrish, 569 U.S. at 365. Because of the equipoise in the case law, the habeas standard is particularly important here: the writ may not be granted unless the state court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). There can be no “possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Metrish, 569 U.S. at 357-58 (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102-03 (2011)). “[T]he petitioner must demonstrate that Supreme Court precedent requires [a] contrary outcome” to the state court decision. Rosen v. Superintendent, 972 F.3d 245, 252 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Matteo v. Superintendent, 171 F.3d 877, 888 (3d Cir. 1999) (en banc)). Here, Bouie and Metrish point in different directions, creating more than a possibility for fairminded disagreement. Therefore, we must reverse in light of “28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)’s demanding standard.” Metrish, 569 U.S. at 367."

However, as they can often do, they threw in the little "even if we could review it on the merits, the appellant loses" argument.

Even if we agreed with Spanier that the jury instruction improperly reflected the 2007 statute, we would still reverse. “[N]ot every ambiguity, inconsistency, or deficiency in a jury instruction rises to the level of a due process violation.” Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U.S. 433, 437 (2004). We consider the instruction “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record,” asking “‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72 (1991) (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 (1990)).

There is not a reasonable likelihood that the jury convicted Spanier on the basis of the contested jury instruction language—that is, by finding that he was “a person that employs or supervises” someone who is supervising the welfare of a child. App. 1307. The jury instruction at the beginning of the trial reflected the 1995 statute and did not include the “employs or supervises” language. App. 704. In his opening statement, Spanier followed suit, emphasizing that to convict, the jury would need to “find that [Spanier] knowingly endangered the welfare of a child by violating a duty of care, protection or support, to a child whose welfare he was supervising.” App. 739. And the Commonwealth’s theory of the case was that Spanier himself supervised the welfare of a child, not that he employed or supervised such a person. Although the prosecutor argued in closing that “[t]he buck stopped with” Spanier and that he was “the top of the food chain,” her repeated theme was that if Spanier, Schultz, and Curley had “call[ed] the authorities and let the authorities investigate it, . . . [t]hey wouldn’t have been responsible. But they took it upon themselves.” App. 1282. She continued with the theme that Spanier assumed responsibility for supervising the welfare of a child[.]

Therefore, it is not reasonably likely that the jury convicted Spanier because he employed someone who supervised the welfare of a child—rather than because he himself supervised the welfare of a child. On direct appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court took care to note how the record showed that Spanier himself was supervising the welfare of a child. It stated multiple times that because Spanier “personally oversaw [the university’s] response” to the abuse allegations, he “was clearly supervising a child’s welfare pursuant to Lynn.” Spanier, 192 A.3d at 153-54. The Court reached its conclusion that there was no error in the jury instruction in light of “the facts of this case.” Id. at 154. We agree with, and defer to, the Superior Court’s reasonable reading of the record. See Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179, 193-94 (2009) (holding that even if the jury instruction was ambiguous, the state courts reasonably concluded, after reviewing the trial record, that the jury’s conviction was not based on the incorrect understanding of the law that the defendant said the instruction had conveyed).

In sum, we conclude that there was no due process error with regard to the jury instruction. Under clearly established federal law, state courts have considerable latitude to rule on the meaning of statutes, and this latitude extends to announcing a new rule of law to uphold a conviction—so long as the new rule is not unexpected and indefensible. In addition, there is not a reasonable likelihood that the jury convicted based on the contested language in the jury instruction. Given the demanding standard on habeas corpus review of state-court convictions, we conclude that the District Court erred in granting the petition.

 

[nits74]

You can move on if you want. Not me. I am here for the duration.

That's OK, but there is not a thing either of us can do about it. It is defeat after defeat after defeat.

 

[IANit]

When Fisher's name showed up as one of the judges it was all over for Spanier.

Unreal, but not unexpected. Not with one of Corbett's allies on the court. All politics, nothing more. Took them nearly six fuc#ing months to come up with this sh#t?

Interesting that all 3 judges are Republican appointees and I'd guess Spanier is a Democrat. Party affiliation aside, it seems like they could have found someone who had nothing to do with Corbett et. al. to hear this. It certainly calls the opinion into question.

 

[Media Fan]

The school was in a lot better hands with Spanier than this fellow.

 

[TheGLOV]

The school was in a lot better hands with Spanier than this fellow.

Oswald was the way to go!

 

[psu7113]

I would assume Spanier would appeal

Unlikely the US Supreme Court would take the case.

 

[ChiTownLion]

Lots of quality responses to this tweet by Josh Shapiro.

 

[psu7113]

I grabbed the order and decision and dropped them here for people to view:

Spanier - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Just starting to look through, perhaps unsurprisingly Fisher wrote the opinion.

edit -

Fisher is wrong right off the bat. I'm amazed smart people can be as dumb as some of these people are.

Now I'm 15 pages in and up to my eyeballs in bullshit. Right now I'm happy I never became a lawyer. So far it seems the idea that Spanier had a tangential supervisory role of minor children allowed the charges under the 1995 act even though that wording didn't exist until 2007 - how that is when the children had no affiliation to the University whatsoever is beyond me. This is relying on the decision made in the Lynn case out of Philly in regards to Catholic abuse - they did the same to him and the state Supreme Court signed off on it.

Now up to page 20 - the Court has rejected two of the state's arguments here - that Spanier had not exhausted his appeals in state court and that the federal court is "bound to accept" the state court's interpretation. Continuing on the Court believes the judicial interpretation expanding the 1995 statute is not "unexpected and indefensible," and it is on this basis that the Court reverses the District Court.

I finished reading through it and there's a lot of bullshit in it - this line is particularly chilling in that it represents a moving goalpost allowing the government to change the rules to maintain a conviction:

Under clearly established federal law, state courts have considerable latitude to rule on the meaning of statutes, and this latitude extends to announcing a new rule of law to uphold a conviction—so long as the new rule is not unexpected and indefensible.

To be clear, that's not a decision here - I've just never seen a Court so plainly state that they'll change the rules to uphold a conviction if they feel like it.

I believe Spanier, as well as Curley and Schultz, were railroaded in this whole mess, not to mention Joe. Having said that, much of the commentary on this decision is misguided. It is not the role of the federal courts to sit in judgment of state court decisions on the merits of the case, or state appellate court decisions relative to the application of state law (which is how many of you are looking at this situation). Spanier lost at the state court level on the merits. I can’t recall offhand if he exhausted his state court appeals, but that doesn’t matter for purposes of what I am explaining. He then challenged his loss at the state court level in federal court (a relatively unusual move which only be done in limited circumstances) claiming that in the course of his prosecution and conviction his FEDERAL constitutional rights were violated. The issue in Spanier’s federal case, and the issue before the Third Circuit in this appeal, was not the factual merits of his state court case or interpretation of state law, but rather whether his prosecution and conviction based on a law that was not in effect at the time of his alleged crime constituted a violation of his right under the US Constitution warranting an overturning of his conviction. I express no opinion here on whether the Third Circuit was right or wrong in its determination, only that many of you are off base in your analysis of same.

 

[berklion]

Ooof, Nellie R kicked him square in the gonads.

 

[nits74]

I believe Spanier, as well as Curley and Schultz, were railroaded in this whole mess, not to mention Joe. Having said that, much of the commentary on this decision is misguided. It is not the role of the federal courts to sit in judgment of state court decisions on the merits of the case, or state appellate court decisions relative to the application of state law (which is how many of you are looking at this situation). Spanier lost at the state court level on the merits. I can’t recall offhand if he exhausted his state court appeals, but that doesn’t matter for purposes of what I am explaining. He then challenged his loss at the state court level in federal court (a relatively unusual move which only be done in limited circumstances) claiming that in the course of his prosecution and conviction his FEDERAL constitutional rights were violated. The issue in Spanier’s federal case, and the issue before the Third Circuit in this appeal, was not the factual merits of his state court case or interpretation of state law, but rather whether his prosecution and conviction based on a law that was not in effect at the time of his alleged crime constituted a violation of his right under the US Constitution warranting an overturning of his conviction. I express no opinion here on whether the Third Circuit was right or wrong in its determination, only that many of you are off base in your analysis of same.

Theoretically you are correct, and most here understand that and are not misguided. Just take a look at Shapiro's tweets as well as who sat on this court. To believe that this was anything other than another predetermined political hit job wrapped in legalese is a bit on the naive side. The judicial system in this country is ridiculously flawed.

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[IANit]

Unlikely the US Supreme Court would take the case.

He can ask for a rehearing en banc (the full third-circuit court of over 20 judges instead of a three-judge panel). Probably not that likely to succeed (1/1000 maybe from a blog by a lawyer that practices appellate law in the Third Circuit) , but he'll have to ask for that before trying to appeal to the Supreme Court anyway.

 

[pa108]

I grabbed the order and decision and dropped them here for people to view:

Spanier - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Just starting to look through, perhaps unsurprisingly Fisher wrote the opinion.

edit -

Fisher is wrong right off the bat. I'm amazed smart people can be as dumb as some of these people are.

Now I'm 15 pages in and up to my eyeballs in bullshit. Right now I'm happy I never became a lawyer. So far it seems the idea that Spanier had a tangential supervisory role of minor children allowed the charges under the 1995 act even though that wording didn't exist until 2007 - how that is when the children had no affiliation to the University whatsoever is beyond me. This is relying on the decision made in the Lynn case out of Philly in regards to Catholic abuse - they did the same to him and the state Supreme Court signed off on it.

Now up to page 20 - the Court has rejected two of the state's arguments here - that Spanier had not exhausted his appeals in state court and that the federal court is "bound to accept" the state court's interpretation. Continuing on the Court believes the judicial interpretation expanding the 1995 statute is not "unexpected and indefensible," and it is on this basis that the Court reverses the District Court.

I finished reading through it and there's a lot of bullshit in it - this line is particularly chilling in that it represents a moving goalpost allowing the government to change the rules to maintain a conviction:

Under clearly established federal law, state courts have considerable latitude to rule on the meaning of statutes, and this latitude extends to announcing a new rule of law to uphold a conviction—so long as the new rule is not unexpected and indefensible.

To be clear, that's not a decision here - I've just never seen a Court so plainly state that they'll change the rules to uphold a conviction if they feel like it.

I'm not a lawyer.
But I'm stunned at how conflicts of interest are routinely allowed in the legal profession.

Wasnt Fisher previously a PA state attorney?
Shouldnt that be an automatic conflict of interest?

The intellectual dishonesty here is truly discouraging. Thanks for highlighting the italics above.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

This was the expected and correct result.