• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Disgraced Former Penn State DC Jerry Sandusky (convicted child molester)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
alexhortdog95;2030695; said:
Wait a minute.

As a Husker fan, I don't feel comfortable being azz raped two weeks in a row by a team dressed in blue. Last week it was Northwestern. This week, seems like it will be PSU. I think I need to call Bo to see if we can boycott this game too.

Can we get the B1G to register as offenders?!?
Click to expand...
Sorry, after the way the Big XII treated you, especially in the CCG against Texas, we all just assumed you liked it.

Should've made your feelings more clear before you signed on the dotted line there.
 
Upvote 0
It saddeins me that on a day in which we should be acknowledging the accomplishments and memories of Joe Frazier that we have to spend our day talking about a complete and utter piece of shit like Sandusky. Ugh.
 
Upvote 0
BB73;2030690; said:
A question for the lawyers. There will undoubtedly be huge civil suits forthcoming against, PSU. Spanier, Sandusky, JoePa, Curley, Schultz, and others.

What has to happen before their assets can be frozen, in order to prevent those folks from stashing their money overseas or wherever, in an attempt to avoid losing almost all of their assets? Does at least one civil suit need to be filed first, and then a motion to have their assets frozen?
Click to expand...

A few considerations before going down the civil suit path. Penn State is cloaked with sovereign immunity, and all of the actors receive that protection when they are acting in the course of their employment with the university. Doesn't mean the university cannot be sued, but there are caps or an outright prohibition on punitive damages. I would guess PA has a fraudulent transfer law that could come into play in a civil suit situation.
 
Upvote 0
NateG;2030705; said:
It saddeins me that on a day in which we should be acknowledging the accomplishments and memories of Joe Frazier that we have to spend our day talking about a complete and utter piece of shit like Sandusky. Ugh.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a guy I worked with said, "I guess it's not a good week to be named Joe."
 
Upvote 0
BB73;2030690; said:
A question for the lawyers. There will undoubtedly be huge civil suits forthcoming against, PSU. Spanier, Sandusky, JoePa, Curley, Schultz, and others.

What has to happen before their assets can be frozen, in order to prevent those folks from stashing their money overseas or wherever, in an attempt to avoid losing almost all of their assets? Does at least one civil suit need to be filed first, and then a motion to have their assets frozen?
Click to expand...
Win your lawsuit first. Or file a prejudgment attachment motion after showing a likelihood of winning and that the defendant will move funds before a judgment, and post a bond in an amount a couple times the amount attached.

If you think about it, it is very onerous to have an accuser be able to control your assets before there is even a judgment saying that you did anything wrong and proof provided that the accuser was damaged in the amount claimed. That is why it is usually left to post-judgment efforts.
 
Upvote 0
LightningRod;2030706; said:
A few considerations before going down the civil suit path. Penn State is cloaked with sovereign immunity, and all of the actors receive that protection when they are acting in the course of their employment with the university. Doesn't mean the university cannot be sued, but there are caps or an outright prohibition on punitive damages. I would guess PA has a fraudulent transfer law that could come into play in a civil suit situation.
Click to expand...

In most states, I believe that is only partly true. State employees typically receive immunity for their actions or inactions that involve a degree of discretion, but where an act is to be performed without discretion (i.e., a ministerial act), then there is no immunity. It sounds to me like the law may remove all discretion from those officials who received notice of the allegations against Sandusky, in that they were required to report the allegations to the authorities. There may also have been a university policy requiring the disclosure of such allegations to authorities. If that is the case, there is a very strong argument, IMO, that we're dealing with ministerial acts to which governmental immunity does not attach.

Also, it should be made clear that the governmental/sovereign immunity defense would not apply to Sandusky himself.

EDIT: LightningRod sent me PA's statute waiving sovereign immunity, and it is much more narrow than CT's, which I was describing above. Depends on the case law flushing it out, I suppose, but I don't see a lot of uncertainty in the statute itself.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;2030722; said:
Win your lawsuit first. Or file a prejudgment attachment motion after showing a likelihood of winning and that the defendant will move funds before a judgment, and post a bond in an amount a couple times the amount attached.

If you think about it, it is very onerous to have an accuser be able to control your assets before there is even a judgment saying that you did anything wrong and proof provided that the accuser was damaged in the amount claimed. That is why it is usually left to post-judgment efforts.
Click to expand...

This is only partially right. I don't know state PA law, but I can say that I just helped a family freeze assets yesterday, in 24 hours.

There has to be a showing, under most state laws I know (this was GA), that there is a likelihood that the assets will be drawn away. In state court, this comes more to local politics than law. My case was a doctor who was prescribing drugs illegally to cons and being extorted for money against the trust for his kids. So you might need some pretty strong evidence like that.

Edit: actually, you're right. They have to have a duty first. Here there was a settlement contract. I'm not sure how stays work in state courts, but without a claim to the money already ruled upon I'm not sure how they would freeze things.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top