Penn State Cult (Joe Knew)

[409fold]

Just curious... Does that belief apply only in the court of law, or does it also apply to everyday life?

Court of law only.

 

[Steve19]

I realize that some folks just have fun trolling others, but there is little doubt in my mind that some of the most ignorant, deluded fuc#s the world has ever seen post on behalf of the Penn State fan base.

 

[kujirakira]

Well, that has the potential to be a full-fledged circus. It's supposed to be limited to 50+ year olds, but yeah ......

I looked through the OLLI catalog, there is also a course in "Re-Investigating 9/11."

Meaning it will definitely be a circus. Guy is trying to preach to the Devil's Choir.
That's the "Paterno-and-Sandusky can do no wrong" demographic right there.

 

[kujirakira]

Sure, Baldwin should have made sure C/S/S knew the situation. She should have corrected Spanier the second he said "Baldwin is representing me." She didn't. And there's a significant chance she will be disbarred over this one.

But it is ALSO Judge Feudale's job to make sure there is no room for ambiguity. When he hears Baldwin say "I am representing PSU", then he hears C/S/S say "Baldwin is representing me personally", he needs to say "wait a second here." Making sure the defendants' rights are protected is part of HIS job.

And Judge Feudale messed that up. Judge Feudale has even admitted that he might have screwed up: "In hindsight, perhaps I erred in not asking follow up questions about the role of corporate counsel Baldwin." The courts have ruled that Judge Feudale did screw up.

How very convenient that Penn State is getting off thanks to technicalities perpetrated by PA's courts.

Follow the money.

Unless we're talking about Penn State

 

[409fold]

How very convenient that Penn State is getting off thanks to technicalities perpetrated by PA's courts.

But if the PA courts were trying to make sure "Penn State got off", they never convene a grand jury/charge C/S/S in the first place, right?

I don't think Judge Feudale maliciously screwed up. But it was a screw up. The DA (Frank Fina) could/should have caught this too, the opportunity was there.

 

[kujirakira]

But if the PA courts were trying to make sure "Penn State got off", they never convene a grand jury/charge C/S/S in the first place, right?

I don't think Judge Feudale maliciously screwed up. But it was a screw up. The DA (Frank Fina) could/should have caught this too, the opportunity was there.

Where did I say they were trying to get PSU off? I'm laughing at the obvious relief PA residents have in the convenient discovery that their own court is incompetent because they can't handle the truth.
In the realm of conspiracy theories, however, it's significantly more likely than airplanes being shot down w/o anyone noticing.

 

[Delaware Buck]

Sure, Baldwin should have made sure C/S/S knew the situation. She should have corrected Spanier the second he said "Baldwin is representing me." She didn't. And there's a significant chance she will be disbarred over this one.

But it is ALSO Judge Feudale's job to make sure there is no room for ambiguity. When he hears Baldwin say "I am representing PSU", then he hears C/S/S say "Baldwin is representing me personally", he needs to say "wait a second here." Making sure the defendants' rights are protected is part of HIS job.

And Judge Feudale messed that up. Judge Feudale has even admitted that he might have screwed up: "In hindsight, perhaps I erred in not asking follow up questions about the role of corporate counsel Baldwin." The courts have ruled that Judge Feudale did screw up.

What does it matter? What would C/S/S done differently had they understood the distinction? The answer is that they would have lied, lawyered up and generally been uncooperative with anyone including law enforcement. That's the bottom line and what you are purporting to advocate here.

As for Feudale, he's just another in a long line of people that have changed their view after the Paterno faction has applied all possible pressure. So the fact that he later admits some technicality is only further proof that the tail is wagging the dog again in PA.

 

[409fold]

As for Feudale, he's just another in a long line of people that have changed their view after the Paterno faction has applied all possible pressure. So the fact that he later admits some technicality is only further proof that the tail is wagging the dog again in PA.

So you are implying that Judge Feudale is corrupt!!! No offense, but I think there is nothing tangible you can point to to support your supposition.

Judge Feudale was somewhat inept. Judge Feudale failed to correctly do his job. Those things happen.

But there's a difference between not doing your job correctly (a forgivable mistake) versus being corrupt (which is not forgivable).

 

[Delaware Buck]

So you are implying that Judge Feudale is corrupt!!! No offense, but I think there is nothing tangible you can point to to support your supposition.

Judge Feudale was somewhat inept. Judge Feudale failed to correctly do his job. Those things happen.

But there's a difference between not doing your job correctly (a forgivable mistake) versus being corrupt (which is not forgivable).

The only thing that has separated you from the cultist on BWI is that you seemed to have a sense of hubris about PSU's role in the Sandusky matter. But the more you post about it, the more obvious it is that you are every bit as invested in maintaining the myth that PSU perpetuated for years - 'success with honor and we do it the right way'... As if it's so completely out of ordinary that people would simply want to ignore the kind of behavior that Sandusky exhibited for years. Like that has never happened in recent history or someplace else... such as a popular religious institution. You seem delighted that every legal action in the case that has been brought about by the Paterno faction has been successful in the PA courts - carefully explaining that this is just 'due process' and the justice system acting as it should. You've also managed to convince yourself that this can all be compartmentalized instead looked at in the greater sense where intent becomes much more obvious. Spare me the lecture on the legal process because I doubt you really give a rats ass about due process outside of the purview of this case.

Maybe your presence here is more to convince us that this was all just a big miscommunication and that there was no intent by C/S/S to cover for Jerry and that all three are innocent and that PSU has suffered undo harm at the hands of Freeh, your BOT and the press. And if that is your view then as someone already said above you are basically a cultist.

 

[409fold]

The only thing that has separated you from the cultist on BWI is that you seemed to have a sense of hubris about PSU's role in the Sandusky matter. But the more you post about it, the more obvious it is that you are every bit as invested in maintaining the myth that PSU perpetuated for years - 'success with honor and we do it the right way'... As if it's so completely out of ordinary that people would simply want to ignore the kind of behavior that Sandusky exhibited for years. Like that has never happened in recent history or someplace else... such as a popular religious institution. You seem delighted that every legal action in the case that has been brought about by the Paterno faction has been successful in the PA courts - carefully explaining that this is just 'due process' and the justice system acting as it should. You've also managed to convince yourself that this can all be compartmentalized instead looked at in the greater sense where intent becomes much more obvious. Spare me the lecture on the legal process because I doubt you really give a rats ass about due process outside of the purview of this case.

Maybe your presence here is more to convince us that this was all just a big miscommunication and that there was no intent by C/S/S to cover for Jerry and that all three are innocent and that PSU has suffered undo harm at the hands of Freeh, your BOT and the press. And if that is your view then as someone already said above you are basically a cultist.

Fair enough. I think that's a mis-characterization of me, and I am disappointed you have decided to venture down the "409fold is a cultist" road, but fair enough.

 

[Delaware Buck]

Fair enough. I think that's a mis-characterization of me, and I am disappointed you have decided to venture down the "409fold is a cultist" road, but fair enough.

I'm disappointed that you have managed to evade answering some very simple questions about the cases & instead focused on some technicalities as a means to justify the end. Since you have such polarized views on something like 9/11 this shouldn't be hard to answer so I'll ask again... were Spanier, Curley, Schultz & Paterno aware of Sandusky's activities in the shower? Did they report this to law enforcement? Did they make any effort to identity the kid in the shower? Did they have internal meetings to discuss an approach? Did those meetings produce a strategy that they all seemed to agree on? Those are simple questions that should either be yes or no and not require some sort of dissertation on the legal process and rights and nuances of protocol.

 

[409fold]

I'm disappointed that you have managed to evade answering some very simple questions about the cases & instead focused on some technicalities as a means to justify the end. Since you have such polarized views on something like 9/11 this shouldn't be hard to answer so I'll ask again... were Spanier, Curley, Schultz & Paterno aware of Sandusky's activities in the shower? Did they report this to law enforcement? Did they make any effort to identity the kid in the shower? Did they have internal meetings to discuss an approach? Did those meetings produce a strategy that they all seemed to agree on? Those are simple questions that should either be yes or no and not require some sort of dissertation on the legal process and rights and nuances of protocol.

I never said C/S/S were innocent! I said that C/S/S have Constitutionally protected rights --- and those should not get ignored regardless of how many folk view things in a Machiavellian manner. THAT is my opinion.

Not to get personal, but I've been there. My ex-wife was killed many years ago in a drunk driving accident in Northern Michigan. I was also in the car (driving) but obviously I survived.

Call me a wimp, pussy, bleeding-heart liberal, cultist, whatever ---- THAT guy, no matter my desire for justice: HE had/has Constitutionally protected rights too. The state is responsible for proving guilt, and they are responsible for doing so via certain procedures.

 

[kujirakira]

I'm seeing a lot more Machiavelli from the Penn State (esp Joe Cult) side of this than anywhere else.
It's rather weird to level that accusation at dispassionate observers.

 

[Delaware Buck]

I never said C/S/S were innocent! I said that C/S/S have Constitutionally protected rights --- and those should not get ignored regardless of how many folk view things in a Machiavellian manner. THAT is my opinion.

Not to get personal, but I've been there. My ex-wife was killed many years ago in a drunk driving accident in Northern Michigan. I was also in the car (driving) but obviously I survived.

Call me a wimp, pussy, bleeding-heart liberal, cultist, whatever ---- THAT guy, no matter my desire for justice: HE had/has Constitutionally protected rights too. The state is responsible for proving guilt, and they are responsible for doing so via certain procedures.

Sadly you didn't answer a single question I raised above. You keep deflecting and falling back on technicalities and speeches about rights and due process. I asked some very basic questions that could simply be answered yes or no. It's not complicated and this is your chance to get on the records instead of tap dancing around semantics.

FWIW, I predicted many pages ago in this thread and long before you showed up that these 3 would never see trial because the state just wants these cases to go away and nothing that has happened has changed my view. People have learned the hard way that taking on the Paterno acolytes is a losing proposition.

 

[409fold]

Sadly you didn't answer a single question I raised above. You keep deflecting and falling back on technicalities and speeches about rights and due process. I asked some very basic questions that could simply be answered yes or no. It's not complicated and this is your chance to get on the records instead of tap dancing around semantics.

FWIW, I predicted many pages ago in this thread and long before you showed up that these 3 would never see trial because the state just wants these cases to go away and nothing that has happened has changed my view. People have learned the hard way that taking on the Paterno acolytes is a losing proposition.

OK, I'll answer your questions --- although, let it be noted that in your 2 paragraph lecture as part of which you decided to unfairly label me as a "cultist", you never DID ask any questions. You only asked them afterwords.

Yes, no, no, yes, yes. In my opinion.

I don't think any of the above represents a change in long-term opinion from me.

So, a question back --- am I still a "cultist"? Yes or no?