Arkansas farmers lead revolt against caps after being slammed by Bayer

Well with Arkansas standing up for itself, I guess it is just Mississippi left. So Bayer please send all your defective mutant rice, cotton, grain,  pesticides  and  fertilizers  to Mississippi. Because like the Honey Badger "In Mississippi business doesn’t have to care and can take what it wants." Wipe out the state's cotton crop; we have caps for you, best in the land! Wipe out half the wildlife in the Delta, deer, ducks, hogs, (That would actually be a good thing) no problem we have caps upon caps for you. Best of all if you accidently poison or wipe out a small town, you drivers get drunk run over a school bus, or you have Sandusky’s like employee who rapes a few dozen small children, even if you get caught, we have caps and damages limits for you can't believe. Our Chamber can say with great pride nowhere other than 1940's Nazi Germany is it cheaper to kill people and cause mayhem. (If you don't understand this reference ask your Jewish friend and let him tell you what company made most of the poison that was used in bath houses in the Nazi concentration camps.)

If you have any experimental products that may backfire don't waste time trying them out in the third world, bring them to Mississippi. It is cheaper than paying off all those South American and African Officials, or dealing with bad press from the BBC or Reuters. The press will write what ever you want them do in Mississippi. "They don't give a damn." The politicians are eager to do what you want. You probably will not even have to bribe them.

So bring all those experimental products, dangerous chemicals and fertilizers to Mississippi Bayer. Life is cheap here, cheaper ....
even than in Arkansas!






http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article.aspx?aID=129431.54928.141573

Maybe somebody does actually ready this crap..(LOL)

Are the Supremes about to fix this mess? Maybe they drive on rural roads with creaky bridges sometimes.....stay tuned


JACKSON, Miss. — The Mississippi Supreme Court will hear an appeal from Don F. McElroy, who claims he is owed compensation from Simpson County for injuries he suffered in a 2004 accident.
The state Court of Appeals in April reversed a local judge's ruling that found the county liable for failing to exercise ordinary care in placing warning signs along the road where McElroy was hurt.
McElroy sued the county after he drove over a washed out road. McElroy said he didn't see any warning signs.
County officials said road crew put up two warning signs and strands of yellow warning tape across the road, with fluorescent streamers hanging between the strands of tape.
A trial judge ruled the county's signs were inadequate.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/cdcef8f46be0495d9a763fa84be6ab73/MS--McElroy-Appeal/



The origianl injustice of the week post from  April:

As Homer Simpson said to Bart, Worst one..so far.

Choice to not have safe roads...
 

The Mississippi Supreme Court and the people in the legislature have in their lack a wisdom left a huge hole in who and what you can hold a government responsible for. It is called the discretionary exception or (9)I defenses.

This is why I very rarely handle any cases against any state or government agency. Government has a different set of rules then we do. We are guilty if we are negligent. They are only liable is they fail to do a ministerial duty that they are required to do under law. If there is any discretion involved at all or choice involved they are immune. Almost everything in life involves a choice. If someone gets killed or injured then and someone else is at fault a bad choice was always made. Otherwise, how can they be at fault? Even if they used taxpayer money to buy millions in insurance and people die, even if hundreds of people die as a result. Major bridge out, etc. They are immune. This is nuts.

Here are the Facts:Ok, in their defense they are apply the law as they understand it. But here the law is truly an ass. On February 5, 2004, heavy rains pounded Simpson County, washing out a culvert below Shorter Road, a county-maintained road. (Happens all the time)That evening, local residents notified the County of the washout. The County’s road manager, Gary Sullivan, sent road foreman,William "Red" Busby, to close the road. The residents watched as Busby and his crew placed on each side of the washout two-foot by two-foot white fiberglass signs with "Road Closed" painted in fluorescent orange. The crew also strung two strands of four-inch wide yellow warning tape across the road, with fluorescent streamers hanging between the strands of tape. Afterwards, they left Shorter Road to work on other road hazards created by the storm.

¶4. Early the following morning, McElroy drove across the washout at fifty miles per hour. (The speed limit?)His truck struck the hole created by the washout, badly injuring his knee. He testified he did not see any warnings signs or warning tape. (Nobody did as they were likely gone or blow down by morning duh?)
¶5. McElroy sued the County under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA). He alleged the County (1) failed to properly design, construct, and maintain Shorter Road and (2) failed to warn of the dangerous condition caused by the washout. The County moved for summary judgment on both claims, arguing the County was entitled to immunity under Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-46-9(1). The circuit court reserved its ruling on the County’s motion until after evidence was presented at a bench trial.
¶6. The circuit judge found McElroy failed to meet his burden of proof on his road design, construction, and repair claim and entered judgment in favor of the County on that claim. But the circuit judge found McElroy’s failure-to-warn claim was controlled by Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-46-9(1)(b), which he concluded "requires that ordinary care be exercised in the warning of dangerous conditions." (Standard that would apply to you and me)
The circuit judge held that the County failed to exercise ordinary care by using inadequate signs "in light of the attendant weather circumstances." The judge found the
signs used to close Shorter Road must have blown away in the night. He reasoned that instead of using the signs which were in the back of Busby’s truck, Busby should have gone to the County’s storage barn to get larger signs and barricade.
 Appeals Courts analysis. The court decided that the Judge cant even review anything about putting out warning signs or just saying screw it as it is a discretionary fuction.

We must determine if government conduct is an immune discretionary function. Id. at 1250 (¶26)(citing Jones v. Miss. Dep’t of Transp., 744 So. 2d 256, 260 (¶11) (Miss. 1999)). First, "whether the activity involved an element of choice or judgment." Id. (citations omitted).And, if so, we next ask whether the activity involved social, economic, or political policy.Id.; see also Dancy, 944 So. 2d at 16 (¶18).
A. Choice or Judgment¶20. To answer this first question, we ask whether the Busby’s action was discretionary or ministerial. Knight v. Miss. Transp. Comm’n, 10 So. 3d 962, 968 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App.2009). "A duty is discretionary if it requires an official to use her own judgment and discretion in order to carry out the duty." Id. (citing Dancy, 944 So. 2d at 16 (¶19)). (Pretty Much everything they do.)"On the other hand, a duty is ministerial and not discretionary if it is imposed by law and its performance is not dependent on the employee’s judgment." Id. (citations and quotations omitted); see also Covington County Sch. Dist. v. Magee, 29 So. 3d 1, 4 (¶8) (Miss. 2010) (describing an act as ministerial if "its performance [is] required at a time and in a manner or upon conditions which are specifically designated"). ¶21. McElroy fails to cite any law or regulation that specifically directed the conduct of
Busby and his crew when closing Shorter Road and left them no choice in what warnings signs to use. We reject his argument that Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-46-9(1)(v) created a ministerial duty to warn of dangerous conditions. (We would want that would we, it makes too much sense.) Like subsection 9(1)(b), subsection 9(1)(v) confers immunity, specifically for failure to warn of unknown or open and
DISCUSSION¶10. There are two distinct reasons we cannot affirm the judgment of the circuit court. First, the circuit court’s basis for imposing liability—Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-
¶11. Second, though the County did have a common-law duty to warn drivers of known dangerous road conditions, in this case, it was shielded against McElroy’s claim for breach of that duty. (They say they have a duty just nothing anyone can do about it when they breach it. So is it really a duty at all?) Because the circuit court failed to apply the immunizing provision found in Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-46-9(1)(d), we have no choice but to reverse its award of tort damages against the County and render a judgment in favor of the County........
The second prong of the public-function test limits the scope of discretionary-function immunity to "only those functions which by nature are policy decisions, whether made at theoperational or planning level." Dancy, 944 So. 2d at 16 (¶17) (citations omitted). "The purpose of the exception is to prevent judicial second-guessing of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the
medium of an action in tort." Id. (OR USE OF COMMON SENSE WE CANT HAVE THAT IN GOVERNMENT)¶24. We find the County’s use of road-closure signs involved economic policy. The County’s road manager, Sullivan, testified the County limited its budget for road signs and barricades. To save money, his department made hand-painted fiberglass signs, including the ones Busby placed on Shorter Road. Sullivan testified it was his department’s policy to use barricades and purchased signs for planned road closures, such as construction projects, and to use the "homemade" signs for temporary closures, such as bad weather conditions. (A/K/A USE THE CRAPPY SIGNS FOR THE REALLY DANGEROUS STUFF LIKE FLOODED BRIDGES) In using the fiberglass signs in the back of his truck, Busby was following County procedure, grounded in economic policy. By finding the County liable in tort for Busby’s failure to usemore expensive (albeit sturdier) signs, the circuit court was second-guessing the County’sadministrative decision to use the "homemade" signs for temporary road closures. (Probably because he drives those same roads and found it stupid) ¶25. Because the County’s actions also meet second-prong of the public-function test, the County was performing a discretionary function and is, therefore, shielded from liability under Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-46-9(1)(d). Cf. Webb v. County of Lincoln,536 So. 2d 1356, 1358-59 (Miss. 1988) (citing State v. Lewis, 498 So. 2d 321, 323 (Miss.1986)) (finding county immune for failure to replace stop sign at dead-end street because decision of which roads to repair involved economic considerations); (WE DONT NEED NO STINKING STOP SIGNS) Knight, 10 So. 3d at 970 (¶28) (finding duty to place warning signs clearly requires the policy considerations in doing so); Barrentine, 913 So. 2d at 39 (¶8) (finding placement or non-placement of warning signs a discretionary governmental function immune from liability under Miss. Code Ann.§ 11-46-9(1)(d)). (IE THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO SQUAT. WHAT A COUNTRY!)obvious dangerous conditions on government property.2 It does not conversely impose a prescribed time and manner for warning of known, non-obvious dangerous conditions.¶22. Busby exercised his judgment when he chose to use the signs readily available in his truck rather than leave Shorter Road to retrieve barricades and other signs. The circuit court acknowledged as much, stating Busby "chose to utilize the aforesaid method of warning." Busby’s actions were discretionary, not ministerial. Thus, we find the County meets the first prong of the discretionary-function test. And we note this finding is consistent with other cases holding that warning of road hazards is a discretionary duty. See, e.g., Knight, 10 So. 3d at 970 (¶¶26-27) (placement of highway warning signs discretionary); Willing, 958 So. 2d at 1250-53 (¶¶28-33) (method of warning of icy patch on highway discretionary); Barrentine, 913 So. 2d at 393 (¶8) (failure to place warnings signs on bridge discretionary).........4-46-9-(1)(b)—does not apply to this case. Subsection 9(1)(b) only applies to claims arisingout of the exercise of ordinary care in performing a statute, ordinance, or regulation. And the circuit court found the County neither performed a statute, ordinance, or regulation nor exercised ordinary care.　Hence, they decided the Judge that lived in the county, knows the supervisors and what goes on daily is wrong and the County's insurance company a/k/a Goldman Sachs or someone like them them owes this poor guy nothing. Oh well, there is always food stamps for him and free cheese too. (You and I will pay for this basically.) He is lucky some of the guys in cases they cited like where the bridges are out are dead.

So what does this mean to you and I? Why should you give a damn? If you don't drive a car or know someone who does, well it shouldn't. This means that the road departments we pay our taxes too don't really have to do anything to warn us about down trees or power lines they know about, missing stop signs, bridges that are out, and now washed out roads. (All these from actual cases.) Think about that the next time you are driving down a dark Mississippi road in the country. The Judge in this case sure did, and he knew the county could and should do better. The Court of Appeals Judges didn't. They are probably all going to just drive on interstates. Now when a Federal judge or Congressman drives into a river because the County didn’t want to put up a "bridge is out" sign,(All the local people knew that bridge went out when it was a heavy rain anyway), maybe we will see a change. Until then, I suggest great caution when driving on dark roads particularly in bad weather. Come to think of it, I think a US Supreme Court Judge is is going be up in Simpson County in a few. I hope it is not raining or maybe they will use the good signs for him.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/cdcef8f46be0495d9a763fa84be6ab73/MS--McElroy-Appeal/

Updates at Pedophile State University Friday morning

With apologies to all the good people at Penn State but I will continue to call you that until everyone is fired, and you hire an independant lawfirm to review this situation, and for good sakes tear those showers out..now.

Guys 80% chance McQueary or his dad is the whistler blower or one of them to State's AG. Think about it, why else would he still be there?

McQueary will not attend Nebraska game; his father says he'd speak if he could

Rana L. Cash Sporting News

• Rana L.'s Archive
• E-Mail Rana L.
• Subscribe to RSS

Text size A A A

The father of Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary says if he could, his son would discuss the child sex abuse scandal that has led to the firing of coach Joe Paterno.
“It’s not that he’s not willing,” John J. McQueary, told The New York Times. “I think it’s eating him up not to be able to tell his side, but he’s under investigation by the grand jury. He’ll make it. He’s a tough kid.”

Penn State assistant Mike McQueary, left, has come under fire for not doing more to stop the child sex abuse he witnessed in 2002. (AP Photo)

McQueary has for now been retained by the university, but will not coach Saturday against Nebraska because of multiple threats made against him, the school announced Thursday night. He won't even be in attendance at the game. But everyone around McQueary—Paterno, athletic director Tim Curley, vice president of finance Gary Schultz and school president Graham Spanier—have either lost their jobs, stepped down or stepped aside. Former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky is facing 40 criminal sex charges. Schultz and Curley have been charged with perjury for allegedly lying under oath.
And McQueary, the man who told prosecutors he saw Sandusky sexually assaulting one of the alleged eight victims, has remained unscathed. McQueary says he told Paterno what he’d witnessed on March 1, 2002, and more than a week later, shared the same story with Curley and Schultz—that upon going into the locker room to put away a pair of shoes and grab some film around 9:30 p.m., he heard activity in the shower. He turned to see Sandusky having sex with a boy who appeared to be about 10 years old.
McQueary called his father, a prominent local youth coach and an executive for a large medical and surgical group. The young coach never tried to stop the assault and never called police, and for that he has come under extreme scrutiny.
According to sources who spoke to the Times, McQueary did not withhold details when he talked to Paterno the morning after the alleged incident.
Weeks later, Times sources say, he was told Sandusky would be prohibited from bringing children from his charity, The Second Mile, onto campus. There is no way of telling today whether McQueary, who is married and has a young child, was angered or satisfied with the university’s response.
Now, McQueary is expected to be a key witness for the prosecution’s case against Sandusky, Curley and Schultz. The man he admired and loved, Paterno, is out.
The State College, Pa. native who wanted nothing more as a kid than to play at Penn State is in the line of fire, deservedly so or not. Like Paterno, he has not been implicated by authorities for any wrongdoing.
After redshirting one year, then playing behind Kerry Collins and Wally Richardson, he got his first break as a senior. The Nittany Lions started the year ranked No. 1 in the country and finished 9-3 in 1997.
McQueary never caught on in professional football and returned to school in 1999 to pursue his master’s degree. He joined the staff as a graduate assistant in 2000 and soon was made a full-time member of the staff, working as the receivers coach and recruiting coordinator.
His shock of bright orange hair got plenty of attention. He was also often singled out by Paterno on the sidelines when the coach was angry. When Paterno, 84, had to lead from the coaches’ box this season due to an injury, he communicated through one person on the sidelines: McQueary.
He’ll have just as big of a role, if not bigger, when he's back on the sidelines. Asked Thursday why McQueary is still on the staff and Paterno is not, Bradley did not answer.
The investigation, he said, continues and he’s been advised by council to not speak about the case.
McQueary isn’t talking either. But if he could, he would, his father says.

Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2011-11/penn-state-scandal/story/mike-mcquearys-father-son-would-talk-if-he-could-penn-state-sex-scandal?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl7%7Csec1_lnk2%7C111677#ixzz1dPXDix8g

 

 

JOE PA hires criminal lawyer.

 

 

Sacked Penn State Joe Paterno hires criminal lawyer, reports claim

Penn State University struggled to stem the damage from a sex abuse scandal that ended the career of American football coach Joe Paterno, one of the most revered figures in US sports.

Former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky (left) and Joe Paterno Photo: AP/GETTY IMAGES

11:57AM GMT 11 Nov 2011

Mr Paterno, 84, was sacked on Wednesday after it was revealed he was told in 2002 that his former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky engaged in allegedly sexually inappropriate behavior with a young boy in a campus locker room. While Paterno told his boss, he did not call the police.

NBC News reported that Paterno had hired prominent Washington criminal defense lawyer J. Sedgwick Sollers. Paterno has not been charged with any crimes in the Sandusky case.

A spokesman for Sollers' firm, King and Spalding, could not confirm the report. But Scott Paterno, one of Paterno's sons, tweeted: "No lawyer has been retained."

Separately, the university's athletic department said that Mike McQueary, one of the football team's coaches and a central figure in the sex abuse scandal, would not take part in Saturday's game against the University of Nebraska. It cited "multiple threats" against him.

McQueary was a graduate assistant in 2002 when he saw Sandusky allegedly raping a young boy in the locker room showers. He reported the incident to his supervisors, including Paterno, but not to the police.

 

Police have plans to boost security at Penn State's final home football game on Saturday, although interim head coach Tom Bradley said he was not concerned about the safety of players.
"We are obviously in a very unprecedented situation," Bradley told a news conference. "I am going to find a way to restore confidence and start a healing process with everybody."
Sandusky was charged on Saturday with sexually abusing eight young boys over more than a decade and former Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and former finance official Gary Schultz, were charged with failing to report an incident.
Sandusky, Curley and Schultz have all denied the charges.
Along with Paterno, Penn State University President Graham Spanier was also fired after 16 years in the job.
In a statement hours before he was sacked on Wednesday, Paterno announced he would resign and said, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."
He met his legal obligation by reporting the abuse allegation to Curley, legal experts said.
But he stands accused of moral failings for not calling police.

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8883474/Sacked-Penn-State-Joe-Paterno-hires-criminal-lawyer-reports-claim.html

 

 

 

 

Locals call into sports shows etc saying rumors for years that Sandusty was running a child sex ring for prominaent alumini. Think Vanilla sky with little boys. Can this get any worse?

 

Mark Madden Floats Jerry Sandusky Child Sex Ring Rumor

Share:

by NowPublic Staff | November 10, 2011 at 03:24 pm

776 views | 0 Recommendations | add comment

Was Jerry Sandusky Running a Child Sex Ring through Second Mile?
Radio host Mark Madden went on Boston's WEEI and said, "There's a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the Second Mile Foundation -- and hold on, this is gross, I will use the only language I can -- that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors. That is being investigated by two prominent columnists even as I speak."

• Mark Madden WEEI Interview: Audio

Deadspin's Dom Cosentino, describing Mark Madden as a "professional troll", isn't entirely ready to believe the radio personality without some sort of proof. The Sandusky sex-ring story has been knocking around the internet already, but that doesn't make it fact.

• Jerry Sandusky Sex Abuse Case: Timeline
• Penn State Riot Video

Cosentino cites an exchange with an unnamed Pittburgh journalist, who warns that, while Mark Madden may be a troll, he used to be a good reporter. (Just because he covers professional wrestling, doesn't mean he's not good at his job.)
A rumor like this has legs because it makes an already-horrible story even worse. After all, the Second Mile Foundation has tremendous reach in Pennsylvania, and knew about the allegations against Jerry Sandusky for 10 years before even starting to do anything about it. Jerry Sandusky was indicted by a grand jury of sexual assaulting eight boys between 1994 and 2009.

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Mark Madden Floats Jerry Sandusky Child Sex Ring Rumor | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mark-madden-floats-jerry-sandusky-child-sex-ring-rumor-2858489.html#ixzz1dPaf10bg

 

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mark-madden-floats-jerry-sandusky-child-sex-ring-rumor-2858489.html

 

Questions remain at Penn State

By Brian Tabakin
November 11, 2011
Section: Sports

Even though Penn State fired Joe Paterno, the all-time leader in Football Bowl Series (FBS) wins with 409 during his 46-year career, significant questions still have to be answered. Who knew what and when? Will there be any consequences for assistant coach Mike McQueary, who saw Jerry Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy in the shower but failed to call the police? Perhaps the most damning question that will arise from this entire scandal is why nothing was done sooner.
Penn State knew about the allegations concerning Jerry Sandusky’s sexual abuse of young boys since 2002. According to the grand jury investigation, on March 1, 2002, then-Penn State graduate assistant Mike McQueary entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building in order to retrieve a pair of sneakers. While in the locker room, McQueary heard “rhythmic slapping sounds” coming from the shower, which he believed were those of sexual activity. McQueary looked into the shower and saw a 10-year-old naked boy being subjected to anal sex by a naked Sandusky. McQueary immediately left distraught and called his father to ask for his advice. His father told him to call Coach Paterno, then-head football coach of Penn State, and report to him what he had seen. The glaring question in this whole sequence is why didn’t McQueary stop the rape? He saw Sandusky anally raping a young boy but did nothing to stop it. McQueary could have protected the boy and gotten Sandusky to stop. Instead, McQueary just left while the boy continued to be raped. He didn’t even call the police.
Paterno testified that he met with McQueary the next morning. Paterno then called Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley to report what McQueary had told him. What is astonishing and utterly criminal is that Curley did not contact McQueary or act on the news for a week and a half. Three weeks after the meeting, the only action that had been taken was that Sandusky’s keys to the locker room had been revoked and that the “incident” was reported to Sandusky’s foundation, The Second Mile. Not once in this entire one-month period did anyone call the police.
The Second Mile Foundation was founded by Sandusky. It focused on helping children with dysfunctional and abusive families. The program’s specific mission is to “help children who need additional support and would benefit from positive human interaction.” Instead, Sandusky took advantage of little boys who had no where else to turn. They had come to Sandusky and his foundation to escape their families and try to live a better life but instead they were subjected to sexual abuse.
According to the aforementioned grand jury report, in May 1998 Sandusky told the mother of one of his many victims, “I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead.” That sounds like a pretty rock-solid admission of guilt. Furthermore, in 1998 the State College police, where Penn State is located, concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence to arrest Sandusky even though he admitted to “hugging” a naked 11-year-old boy in the shower.
Penn State knew about these allegations in March 2002. But, just two weeks ago, Sandusky was seen using the weight room on the Penn State campus.
Despite knowing of these allegations Penn State never lifted a finger to stop it. The university was more worried about its football program and image instead of protecting the victims. Coach Paterno was more focused on breaking the record for all-time wins in a Division I football program than he was of stopping a sexual predator.
The question that must be asked going forward is why nothing was done sooner. Paterno and Curley both had the power to stop this monster yet neither of them did anything. It begs the question of whether Penn State knowingly and intentionally covered up these allegations and let Sandusky continue to prey on little boys in order to protect its image or was merely negligent.
In the coming weeks, many facts will be revealed. Already more disturbing reports are coming out of Penn State. According to Mark Madden, a prominent radio host in Pittsburgh, in an interview on the WEEI sports radio network, Sandusky is rumored to have been “pimping out” boys to prominent donors of the Second Mile Foundation. Put simply, Sandusky may have been running a child prostitution ring.
Many will cry foul that poor old Joe is being scapegoated in this whole scandal but these people fail to realize the most important issue: Joe Paterno is not the victim here. The victims are the 20 and counting boys that were sexually abused and raped by Jerry Sandusky. In the history of sports there have been numerous scandals; however, this is already the worst scandal in the history of sports and there is much information still to be released.

More posts by Brian Tabakin

Look for Sandusty Suicide or apparent suicide soon so that they can bury him with his secrets. We already have a missing DA, and missing tapes, etc. Looks like to me that they are more powerful people involved in this than just a football coach. But it is probably best for all involved to spin it that way. Why is out walking the streets? He will be dead within a week.

 

 

 

The Nittany Lion eats its children.....

Things are not all happy in Happy Valley at Pedophile State .........

This is not hard to follow. At the end of the day it is a conspiracy of inaction and looking the other way which enabled a sexual predator of children to use his relationship with a famous football program to feed his lust of young boys. I am sure dozens of them.

It is clear to any lawyer that has ever done any of this type of litigation that the legal department of Penn State fearing litigation and embarrassment to reputation etc, launched a huge cover up involving local DA, university police, nonprofits etc. because at the end of the day, the reputation of this esteemed university and coach and his treasury are worth a hell of a lot more than the lives of a few dozen underprivileged kids. This has happened before and will again. This is what happens when we fail in our roles of adults and moral citizens. This is what happens when are priorities are so out of whack with what is really important. (Warning stop here and just trust me on this and you will be better off.)


Let's start at the beginning the grand jury testimony. (warning this is very very graphic and disturbing)

Summary Version

Jerry Sandusky: Allegations and Obligations

by Chris Grovich

Gene J. Puskar - APMore photos »

4 days ago: In this photo taken Oct. 29, 2011 Penn State president Graham Spanier, left, and athletic director Tim Curley, center, present head football coach Joe Paterno with a plague commemorating his 409th collegiate win after an NCAA college football game against Illinois in State College, Pa. Curley is expected to turn himself in on Monday, Nov. 7, 2011, in Harrisburg, Pa., as he has been charged with perjury and failure to report under Pennsylvania's child protective services law in connection with the investigation into allegations former football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky sexually abused eight young men, the state attorney general's office said Saturday, Nov. 5, 2011. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

Browse more photos »

[There will be liberal use of the word "allegedly" in this post.  If it's not included in a particular sentence, pretend that it is.  All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and all information is taken directly from the Grand Jury Findings Of Fact.]
A working summary of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, as of 1:30 a.m. Sunday morning.  Much has been debated as to what the administration at Penn State knew, and when they knew it.  Not to mention, there has been considerable debate as to what the legal and moral obligations of the principals may have been, and what those individuals did to fulfill them.
First, the incidents themselves.  Of the eight victims, four of them were allegedly assaulted while Sandusky was still on the Penn State coaching staff:
Victim #4: According to the Grand Jury Findings Of Fact, he was first singled out by Sandusky in 1996 or 1997. Alleged indecent contact occurred in East Halls showers near Holuba Hall, at Toftrees (where the team stays prior to home games), bowl games, and charity golf events.  The Grand Jury alleges that Sandusky supplied the child with gifts including clothes, a snowboard, Nike shoes, golf clubs, hockey equipment, passes for sporting events, football jerseys, registration for soccer camp, cigarettes, money for marijuana and a promise that the child would be guaranteed a spot as a walk-on football player at Penn State.
After the football program moved into the new Lasch Building, the alleged non-hotel indecent contact mainly occurred in the sauna, in a more secluded area of the building.
Victim #5: Met Sandusky through The Second Mile in 1995 or 1996, when the boy was in second or third grade.  He testified that he attended at least 15 Penn State football games with Sandusky, and was sexually assaulted in the Penn State locker room showers.

Victim #6: Also met Sandusky through The Second Mile in 1994 or 1995, when the boy was seven or eight years old.  He testified that he was assaulted in the Holuba Hall showers in 1998.  According to the Grand Jury Findings Of Fact, the victim's mother immediately reported the incident to University Police, who closed the case after a lengthy investigation (which involved another boy and similar circumstances, although he was not listed as a "victim" in the Grand Jury presentation). 

The Grand Jury also noted that detectives from University Police and the State College Police Department eavesdropped on two conversations between Sandusky and Victim #6's mother, in which Sandusky admitted to showering with Victim #6 and other boys.  When asked if he touched Victim #6's private parts, Sandusky allegedly said, "I don't know...maybe" and stated to Victim #6's mother, "I understand, I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead."
Despite these admissions detailed by the Grand Jury, Sandusky was not charged with any crime.
Victim #7: Also in the mid-to-late 1990's, the boy was allegedly given field passes to Penn State games and brought to the team's dining hall.  He also testified that he stayed overnight at Sandusky's house prior to home games.  The victim described more than one occasion in which Sandusky put his hands down the waistband of the victim's pants.
Despite not having contact with Sandusky for two years, the victim testified that he was contacted by Sandusky, Sandusky's wife, and another associate of Sandusky weeks before the victim's Grand Jury testimony.

Events Allegedly Occurring At Penn State, Post-Retirement
Victim #3: Testified that he met Sandusky through The Second Mile in 2000, when he was between seventh and eighth grade.  He was allegedly given access to PSU football games and other PSU facilities.  He tesified that he was touched inappropriately by Sandusky in PSU shower facilities and at Sandusky's home.
Victim #8: Allegedly found by a Penn State janitor in a sex act with Sandusky in the shower at Lasch, while the team was out of town for a road game.  The janitor, who now suffers from dementia, told another janitor at the time of the incident and eventually reported it to his supervisor, Jim Witherite.  Witherite described the janitor/witness as "very emotionally upset" and "very distraught".  The victim's identity is unknown.
Victim #1:  Testified that he met Sandusky when he was 11-12 years old, through a Second Mile camp held on the PSU campus.  He testified that he met regularly with Sandusky, staying overnight at his house, attending PSU practices and going to Philadelphia Eagles games.  According to the Grand Jury Findings of Fact, Sandusky was caught rolling around on the ground with Victim #1 by a high school wrestling coach. When the mother of Victim #1 notified the high school principal of the activities, Sandusky was barred from the high school, where he was a volunteer football coach.
Also according to he Grand Jury Findings of Fact 118 phone calls were placed from Sandusky's home and cell phones to the home of Victim #1 from January 2008 to July 2009.
Victim #2: Not to downplay the other alleged incidents, but this is the one prominently involving the Penn State administration and Joe Paterno.  On March 1, 2002, Sandusky was alleged caught by a PSU football Graduate Assistant (identified by the Harrisburg Patriot-News as current PSU wide receivers coach Mike McQueary) with a 10-year old boy in the showers at Lasch.  The next day, the Graduate Assistant called Joe Paterno and went to Paterno's home to describe what he saw at Lasch.  On March 3, Paterno called Director of Athletics Tim Curley to his home and relayed what he had been told.  According to the Grand Jury Findings of Fact, approximately one and one-half weeks later, the GA is summoned to a meeting with Curley and Gary Schultz, who assure the GA that they would investigate further.  Joe Paterno was not at this meeting.

In April, Tim Curley allegedly tells the GA that Sandusky's keys to the locker room were taken away and the incident was reported to The Second Mile foundation.  Curley never reports the incident to University Police, or any other police agency.  The GA is never questioned by University police and no other entity investigated the matter until the GA testified before the Grand Jury in December 2010.

In front of the Grand Jury in December 2010, Curley testified that the GA notified him of "inappropriate conduct", and described the alleged conduct as "horsing around".  When asked if the GA reported sex between Sandusky and the child in 2002, Curley testified "absolutely not."  Curley also testified that he informed the executive director of The Second Mile and PSU President Graham Spanier of the incident.
Spanier testified that he approved of the remedial measures taken by Curley, presumably his informing Sandusky that he was no longer permitted to bring youths to Penn State's athletic facilities.
Spanier testified that Curley and Schultz reported the 2002 Victim #2 incident that made a member of Curley's staff "uncomfortable".  Spanier described the incident as "Jerry Sandusky in the football building locker area in the shower with a younger child and they were horsing around."  He also testified that as of January 2011, he did not know the identity of the GA who originally reported the incident.
Spanier denied that the incident reported to him was described as being of a sexual nature, and noted that Curley and Schultz did not indicate any plan to report the incident to law enforcement, the Commonwealth's Department of Public Welfare, or any county child protective services agency.
Gary Schultz testified that the allegations by the GA were "not that serious" and that he and Curley "had no indication that a crime had occurred."  He also testified that he believed that he and Curley asked "the child protection agency" to look into the matter.  Despite overseeing University Police as part of his job, Schultz did not seek or receive the lengthy police report of the similar 1998 incident, did not report the 2002 incident to University Police, and nobody at Penn State sought the identity of the child in the 2002 incident.

The GA and Curley both testified that Sandusky was not actually banned from any Penn State buildings, and Curley admitted the ban on bringing children to the campus was unenforceable.

So...yeah.  Not good.  No, but the proper course of action here would be one of reason and restrai...

Or we could roll like this.

source: black shoe diary

---

If you want to read the full 23 page indictment. Click below. But I would recommend not reading it unless you have a strong stomach.



sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf


Chronology of events we know about so far.

A chronological look at the case against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, based on a grand jury report in Pennsylvania state court. Some key dates in Penn State football history are included. Sandusky has been charged with 40 criminal counts, accusing him of serial sex abuse of minors.


1969: Jerry Sandusky starts his coaching career at Penn State University as a defensive line coach.

1977: Jerry Sandusky founds The Second Mile. It begins as a group foster home dedicated to helping troubled boys and grows into a charity dedicated to helping children with absent or dysfunctional families.

January 1983: Associated Press voters select Penn State as college football's national champion for the 1982 season.

January 1987: Associated Press voters select Penn State as college football's national champion for the 1986 season.

1994: Boy known as Victim 7 in the report meets Sandusky through The Second Mile program at about the age of 10.

1994-95: Boy known as Victim 6 meets Sandusky at a Second Mile picnic at Spring Creek Park when he is 7 or 8 years old.

1995-96: Boy known as Victim 5, meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is 7 or 8, in second or third grade.

1996-97: Boy known as Victim 4, at the age of 12 or 13, meets Sandusky while he is in his second year participating in The Second Mile program.

1996-98: Victim 5 is taken to the locker rooms and showers at Penn State by Sandusky when he is 8 to 10 years old.

Jan. 1, 1998: Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky's wife, as a member of Sandusky's family party for the 1998 Outback Bowl.

1998: Victim 6 is taken into the locker rooms and showers when he is 11 years old. When Victim 6 is dropped off at home, his hair is wet from showering with Sandusky. His mother reports the incident to the university police, who investigate.

Detective Ronald Schreffler testifies that he and State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston, with the consent of the mother of Victim 6, eavesdrop on two conversations the mother of Victim 6 has with Sandusky. Sandusky says he has showered with other boys and Victim 6's mother tries to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he will not. At the end of the second conversation, after Sandusky is told he cannot see Victim 6 anymore, Schreffler testifies Sandusky says, "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead."

Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testifies he and Schreffler interviewed Sandusky, and that Sandusky admits showering naked with Victim 6, admits to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admits that it was wrong.

The case is closed after then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar decides there will be no criminal charge.

June 1999: Sandusky retires from Penn State but still holds emeritus status.

Dec. 28, 1999: Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky's wife, as a member of Sandusky's family party for the 1999 Alamo Bowl.

Summer 2000: Boy known as Victim 3 meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is between seventh and eighth grade.

Fall 2000: A janitor named James Calhoun observes Sandusky in the showers of the Lasch Football Building with a young boy -- known as Victim 8 -- pinned up against the wall and performing oral sex on the boy. He tells other janitorial staff immediately. Fellow Office of Physical Plant employee Ronald Petrosky cleans the showers at Lasch and sees Sandusky and the boy, who he describes as being between the ages of 11 and 13.

Calhoun tells other physical plant employees what he saw, including Jay Witherite, his immediate supervisor. Witherite tells him to whom he should report the incident. Calhoun was a temporary employee and never makes a report. Victim 8's identity is unknown.

March 1, 2002: A Penn State graduate assistant enters the locker room at the Lasch Football Building. In the showers, he sees a naked boy, known as Victim 2, whose age he estimates to be 10 years old, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant tells his father immediately.

March 2, 2002: In the morning, the graduate assistant calls coach Joe Paterno and goes to Paterno's home, where he reports what he has seen.

March 3, 2002: Paterno calls Tim Curley, Penn State athletic director, to his home the next day and reports a version of what the grad assistant had said.

March 2002: Later in the month the graduate assistant is called to a meeting with Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz. The grad assistant reports what he has seen and Curley and Schultz say they will look into it.

March 27, 2002 (approximate): The graduate assistant hears from Curley. He is told that Sandusky's locker room keys are taken away and that the incident has been reported to The Second Mile. The graduate assistant is never questioned by university police and no other entity conducts an investigation until the graduate assistant testifies in Grand Jury in December 2010.

2005-2006: Boy known as Victim 1 says that meets Sandusky through The Second Mile at age 11 or 12.

Spring 2007: During the 2007 track season, Sandusky begins spending time with Victim 1 weekly, having him stay overnight at his residence in College Township, Pa.

Spring 2008: Termination of contact with Victim 1 occurs when he is a freshman in a Clinton County high school. After the boy's mother calls the school to report sexual assault, Sandusky is barred from the school district attended by Victim 1 from that day forward and the matter is reported to authorities as mandated by law.

Early 2009: An investigation by the Pennsylvania attorney general begins when a Clinton County, Pa. teen boy tells authorities that Sandusky has inappropriately touched him several times over a four-year period.

September 2010: Sandusky retires from day-to-day involvement with The Second Mile, saying he wants to spend more time with family and handle personal matters.

Nov. 5, 2011: Sandusky is arrested and released on $100,000 bail after being arraigned on 40 criminal counts.

Nov. 7, 2011: Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says Paterno is not a target of the investigation into how the school handled the accusations. But she refuses to say the same for university President Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz, who have stepped down from their positions, surrender on charges that they failed to alert police to complaints against Sandusky.

Nov. 8, 2011: Possible ninth victim of Sandusky contacts state police as calls for ouster of Paterno and Spanier grow in state and beyond. Penn State abruptly cancels Paterno's regular weekly press conference.

Nov. 9, 2011: Paterno announces he'll retire at the end of the season

　

---

Chronilogical dates of the events. key-dates-in-penn-state-sex-abuse-case


Anybody else see the fingerprints of Penn States Office of legal Counsel everywhere here?

Here is why:
Top sports writer Dan Wetzel and attorney Clay Travis discuss the Penn State child sex abuse scandal, including Penn State’s

“civil liability, and that of individuals such as [President] Spanier, [Head Coach] Paterno, athletic director Tim Curley and others.”

Attorney Travis

“estimates the total liability will be more than $100 million and that’s if Penn State can avoid any punitive measures, which could drive things higher. Paterno himself could pay out millions.”

If the Eastwood Mileground school siting proceeds, and if a severe or deadly calamity to a student occurs in the prohibited features at and around the new school site, then punitive damages should be imposed against the top Monongalia County School Officials and the top WV School Building Authority officials, along with multi-million dollar civil liability damages against the various educational agencies.
The unusually dangerous features at and around the Eastwood Mileground school site are prohibited by state Rule for a reason. One does not have to be a prophet to predict potential disaster or likely disaster on and around those deadly highways.
The officials and agencies involved do not have the right, moral or legal, to roll loaded dice with children’s lives.
A lot like in the Penn State child sex scandal there is a culture of looking the other way among the education officials and agencies in West Virginia, as regards new school siting. It’s dangerous. It’s potentially lethal. It’s wrong. And given an essentially predicatable calamity, it’s criminal.
The West Virginia Supreme Court must intervene decisively. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in community & education. Leave a Comment »

Jeff Anderson, a plaintiff's attorney who has represented thousands of sexual abuse plaintiffs over the past 28 years, told OKTC this afternoon that he'd already been in contact with some of the alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky. "Right now we are working on this," Anderson said, "that much I can tell you. We're receiving calls from family members of the victims and consulting with them." Asked whether a civil complaint against Penn State, coaches and administrators was forthcoming, Anderson declined to comment further.
But he did discuss in great detail the unfurling scandal at Penn State and the potential fallout of any civil lawsuit. "This situation is perfectly analogous to all the Catholic church cases I've litigated," Anderson said. "People at the top protected the institution at the peril of children. Here the coaches and administrators of Penn State were acting just like the bishops, cardinals, and archbishops of these dioceses. The same moral and legal quagmire exists. Penn State protected the football program's reputation instead of the children."
He said that Sandusky's alleged acts, just like the Catholic priests, were both "cunning and careful."
As a result, Anderson said, "They (Penn State) clearly face severe legal exposure for institutional failure. They are liable for these incidents."
It's important to note that civil cases exist independent of criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings defendants face jail time. In civil proceedings monetary damages are assesed rather than guilt or innocence.
Anderson, who is a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and has litigated multiple child sexual abuses cases there, said that in many ways Penn State is in an even more precarious position than the Catholic churches found themselves in. Churches had issues of condifidentiality that helped to protect the statements and actions of priests. Since Penn State is an educational institution, Anderson said the university faced a daunting legal battle. "Educators are by law required to report any suspicious activity to law enforcement," Anderson said. "If they don't report these issues to law enforcement, then they violate the law." That's because Anderson said that eductators have "an even higher legal duty to protect than clergy do."
Would there be any tort immunity provided because Penn State is a state institution?
Anderson says there will be no immunity. According to the attorney, Penn State is liable above and beyond any tort immunity statutes because the administrators at the school were guilty of "willful indifference and reckless conduct that violated the civil rights of the children." In cases such as these, Anderson said, Penn State had an obligation to protect the children and notify law enforcement if the children were not protected. Penn State did neither. As a result of what Anderson termed "a very serious cover-up," Anderson believes, "Punitive damages will also enter the conversation when a jury begins to deliberate."
Punitive damages exist as a matter of public policy. Jurors who believe that an action is so contrary to the public goodwill that it is indefensible are permitted to add to any actual damages that exist in order to send a message to others of what will not be tolerated. 
Asked how much a civil lawsuit might cost Penn State, Anderson said, "It's premature to say exactly how much money that would be, but the university is heavily exposed."
When asked if he believed Penn State coach Joe Paterno would be named as a defendant in any civil lawsuit, Anderson tiptoed around the issue. "That remains to be seen," he said, "For now we have to wait on more details from our investigation."
Asked about any statute of limitations issues for the victims, now much older than when these alleged crimes occurred, Anderson said, "That's a complex issue. There's no clear answer." That's becaue Pennsylvania law typically call for statutes of limitations to end two-three years after a minor reaches the age of majority. Since some of the plaintiffs in this case might be over the age of 30 now, it could be complicated to include some of these plaintiffs. Even still, Anderson believes, "In cases such as these where there has been fraud or a cover-up, courts will have to decide what's appropriate." 
What's becoming increasingly clear is that Penn State's legal morass will be pending for the next five years or more. And, depending on the number of plaintiffs and whether punitive damages are applied, we could be talking about damages running into the the hundreds of millions of dollars.
"I don't believe," said Anderson, "that jurors will look too kindly upon the actions of Penn State administrators."
 ...

Did Penn State"s Joe Paterno break the law?

While Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says that her office won't file charges against Joe Paterno for not reporting the alleged child sexual abuse by former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, the 84-year-old coach could eventually face criminal charges for perjury, obstruction of justice and violating the state's Child Protective Services Law. Paterno could also become a defendant in civil lawsuits filed by Sandusky's alleged victims. Those lawsuits could allege that Paterno negligently failed to prevent a third party with whom he had a supervisory relationship (Sandusky) from committing abuse.
Perjury and Obstruction of Justice
Under Pennsylvania law, as in other jurisdictions, perjury refers to knowingly lying while under oath. Obstruction of justice describes interference with the administration of justice, such as by concealing evidence or delaying or frustrating a criminal investigation. While Paterno has thus far escaped these criminal charges, his statements and behavior suggest that he remains vulnerable to them. That is particularly evident when considering troubling inconsistencies between Paterno's testimony to the grand jury that investigated Sandusky and the testimony of Penn State assistant Mike McQueary.
These inconsistencies related to Paterno's and McQueary's statements about "Victim 2" in the grand jury's statement of facts. According to the grand jury's findings of fact, McQueary detailed how in 2002 he saw a naked Sandusky sexually abusing a young boy in the showers in the Penn State football locker room. McQueary also testified that he told Paterno what he saw the following day, though it isn't clear from McQueary's testimony how explicit he was in his description to Paterno.
After hearing from McQueary, Paterno alerted athletic director Tim Curley. Yet instead of relaying what McQueary claims to have told him, Paterno conveyed a milder and vaguer description. Specifically, Paterno testified under oath that McQueary had said that Sandusky was engaged in fondling or "doing something of a sexual nature" to a boy.
To be sure, the phrase "doing something of a sexual nature" technically includes forcibly subjecting a child to anal intercourse, meaning Paterno may have been more evasive than untruthful. Then again, Paterno's hazy choice of words could encompass a band of sexual acts, from raping a 10-year-old boy to inappropriately touching or patting a child, that ranges too widely in heinousness to be deemed consistent with McQueary's allegedly more specific statements. The phrase unnecessarily imports ambiguity and generality where none had existed, and dubiously invites the listener -- Curley -- to assign a lack of severity to the incident. From that lens, Paterno appears to have told Curley a different account than what McQueary had told him.
The inconsistent testimonies raise several questions:
• Did McQueary lie to the grand jury about what he saw or told Paterno?
• Did Paterno lie to the grand jury about what McQueary had told him?
• If neither witness lied, did Paterno intentionally misrepresent what McQueary had told him in order to discourage Curley from aggressively investigating the matter or alerting the police? If so, did Paterno conceal the severity of the evidence or delay the onset of a criminal investigation to such an extent that he obstructed justice?
It should be reiterated that Paterno is at least publicly regarded by law enforcement authorities as a witness, rather than as a possible defendant; if authorities thought his actions clearly violated the law, he would have already been charged, just like Curley and former Penn State senior vice president of business and finance Gary Schultz. For purposes of obstruction of justice, Paterno also benefits from Pennsylvania's statute of limitations, which prevents authorities from charging individuals with crimes after a period of years. Although the length of years can be extended or "tolled" under certain circumstances, authorities would likely encounter difficulty charging Paterno nearly 10 years after the 2002 incident. Statute of limitations would not help Paterno deflect perjury charges, however, as his grand jury testimony occurred within the last year, thereby clearly falling within the applicable five-year statute of limitations.
Nonetheless, the potential exists for Paterno to face both perjury and obstruction of justice charges, especially as the investigation intensifies and as other witnesses, as well as defendants and potential defendants, talk. Also, should Curley and Schultz and, if eventually charged, university president Graham Spanier seek plea deals, they may be willing to implicate Paterno in exchange for more favorable treatment. Paterno, conversely, could seek the same type of arrangement with prosecutors, implicating Curley, Schultz et al. in exchange for avoiding prosecution. It is thus very possible that Penn State officials who worked closely together may wind up in a "prisoner's dilemma" where they will have an incentive to cut a deal and implicate their former colleagues before those former colleagues cut a deal and implicate them.
Child Protective Services Law
Under Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law, certain individuals, including teachers and school administrators, have a legal obligation to immediately report suspected child abuse to child protective services or law enforcement, or to a "person in charge" (supervisor), who must then report the alleged abuse to the authorities. The reporting must be honest. When in writing, the reporting must also include known information about the nature and extent of the suspected abuse, along with other material details.
Within one day of learning from McQueary of the alleged abuse, Paterno notified Curley, his boss. By doing so, Paterno satisfied an obligation to immediately report to a person in charge.
On the other hand, one could read the Child Protective Services Law to classify Paterno as himself a person in charge of McQueary and as one who had a subsequent obligation to report to the authorities. Still, Curley's status as Paterno's boss likely insulates Paterno from liability, at least for failing to notify child protective services or law enforcement.
Paterno may have nonetheless violated the Child Protective Services Law by failing to tell Curley the specific story as told by McQueary and by failing to provide known information about the nature and extent of the suspected abuse. As discussed above, if McQueary's testimony is true, Paterno appeared to downplay the severity of the incident while speaking with Curley. His portrayal seemed incomplete, if not outright disingenuous. Also, while Paterno made his initial report of the suspected child abuse to Curley by phone, any written communications would have required the known information.
In Paterno's defense, law enforcement authorities have indicated that, in their current view, while Paterno appeared to do the bare minimum, he technically satisfied his legal obligations under the Child Protective Services Law. Whether that viewpoint proves sustainable could depend on the development of new and more incriminating facts and public pressure.
Negligence
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
Sandusky's alleged victims could file lawsuits against Penn State for negligently failing to protect them from Sandusky. Under tort law, employers have a duty to prevent their employees from committing crimes or civil harms on others while their employees are engaged in their employment. Even after Sandusky retired, Penn State, by allowing him on campus despite questions about his treatment of children, could have breached a duty of care to children whom Sandusky allegedly abused. Penn State, for its part, could maintain that it took preventative steps, including prohibiting Sandusky from bringing children to campus and taking away his keys to university facilities. It could also portray Sandusky as no longer an employee but rather a retired individual who was permitted to use a very limited range of campus resources.
The alleged victims could also sue Paterno on similar grounds. While Paterno was not technically Sandusky's "boss" after 1999, it seems plausible to assume that Sandusky -- still actively involved with the team, albeit in an informal capacity -- continued to view himself as Paterno's subordinate. Victims of Sandusky could allege that Paterno negligently failed to protect them or to adequately warn authorities of Sandusky's alleged abuse of children.
Should tort lawsuits be filed, expect Penn State, Paterno and other targeted Penn State officials (e.g., Curley, Schultz and Spanier) to attempt to settle the claims before they go to trial. At a minimum, such trials would paint the university and its top officials as immoral and irresponsible, and as embracing a "hear no evil, see no evil" approach to what appears to be the actions of a sadistic man.
Michael McCann is a sports law professor and Sports Law Institute director at Vermont Law School and the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law. He also serves as NBA TV's On-Air Legal Analyst. Follow him on Twitter.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/11/09/joe.paterno/index.html#ixzz1dFEnKh5C

Ok, had enough yet? Well get this the DA that decided not to pursue sex abuse charges against Sandusky vanished without a trace while trying to destroy his hard drive in 2005. They just recently declared him dead.

By LEE FERRAN and RHONDA SCHWARTZ

Nov. 8, 2011

The prosecutor who decided to not pursue sex abuse charges against former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky more than a decade ago, despite an alleged confession, is at the center of a missing persons mystery that has enraptured middle Pennsylvania for years. Ray Gricar served as the district attorney for Pennsylvania's Centre County in 1998 when Sandusky was accused of sexually abusing several boys. After an extensive investigation, which included testimony by two law enforcement officers that they had overheard Sandusky admitting to showering with multiple young boys, Gricar decided no criminal charges would be filed, according to recent court documents. Sandusky retired the next year.
READ: Ex-Penn State Coach Won't Speak on Child Sex Abuse Charges
Then, in April 2005, Gricar disappeared.
His car was found abandoned in a Lewisburg, Pa., parking lot and his laptop's harddrive was recovered from the nearby Susquehannna River, but there was no other trace of Gricar. No clues could be gleaned from the severely damaged harddrive and despite a six year investigation that involved the FBI and international help, police have as little an idea today about what happened to the former DA as they did then.
"We literally used every single resource, national and international," Bellefonte, Pa., police chief Shawn Weaver told ABC News today. "This is baffling. He literally just disappeared off the face of the earth."

Andy Colwell/The Patriot-News/AP Photo

Former Penn State football defensive... View Full Size

Andy Colwell/The Patriot-News/AP Photo

Former Penn State football defensive coordinator Gerald "Jerry" Sandusky, center, arrives in handcuffs at the office of Centre County Magisterial District Judge Leslie A. Dutchcot while being escorted by Pennsylvania State Police and Attorney General's Office officials on Saturday, Nov. 5, 2011, in State College, Pa.

READ: Penn State's Joe Paterno Cancels News Conference
In July this year, Gricar was officially declared dead, though Weaver said the investigation into his disappearance is ongoing and new leads continue to emerge.
Weaver said that though everyone has a personal theory about what may have happened to Gricar -- from suicide to foul play -- there has been no evidence to support any one of them. The idea that the disappearance could be linked to the Sandusky investigation, Weaver said, is "highly doubtful."
"Obviously if something raises an eye, it's something we'll look at," he said. "Nothing is out of the realm of possibility."
Robert Buehner, the district attorney for nearby Montour County and longtime friend of Gricar's, told ABC News he's convinced Gricar was murdered but said there was "absolutely" no connection to the Sandusky case. Buehner said Gricar was more likely the target of a violent criminal he had prosecuted or was in the midst of prosecuting. He doubted Gricar would have committed suicide or simply ran off because he was happy, financially stable and often talked fondly of his impending retirement.
As to why Gricar did not pursue charges against Sandusky in 1998, Buehner said that Gricar must simply not have had the evidence he needed.
"If you're going to target someone, you really work very hard to be sure you have a case because if you don't, you could end up ruining someone's reputation and livelihood," Buehner said. "If he had the evidence, Ray would not have concerned himself with who the person was."
Sandusky, a former defensive coordinator for the Penn State Nittany Lions, was arrested Saturday and arraigned on 40 criminal counts connected to the alleged sexual abuse of eight boys over a fifteen year period.
Sandusky declined to comment on the accusations to ABC News Monday.
TIMELINE: Key Dates in the Penn State Sex Abuse Case
ABC News' T.J. Winick and Alyssa Newcomb contributed to this report.
Questions on Sandusky Are Wrapped in a 2005 Mystery

One of the questions surrounding the sex-abuse case against Jerry Sandusky is why a former district attorney chose not to prosecute the then-Penn State assistant coach in 1998 after reports surfaced that he had inappropriate interactions with a boy.

Enlarge This Image

Nabil K. Mark/Centre Daily Times, via Associated Press

Ray Gricar

Interviews, insight and analysis from The Times on the competition and culture of college football.

 

Enlarge This Image

Michelle Klein/Centre Daily Times, via Associated Press

In 2005, divers searched the Susquehanna River in Lewisburg, Pa., for Ray Gricar, who was a Centre County prosecutor.

The answer is unknowable because of an unsolved mystery: What happened to Ray Gricar, the Centre County, Pa., district attorney?
Gricar went missing in April 2005. The murky circumstances surrounding his disappearance — an abandoned car, a laptop recovered months later in a river without a hard drive, his body was never found — have spawned Web sites, television programs and conspiracy theories. More than six years later, the police still receive tips and reports of sightings. The police in central Pennsylvania continue to investigate even though Gricar’s daughter, Lara, successfully petitioned in July to have her father declared legally dead so the family could find some closure and begin dividing his estate.
Yet as the Sandusky investigation moves forward, questions will be asked anew about why Gricar did not pursue charges against him 13 years ago. A small but strident minority believes Gricar did not want to tackle a case that involved a hometown icon. Others who knew and worked with Gricar say he was a meticulous, independent and tough-minded prosecutor who was unbowed by Penn State, its football program and political pressure in general.
“No one got a bye with Ray,” said Anthony De Boef, who worked as an assistant district attorney under Gricar for five years. “He didn’t care who you were; he had a job to do.”
De Boef said Gricar did not share any information with him about the case in 1998, which involved Sandusky allegedly showering with an 11-year-old boy. Gricar, he said, reviewed the police reports in private including, presumably, notes or recordings of two conversations that the police heard between Sandusky and the boy’s mother. But Gricar had a reputation for thoroughness, and if he thought he had enough to charge Sandusky, he would have, De Boef and other lawyers said.
Still, the circumstances surrounding Gricar’s disappearance prompt many questions.
On April 15, 2005, Gricar, then 59, took the day off. At about 11:30 a.m., he called his girlfriend, Patricia Fornicola, to say he was taking a drive on Route 192. About 12 hours later, she reported him missing.
The next day, Gricar’s Mini Cooper was found in a parking lot in Lewisburg, about 50 miles from his home in Bellefonte. Gricar’s cellphone was in the car, but not his laptop, wallet or keys, which were never recovered. Months later, the laptop was found in the Susquehanna River without its hard drive, which was discovered later. It was too damaged to yield any information. On the fourth anniversary of his disappearance, investigators revealed that a search of his home computer yielded a history of Internet searches for phrases like “how to wreck a hard drive,” according to a report at the time in The Centre Daily Times.
When Gricar disappeared helicopters, dive teams and patrol cars were deployed, and the F.B.I. was brought in. Reports of Gricar turning up in Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Maryland and other states proved to be dead ends.
So what happened? Friends and colleagues say Gricar was not the type to walk away. His bank accounts were not touched after he disappeared, he had no other sources of income and he had no major debts, said Robert Buehner Jr., a friend and the district attorney in Montour County. Though divorced twice, he seemed happy with his girlfriend and close with his daughter. Gricar had already announced that he was retiring at the end of his term.
“He was absolutely looking forward to his future,” Buehner said.
If Gricar committed suicide, Buehner added, he would have wanted the body to be found. Foul play is the next possible conclusion. By the nature of their jobs prosecuting criminals, district attorneys end up having many enemies. But no credible suspects have emerged.
“I don’t think you’ll find too many district attorneys who disappear,” said Ken Mains, a detective who works on cold cases in Lycoming County. “D. B. Cooper, Amelia Earhart, Jimmy Hoffa, until a body is found, there are going to be conspiracy theories.”


Don't think they really knew? ok, try this...

Jerry Sandusky Rumors Began Long Before Grand Jury Report

Nov 09 2:05p by Jason Kirk

Read More: Penn St. Nittany Lions

For most of us outside of Happy Valley, last week's grand jury report that former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky had been charged with molesting eight children came as a shock. It's hard to imagine the average football fan has even heard Sandusky's name in the past decade, let alone suspected him of doing anything wrong, ever.
But for those paying close attention to the program, the allegations were nothing new. They were rumors transferred into something of substance. From a Beaver County Times column by Mark Madden dated April 3 of this year:

If Paterno and Penn State knew, but didn't act, instead facilitating Sandusky's untroubled retirement - are Paterno and Penn State responsible for untoward acts since committed by Sandusky?
This is far from an outrageous hypothesis, especially given the convenient timeline.
Initially accused in 1998. Retires in 1999. Never coaches college football again. Sandusky was very successful at what he did. The architect of Linebacker U. Helped win national championships in 1982 and 1986. Recognized as college football's top assistant in 1986 and 1999.
Never any stories about Sandusky being pursued for a high-profile job. Never any rumors about him coming out of retirement.
But there's no shortage of stories and rumors about Penn State football sweeping problems under the rug, is there?

When you consider Sandusky was supposed to be in line for Paterno's job and was pursued by Virginia and Maryland in the early '90s, then suddenly vanished from coaching after the 1998 allegation, the puzzle starts to fit together. And the harder it is to believe that the two men charged with perjury were the only ones who knew.
For more on the Nittany Lions, visit Penn State blog Black Shoe Diaries. Follow all of SB Nation's coverage of the Jerry Sandusky investigation in our StoryStream