Total Pageviews

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

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
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)
[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...
Star-divide
Pitchforksandtorches_medium
Or we could roll like this.



    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 »

    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.



    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
    PHOTO: Penn St ex-coach, others charged in child sex case
    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.
    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.

     
    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

    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





    Thursday, October 13, 2011

    Mississippi's recusal rules are a bad joke and an injustice4yall

    If you want a hint on what goes on and why it needs to change please look at this post I have stolen from Phillip: His website and NMC's are both linked so read the whole story there please.

    Why Wasn't Ed Peters Prosecuted for Mississippi State Crimes?

    That's a question that was asked in this weekend's Clarion-Ledger article by Jerry Mitchell following the unsealing of Ed Peters' grand jury testimony [available here courtesy of NMC] in Scruggs-gate.
    The photo to the right is of Peters and Bobby DeLaughter. Now we know what they are smiling about.
    The article quotes Oxford lawyer and blogger Tom Freeland (NMC) on this issue and states:
    Oxford lawyer Tom Freeland, who has covered the case closely on his website, North Mississippi Commentor, nmisscommentor.com, said Peters' statements "show a lot more about what was going on inside and how corrupt it was."
    Elsewhere in the FBI statement, Peters described how he had been approached by both sides in the same lawsuit involving a fatality.
    "It's totally unethical," Freeland said. "Peters is on both sides of a transaction, hoping money shakes loose."
    What has surprised him is the Scruggs cases weren't pursued by Mississippi prosecutors.
    "These are state crimes, too," Freeland said. "Both local and statewide prosecutors have left it alone."
    Attorney General Jim Hood sent letters to the local district attorneys in those counties, offering his assistance to them.
    District Attorney Ben Creekmore of New Albany said his office met with federal prosecutors and let them know if there was anything that needed to be pursued, he would.
    "We felt like any insertion of our office into that whole mess would have gained very little as far as criminal justice is concerned," he said. "It would have been more attention-seeking than justice."
    He added that his office has "our hands full with our dockets."
    I raised this question in 2010 in this post about a Sid Salter interview of Rankin County District Attorney Michael Guest. Salter raised the question in 2008 in a column that he quotes in his comment responding to my 2010 blog post, and took issue to Johnny Come Lately's on this issue:
    District attorneys in multiple venues in Mississippi have already spoken to the fact that since Mississippi's attorney general didn't prosecute public corruption cases against Peters, DeLaughter, Langston, Scruggs, Balducci, Patterson, et al, then they didn't think they had the resources to go after such charges either. If you will recall in the Neshoba County state charges against former Klansmen Edgar Ray Killen and other high profile cases, the local DA got the active support of General Hood's office and his personal intervention in the case.
    But Hood took a pass on the judicial bribery cases altogether — all of them.
    Where were you in 2008 on this issue, Mr. Thomas? Massaging your "certified civil trial advocate" plaque?
    What color is that, Bubba?
    Next time you have a question about how I go about the interview process, be sure and weigh in again. I love interaction with "certified civil trial advocates" — being a mere mortal and all.
     My Take:
    I still can't get over the Salter personal attack, but that's neither here nor there. 
    I find it interesting how this issue has evolved since Salter first raised the question in 2008. Salter seemed to blame Attorney General Jim Hood for there being no State prosecution against Peters. But Jerry Mitchell's 2011 article states that General Hood offered to assist local D.A.'s in prosecutions. And there were at least three D.A. jurisdictions where charges could have been brought. And the feds could have prosecuted too in either the Northern or Southern Districts.
    So who's to blame for what many agree is an injustice that Peters was never charged? I never came up with a good answer to this question. I heard a lot of theories; many of which made sense. But I never heard what I thought was a good definitive answer.  
    On the issue of Eaton's culpability for Peters' actions in the Eaton v. Frisby case, Tom Freeland makes a good point at NMC:
    It strikes me that the question isn’t whether Ed Peters, hired as a lawyer by Eaton, was supposed to influence the judge– after all, isn’t that what lawyers do?  The question is whether Peters (who was hired secretly and off the record, a fact Eaton’s legal pleadings keep omitting) was hired to improperly influence Judge DeLaughter.
     Specifically, I would like to see Eaton's answer to these two questions that I posed in this 2009 post:
    I would like to see Eaton and McGrath answer these two questions:
    1. exactly who told you that you should hire Ed Peters? 
    2. what was the reason(s) you were given for why you should hire Peters?  
    Because let's face it: somebody on the Eaton side of the 'v' knew that they were hiring Peters to improperly influence DeLaughter. Or at a minimum, they figured it out pretty quickly that that's what Peters was doing when he came back reporting to them on what he was doing.
    Think about it. In the Scruggs v. Wilson case Scruggs' lawyers knew every move Peters made in communicating with DeLaughter. Eaton v. Frisby was a very complicated trade secrets case. Peters was not Eaton's primary lawyer—not even close. But we are supposed to believe that—completely on his own—Peters got up to speed on the details of the case and then discussed them with DeLaughter? Come on.
    If you haven't seen it already, you want to check out this recent NMC post on Eaton v. Frisby. NMC also has Ed Peters' 302 Report here, which details Peters' involvement in the case. In the 302 report, Peters states that he was hired by Eaton lawyer Mike Shauman of the Quarles Brady law firm in Milwaukee and that Jackson lawyer Mike Allred was Eaton's local counsel. It's impossible to read Peter's account of his improper meeting with DeLaughter about the Eaton case without concluding that the Eaton camp knew about the meeting. 

    I have also stolen the following from Phillip:

    Mississippi Supreme Court Removes Judge Bowen from $322 Million Verdict Case--Where Does Case Go From Here?

    As widely reported, the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered Judge Eddie Bowen to recuse himself in the Smith County asbestos drilling mud case that was tried to a $322 million verdict in May. In June the defendant Union Carbide moved for Judge Bowen's recusal in the case because his father sued Union Carbide 20 years ago and settled the case. Judge Bowen and the plaintiffs opposed the motion.
    The Mississippi Supreme Court's hand-down list on Thursday included the following unanimous ruling:
      In Re: Union Carbide Corporation, et al.; Smith Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2006-196; Ruling Date: 05/19/2011; Ruling Judge: Eddie Bowen; Disposition: Union Carbide's Petition for Disqualification of Trial Judge Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 48B, for an Immediate Stay of All Proceedings, and for Other Extraordinary Relief is granted. Judge Eddie H. Bowen shall immediately recuse himself from further proceedings in Smith County Circuit Court Cause No. 2006-196, and all matters pending therein shall continue to be stayed until such time as a judge is appointed to preside. To Grant: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens and Chandler, JJ. Not Participating: Randolph, Pierce and King, JJ. Order entered.
    Anderson links the actual order in the comments.

    My Take:

    I miss Judge Evans.
    This case is a mess. $322 million for a single plaintiff case in a venue that—let's be honest—is funny. As in 'odd' funny. The chances of that verdict holding up on appeal are exactly 0.
    A new judge will be appointed by the Supreme Court. That judge will presumably order a new trial or significantly reduce the verdict. Then they may all get to go back down to Raleigh for another trial with Gene Tullos and a Smith County jury. Where Union Carbide will once again be a big underdog.


    INJUSTICEFORYALL'S TAKE ON ALL OF THIS:

    So we have a case where a judge's father had an asbestos case years ago that the judge didn't know about and he is recused, Ok. However, after the trial when it was not brought up or apparently known to anyone. It was only known after the defendants got whacked and hired a PI to search for something to help them out, aka "dig up dirt" on the judge. I am sure, Phillip, a change of venue motion is coming and will be granted.

    Meanwhile, a few counties away I am aware of a lawyer who discovered that the main fund raising event for his Judge was held in the same lobby that many of  the deposition have been taken by the defense firm on the other side of an important pending case. It was not disclosed by anyone by the way. How would you like to find out the your case was going to be decided by a Judge who was elected by the other side? The defendants response basically is "so what". In case you had any doubt the judge recently made a ruling on a motion without all parties even being present, so as to "just get it out of the way." Really didn't need to hear the other side anyway.

    Do you think the public would think a appearance of "possibly of impropriety" exist here. (See below FN1) So what, public is not involved. Chance of recusal 0%. Chance on appeal 0%. Welcome to Mississippi justice boys! The judge decides whether he is unfair and his ruling sticks 98% of time. (See FN2) If in favor of big money defendants never seen it changed actually. Unfortunately, stories like this are common and have been for many years. (See FN3)

    This archaic and horrible recusal system has been pointed out by national media as one of worst systems in America, and now with changes to West Virginia we may clearly be the worst.(FN4) (Yeah we are number one in something again.) After Scruggs public disaster you would think the bar would do something about this right? (FN5) Nada. Not a damn thing.

     Oh, The county newspaper editor is also wife of one of the defendants and has been sure the his company gets none of the blame and will no doubt continue to do so. Chance of change of venue 0%. Now if we get lucky and get a substantial verdict like above maybe the defense firm will move to recuse the judge on grounds he didn't do a good enough job for him or that venue was unfair. (LOL) There chance of success
    50-50. What a county, I mean State!

    I have argued and discussed this matter with the last two out of three of the last bar presidents, committees etc   and will do it again this year.. It is a rotten system that will only foster further loss of public confidence in our legal system is that is evenly possible at this point.  Even Louisiana has a much better system. This matters should be decided by an impartial panel that includes lay people in my opinion. That is because the standard is not whether anything is improper but whether Joe the plumber would think so.  Or maybe what the Breenan Center for Justice said in its 2011 report Promotiong Fair and Impartial Courts though Recusal Reform  said:

    Shoring up public confidence in and support for the courts will be furthered by procedures
    that provide independent review of recusal decisions; transparent, reasoned decisions on
    disqualification requests; disclosure of spending in judicial campaigns; and recusal in cases
    where this campaign spending raises reasonable questions about judicial impartiality. The
    Brennan Center stands ready to work with state court leaders as they continue to develop
    and implement recusal rules that advance judicial independence and increase the public’s
    faith in fair, impartial courts.

    http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/promoting_fair_courts_through_recusal/

    Tilting at windmills.............I remain...INJ4Y


    FN1- In the United States, the term "recusal" is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.
    28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge," provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a "timely and sufficient Motion that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party," the case shall be transferred to another judge.
    The general rule is that to warrant recusal, a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case or familiarity with the facts or the parties must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" and was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky v. United States.

    FN2-Mississippi:
    was perception among judges and justices that lawyers were attempting to use recusal
    motions to gain tactical advantages.
    Waller — who served as chair of the rules committee when the current provisions
    were adopted — addressing this gamesmanship concern was critical because “the
    issue of recusal is very important from the standpoint of public confidence in judges
    and the judiciary.”
    first decision on a recusal motion. If the justice denies the motion, the decision is
    Prior to adoption of Mississippi’s current recusal rules in 2002, there24 According to Mississippi Chief Justice William25 Under the rules adopted in 2002, a targeted justice makes the
    6
    subject to review by the entire court upon the filing of a motion for
    reconsideration.
    appoint a replacement.
    these procedures, the number of occasions in which litigants seek to disqualify a
    justice has declined. (INJ4Y: I agree with Judge Waller it was a problem and this rules changes addressed it. But it left us with a bigger problem now)
    26 If a justice of the Supreme Court is disqualified, the governor may27 According to Chief Justice Waller, following the adoption of


    FN3- Now as never before, reinvigorating recusal is truly necessary to preserve
    the court system that Chief Justice Rehnquist called the “crown jewel” of our
    American experiment.
    The Honorable Thomas R. Phillips
    Retired Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Texas


    FN4- Recusal Reform Adopted
    Arizona Recusal is required if a party or lawyer, in previous 4 years, made contributions to a
    judge exceeding $840, effective September 1, 2009.
    California A judge is disqualified if he or she has received contributions exceeding $1,500 from
    party or lawyer in preceding election (or in anticipation of upcoming election).
    Iowa Court rule adopted in May 2010 mandates disqualification when the “judge’s
    participation in a matter or proceeding would violate due process of law as a result
    of: (a) Campaign contributions . . . or (b) Independent campaign expenditures.”
    Michigan Requires disqualification when a “judge, based on objective and reasonable
    perceptions,” has . . . “a serious risk of actual bias impacting the due process rights
    of a party as enunciated in Caperton.”
    Missouri Conduct rules urge candidates for judicial office “to consider whether his or her
    conduct may create grounds for recusal . . . pursuant to Caperton.”
    New York Rule effective July 15, 2011 provides that “no case shall be assigned” to a judge to
    whom party or lawyers donated $2,500 in preceding 2 years.
    Oklahoma Requires recusal when a judge, within previous 4 years, has received contributions
    from a party or lawyers “in an amount that a reasonable person would believe could
    affect the fairness of the judge’s consideration of a case . . . . The judge should
    consider what the public perception would be as to such contributions affecting the
    judge’s ability to be fair to the parties.”
    Utah Disqualifies a judge if he or she has within the previous three years received more
    than $50 from a party or lawyers.
    Washington Requires recusal when a judge’s impartiality can reasonably be questioned based on a
    party’s contributions or independent spending, considering the total amount of
    support and the timing of the spending relative to the pendency of matter at issue.
    10
    Recusal Reform Pending
    Georgia Pending proposal would require recusal if the judge has received an aggregate
    amount of contributions or support that would create a question as to the judge’s
    impartiality, taking into consideration the amount, timing, and impact of the
    spending. Proposal pending final adoption.
    Tennessee Pending proposal would impose a “flexible standard” that would disqualify judge
    when a party or lawyer has given such contributions or support to the judge’s
    campaign that the judge’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned, considering a
    range of factors including the amount and timing of the financial support, and the
    relation of the aggregate spending in support of the judge to the total spending in the
    campaign.
    1. The ABA’s Model Code and
    Per Se, Automatic Recusal Rules
    Since 1999, the ABA’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct has contained a provision, Rule
    2.11(A)(4), that provides for automatic disqualification when a judge learns that a party or
    the party’s lawyers have made campaign contributions exceeding a specific threshold within
    a particular number of years.48
    The per se rule in the Model Code is simple to apply — when contributions exceed a preset
    level, disqualification is automatic, with no further analysis required. But Rule 2.11(A)(4)
    does not sufficiently address the full array of contemporary campaign spending, seriously
    undermining its value even if it were adopted in states with the highest judicial election
    spending. The rule applies only to contributions made directly to judicial candidates. It does
    not call for recusal based on independent campaign expenditures of the sort that triggered
    disqualification in Caperton. It also opens the door to gamesmanship by lawyers and litigants,
    who may attempt to engage in judge-shopping by making a disqualifying campaign
    contribution to a disfavored judge.
    Perhaps in part because of these criticisms, to date only two states, Utah and Arizona, have
    adopted the Model Code’s rule.


    FN5:  See, e.g., Adam Skaggs, Brennan Center for Justice, Buying Justice: The Impact of Citizens United on Judicial Elections 4-7 (2010), available at http://www.brennancenter.org/buying_justice (collecting survey data on national and state level data demonstrating that Americans believe, by significant margins, that campaign spending has an impact on judicial decision-making).  A recent national survey conducted by Harris Interactive showed widespread, bipartisan concern about the escalating influence of money in judicial elections and its potential to erode impartiality.  See Press Release, Justice at Stake, Solid Bipartisan Majorities Believe Judges Influenced by Campaign Contributions (Sept. 8, 2010), available at http://tinyurl.com/2c422fs.  Among the findings of the survey were the following:  71 percent of Democrats, and 70 percent of Republicans, believe campaign expenditures have a significant impact on courtroom decisions. Id.  Only 23 percent of all voters believe campaign expenditures have little or no influence on elected judges. Id.  In addition, 82 percent of Republicans, and 79 percent of Democrats, say a judge should not hear cases involving a campaign supporter who spent $10,000 toward his or her election. Id.  Finally, 88 percent of Republicans, and 86 percent of Democrats, say that “all campaign expenditures to elect judges” should be publicly disclosed, so that voters can know who is seeking to elect each candidate. Id.



    2

    Monday, September 26, 2011

    BP reneges on settlement deal with Gulf Coast Cities and then says Sue us..see if we care!

    BP -Poster Child for why caps on punitive damages are a bad idea

    These guys not only have no shame, no honor, no ethics, but they are stupid  too. Many times I am ask about punitive damages and why caps on damages are a bad idea. Well after hurricane Katrina and Snakefarm and Allsnake's conduct, a few people got it. After the Barons of Wall street destroyed the economy, put millions out of job, and basically guaranteed that our children will have a lower standard of living than we have, and still made billions, and do today...a few more got it. If these bastards don't make you mad and want to hit them with a trillion dollar verdict, you deserve all the bad things that await you. (Bad Karma dude.)

     This is as raw a case for punitive damages you will ever see. They are clearly using their economic power to toy with and screw smaller American cities. Does this remind you Tea Party people of anything...maybe?  Hint: it happen in the 1770's.  

    They obviously  don't think they will be punished so they are acting like the 800 lb gorilla they are. And these guys get billions in US government contracts? We are basically using our tax dollars to get some foreign jackass to screw with us. What a county! Even the Russians threw these idiots out! With the caps on damages now the most they could be forced to pay is less than 25 million. That is 5 cents to you and me. Think about it, what if the max speeding ticket was 5 dollars and they were not allowed to report it to your insurance company. Would you drive faster? What if you were not allowed to discipline your kids at all other than maybe a two minute time out? What would they act like? Little angels still? They are acting like this because they can, it is that simple.  

    These boys need a spanking, a really big one. Only way to spank a big multinational corporation is big punitive damages.


    Jackson County cities say BP reneging on agreement to pay for water-related projects

    Robert-Wilkinson-BP.jpg.JPG
     
    Robert Wilkinson, of Dogan & Wilkinson,
    PLLC, discusses the lawsuits against BP
    during a meeting at City Hall in Ocean Springs,
    MS, on Thursday.  (Joshua Dahl, Correspondent)
     
    OCEAN SPRINGS, Mississippi -- The four Jackson County cities are threatening to sue BP for what they say is the company's reneging on a settlement deal.
     
    Representatives from Gautier, Moss Point, Pascagoula, and Ocean Springs were at a news conference Thursday morning at the Ocean Springs City Hall where the failed agreement was discussed.
     
    Robert Wilkinson, an attorney representing the cities in the settlement, said BP agreed in April to the cities moving forward with developing water-related projects instead of cash payments.
     
    In response to the threat of the lawsuit, Ray Melick, a BP spokesman in Mississippi, said, "BP does not comment on pending litigation."
     
    The settlement proposal between the cities and BP was in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that started on April 20, 2010, with an explosion and fire on an oil rig.  The incident killed 11 workers, and the federal government has estimated about 4.9 million barrels of oil gushed into the Gulf until July 15 when the wellhead was capped.
     
    "We are here today to express our outrage that BP has slammed the door in our face after well over a year of negotiations in good faith in order to settle claims from these cities," said Ocean Springs Mayor Connie Moran.
     
    "These claims would be projects to bring water-related access to the public to restore confidence.  Here is the opportunity to make it right."
     
    Wilkinson said the cities had assembled about $50 million in projects.  The suggestion about projects arose in a July 2010 meeting with BP attorneys over damages from the oil spill.
     
    "At that first meeting back in July of 2010, attorneys from BP suggested instead of talking about settlements with case, a settlement may be along the lines of projects," Wilkinson said.
     
    The cities received approval for the project deal from state Attorney General Jim Hood and Trudy Fisher, Natural Resources Damage Assessment trustee, he [Wilkinson] said.