Penn State horror story

[Kyyle23]

I honestly believe he thinks he is innocent. The dude is just not right.

 

apparently this is very common for pedophiles. They dont see what they are doing as wrong. And it is not that they are justifying it to themselves, they honestly believe that there is love between themselves and the victim.

 

Its funny though, Sandusky has asked that the victims all be evaluated as if there is some sort of conspiracy against him. What about McQueary?

[StrangeSox]

What's with Sandusky saying he's innocent? He should be worried about making amends so God forgives him rather than denying these acts. What a f***.

How bout his victims. Way to apologize to them, you f***ing prick.

 

He's (most likely) a delusional narcissist. He isn't capable of feeling empathy or considering others.

[LittleHurt05]

Anything above 30 years is life for Sandusky, but I do worry that this sentence has set a precedent for future cases, when the perpetrator may be younger and the length of sentence would make a difference.

 

That was my issue. Obviously Sandusky is gone for life, but they essentially gave him like 2-3 years per victim which is nothing.

[southsider2k5]

Anything above 30 years is life for Sandusky, but I do worry that this sentence has set a precedent for future cases, when the perpetrator may be younger and the length of sentence would make a difference.

 

This is 100% my biggest fear. Now if some 20 year old pedo gets 30 years, and is back out in time for middle age, that is a big problem.

[Kyyle23]

This is 100% my biggest fear. Now if some 20 year old pedo gets 30 years, and is back out in time for middle age, that is a big problem.

 

Just curious, what is a normal prison term for a serial pedophile like this? Take out the age factor

[Balta1701]

Gov. Tom Corbett said Tuesday he plans to sue the NCAA in federal court over stiff sanctions imposed against Penn State University in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal.

 

The Republican governor scheduled a Wednesday news conference on the Penn State campus in State College to announce the filing in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg.

 

A person associated with the university and knowledgeable about the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the lawsuit had not been filed, told The Associated Press that it is an antitrust action.

So it goes

[Kyyle23]

you would think Corbett would leave it alone, considering there is more than a few whispers that he knew about it when it was going on

[Soxbadger]

This could potentially end really poorly for the NCAA.

[clyons]

This could potentially end really poorly for the NCAA.

 

Perhaps (and I really haven't thought about it that closely), but does the state even have standing to sue? First, I don't think that the PSU athletic programs regulated by the NCAA are funded with state tax dollars. Aren't athletic budgets generally separate? Second, PSU administrators accepted these sanctions with eyes open, did it not?

[Soxbadger]

Perhaps (and I really haven't thought about it that closely), but does the state even have standing to sue? First, I don't think that the PSU athletic programs regulated by the NCAA are funded with state tax dollars. Aren't athletic budgets generally separate? Second, PSU administrators accepted these sanctions with eyes open, did it not?

 

I really have no clue what they are going to argue. I could guess that they are going to argue that Penn State is Pennsylvania and they are therefore entitled to the same privileges and immunities. If the school (ie the state) stands to lose money due to these sanctions, they could definitely try to argue that NCAA went beyond the scope of their authority in their sanctions.

 

There really are a lot of angles that Penn can try and use. It may not matter what the PSU admin accepted because the argument will be you cant bind a party that is higher on the food chain. They could also argue that the PSU admin acted in bad faith (even criminally) to try and cover up their own wrongdoings while not caring about the impact on Pennsylvania as a whole.

 

I really dont know. But generally speaking, you dont want to be opposing a state in a lawsuit. Have to wait and see what the pleadings are.

[Steve9347]

The only issue i see with this is PSU agreed to the 4 year ban on bowl games in negotiations, vs. having the possibility of the death penalty. Had they gone the latter, they would have had their say and their chance at defense.

 

Thus, this seems like BS.

[clyons]

Perhaps (and I really haven't thought about it that closely), but does the state even have standing to sue? First, I don't think that the PSU athletic programs regulated by the NCAA are funded with state tax dollars. Aren't athletic budgets generally separate? Second, PSU administrators accepted these sanctions with eyes open, did it not?

 

Lester Munson makes these same points:

 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/...ance-succeeding

 

Man, that dude is smart

[Soxbadger]

I like Lester, Ive met him a few times and weve discussed some sports stuff. That being said, I still think that Pennsylvania has a chance to argue standing. Can they demonstrate injury? I would say that if Pennsylvania can show that they lost money due to the sanctions, there is a potential they have shown injury. 2) Causation, do I think they can show that a connection between the sanctions and injury, I would say likely. Redressability is the easiest one, if you remove the sanctions the damage will stop.

 

The second part is obviously the easier one. You cant bind up the food chain, no idea why Lester would not even mention this. But if I do not have the authority to bind the state of Penn, it doesnt matter if I bound PSU. Now obviously they could argue that I had apparent authority. But it should be absolutely obvious that PSU cant bind the state of Pennsylvania to the sanctions.

 

Lastly, here is a much better post about the issue http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2013/01/...antitrust-ncaa/, that actually answers my first post. Which is that PSU is not a state school.

 

Funny that Munson may have come to the right conclusion this time, but for the wrong reasons:

 

So the odds would be against PSU, but they could give it the old college try. The problem for Corbett, though, is that he’s not PSU, and he’s not even the Attorney General.

 

Youll notice that Munson does not even mention that if it was brought by the attorney general, they could have potential standing under the doctrine of parens patriae.

 

This is a complicated issue, which is why Im not going to be bold enough to claim I have any idea about it.

 

[farmteam]

I think PA would have standing; badger went through the elements and I agree it works. It helps the state (for standing) in that the sanctions were explicitly NOT allowed to come out of the athletics budget, I think.

[StrangeSox]

I thought they weren't allowed to come via cuts to other athletic programs but that it was still ultimately coming from the general athletics fund/budget, which is not state-funded?

[farmteam]

I thought they weren't allowed to come via cuts to other athletic programs but that it was still ultimately coming from the general athletics fund/budget, which is not state-funded?

Oh, that sounds more accurate. I think you're right.

[StrangeSox]

there's a post over on Volokh that's friendly to Corbett's cause, but the comments are generally not very kind:

 

http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/02/pa-gov-co...-its-sanctions/

 

the complaint is available here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/550546-corbett.html

 

It mostly amounts to whining about how this will hurt PSU Football and how awesome PSU Football is.

[clyons]

I think PA would have standing; badger went through the elements and I agree it works. It helps the state (for standing) in that the sanctions were explicitly NOT allowed to come out of the athletics budget, I think.

 

Those aren't the correct elements as I understand them. From what I gather (I haven't read the complaint), its an antitrust case, and those cases have special standing requirements; its not enough that a plaintiff has merely suffered an economic injury, it must have specifically suffered an injury of the sort the antitrust laws are designed to prevent (i.e., one resulting from anti-competitive activities such as price-fixing, monopolization, etc). The leading Supreme Court case has 'Brunswick' in the title.

 

It appears the state's argument is that the NCAA's failure to follow its rules and procedures will cause the state economic harm. However, as I see it, the economic harm to be suffered (lost revenues to bars, restaurants, hotel's, vendors, etc) is the same that would be suffered by any state with a bad football team. Although the NCAA's sanctions may be cause of PSU being s***ty, the economic harm suffered as a result of the team being bad is no different than that being suffered in Illinois right now because of Tim Beckman. In any event, economic or not, that harm is not 'antitrust' harm; furthermore, the NCAA's actions may have harmed the team's ability to compete on the field, but they don't directly hinder or harm competition within the free markets. Therefore, because there's no antitrust harm or antitrust injury, there's no special antitrust standing. Or at least that's the argument here.

 

[farmteam]

Those aren't the correct elements as I understand them. From what I gather (I haven't read the complaint), its an antitrust case, and those cases have special standing requirements; its not enough that a plaintiff has merely suffered an economic injury, it must have specifically suffered an injury of the sort the antitrust laws are designed to prevent (i.e., one resulting from anti-competitive activities such as price-fixing, monopolization, etc). The leading Supreme Court case has 'Brunswick' in the title.

 

It appears the state's argument is that the NCAA's failure to follow its rules and procedures will cause the state economic harm. However, as I see it, the economic harm to be suffered (lost revenues to bars, restaurants, hotel's, vendors, etc) is the same that would be suffered by any state with a bad football team. Although the NCAA's sanctions may be cause of PSU being s***ty, the economic harm suffered as a result of the team being bad is no different than that being suffered in Illinois right now because of Tim Beckman. In any event, economic or not, that harm is not 'antitrust' harm; furthermore, the NCAA's actions may have harmed the team's ability to compete on the field, but they don't directly hinder or harm competition within the free markets. Therefore, because there's no antitrust harm or antitrust injury, there's no special antitrust standing. Or at least that's the argument here.

Fascinating; wasn't aware of the special standing rules for antitrust cases.

 

Just reinforces something I've been told countless times: the best response a lawyer can give anyone who asks them for advice is to go find a competent lawyer in that field in the applicable jurisdiction.

[Soxbadger]

These are pretty rare cases, I doubt many have personal experience.

[Kyyle23]

Unsurprisingly, The Paterno family investigation has concluded that the Freeh report was uniformly biased against JoePa and is pretty much all wrong in every fact pointing towards the blame going to JoePa.

 

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=8930657

[iamshack]

Unsurprisingly, The Paterno family investigation has concluded that the Freeh report was uniformly biased against JoePa and is pretty much all wrong in every fact pointing towards the blame going to JoePa.

 

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=8930657

Was listening to Bob Ley's interview of Thornberg on Outside the Lines on the radio and he certainly didn't lay out a particularly convincing argument as to why the Freeh report cannot be trusted. His sole argument was that the report didn't interview any of the principle witnesses, so therefore it could not possibly be complete.

[Quin]

Do the Paterno's realize that by doing this, they're only reintroducing what s*** Paterno was into the public memory?

[Kyyle23]

@CSNCoop: Classic ESPN journalism- three guests ripping Freeh report, defending Paterno. No one giving the other view.

[iamshack]

Do the Paterno's realize that by doing this, they're only reintroducing what s*** Paterno was into the public memory?

I think she's probably trying to clear his name one final time, but I think you're right...just dredging this back up makes it worse...I think people will ultimately just think of JoePa as a bit naive and detached from this, but they won't really lay too much blame on his shoulders. It certainly destroys the rainbows and unicorns associated with him though, and I don't think there's anyway of getting around that.