Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

brucefan

EOG Dedicated

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2020

Sandusky Seeks New Trial Based On Fina-Freeh Collusion, Leaks


Kathleen McChesney
By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

Lawyers for Jerry Sandusky have filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that documents rampant collusion between the criminal investigation of the Penn State sex scandal conducted by the state attorney general's office and the supposedly independent $8 million civil investigation of PSU presided over by former FBI Director Louis Freeh.

Throughout the Freeh investigation, which was the legal basis for the NCAA's unprecedented sanctions imposed against Penn State that included a record $60 million fine, there were "substantial communications" between the AG's office and Freeh's investigators, the motion states. Those communications included a steady stream of leaks to Freeh's investigators emanating from the supposedly secret grand jury probe overseen by former Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, a noted bad actor in this case.

The collusion and leaks between the AG's office and the Freeh Group are documented in three sets of confidential records filed under seal by Sandusky's lawyers; all those records, however, were previously disclosed on Big Trial. The records include a private 79-page diary kept by former FBI Special Agent Kathleen McChesney, the co-leader of the Freeh investigation, in 2011 and 2012; a seven-page "Executive Summary of Findings" of a 2017 confidential review of the Freeh Report conducted by seven Penn State trustees; and a 25-page synopsis of the evidence gleaned by the trustees in 2017 after a review of the so-called "source materials" for the Freeh Report still under judicial seal.

In documents filed Saturday in state Superior Court, Sandusky's lawyers argued in their motion for a new trial that the collusion that existed between the AG and Freeh amounted to a "de facto joint investigation" that not only violated state law regarding grand jury secrecy, but also tainted one of the jurors who convicted Sandusky.

Juror 0990

According to the motion for a new trial, "Juror 0990" was a Penn State employee who was interviewed by Freeh's investigators before she was sworn in as a juror at the Sandusky trial.

"At no time during this colloquy, or any other time, did the prosecution disclose that it was working in collaboration with the Freeh Group which interviewed the witness," lawyers Philip Lauer and Alexander Lindsay Jr. argue in the 31-page motion filed on Sandusky's behalf.

At jury selection, Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, had no knowledge "about the degree of collaboration" ongoing between the AG's office and Freeh investigators, Sandusky's appeal lawyers wrote. Had he known, Amendola stated in an affidavit quoted in the motion for a new trial, Amendola would have "very likely stricken her for cause, or at a minimum, used one of my preemptory strikes to remove her as a potential juror."

Had he known the AG and Freeh Group were working in tandem, Amendola stated in an affidavit, he would have also quizzed all other potential jurors about any interaction with investigators from the Freeh Group. And he "would have sought discovery of all materials and statements obtained by the Freeh Group regarding the Penn State/Sandusky investigation."

Coercive Tactics By Freeh's Investigators

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers describe the hardball tactics employed by Freeh's investigators as detailed in a seven-page June 29, 2018 report from the Penn State trustees who investigated the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. In their report, seven trustees state that "multiple individuals have approached us privately to tell us they were subjected to coercive tactics when interviewed by Freeh's investigators."

"Investigators shouted, were insulting, and demanded that interviewees give them specific information," the seven trustees wrote, such as, "Tell me that Joe Paterno knew Sandusky was abusing kids!"

"Some interviewees were told they could not leave until they provided what the interviewers wanted, even when interviewees protested that this would require them to lie," the trustees wrote. Some individuals were called back by Freeh's investigators for multiple interviews, where the same questions were repeated, and the interviewees were told they were being "uncooperative for refusing to untruthfully agree with interviewers' statements."

"Those employed by university were told their cooperation was a requirement for keeping their jobs," the trustees wrote. And that being labeled "uncooperative" by Freeh's investigators was "perceived as a threat against their employment."

Indeed, the trustees wrote, "one individual indicated that he was fired for failing to tell the interviewers what they wanted to hear."

"Coaches are scared of their jobs," the trustees quoted another interviewee as saying.

"Presumably," Sandusky's lawyers wrote, as a Penn State employee, "Juror number 0990 was subject to this type of coercion."

Sandusky's Lawyers Seek To Depose Freeh, Fina

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers ask the Superior Court for permission to conduct an evidentiary hearing so that Sandusky's lawyers could learn the depth of the collaboration that existed between the AG's office and Freeh's investigators.

At that evidentiary hearing, Sandusky's lawyers wrote, they would seek to depose Freeh, McChesney, and other Freeh investigators that include Gregory Paw and Omar McNeil. Sandusky's lawyers also seek to interview former deputy attorney generals Frank Fina, Jonelle Eshbach and Joseph McGettigan, as well as former AG agents Anthony Sassano and Randy Feathers.

According to the motion, the communications on the part of the AG's office "appear to have included information, and even testimony, from the special investigating grand jury then in session, which communications would be in direct violation of grand jury secrecy rules, and would subject the participants in the Attorney General's office to sanctions."

Sandusky's lawyers are also seeking disclosure of all of the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. Those records, as previously mentioned, are still under seal in the ongoing cover-up of the scandal behind the Penn State scandal, as led by the stonewalling majority on the Penn State board of trustees.

Sandusky, 75, was re-sentenced on appeal last November to serve 30 to 60 years in prison for sexually abusing ten boys, the same sentence he originally got after he was convicted in 2012 on 45 counts of sex abuse.

According to a Dec. 2, 2011, letter of engagement, Freeh was formally hired by Penn State to "perform an independent, full and complete investigation of the recently publicized allegation of sexual abuse."

But instead of an independent investigation, the confidential documents show that the AG's office was hopelessly intertwined with the AG's criminal investigation, tainting both probes. According to the confidential documents, the AG's office was supplying secret grand jury transcripts and information to Freeh's investigators, along with trading information on common witnesses and collaborating on strategy.

The records also show that former deputy Attorney General Fina was in effect directing the Freeh Group's investigation by telling Freeh's investigators which witnesses they could interview, and when. In return, Freeh's investigators shared what they were learning during their investigation with Fina. And when they were done, Freeh's investigators showed the deputy AG their report before it was made public.

https://www.bigtrial.net/2020/05/sandusky-seeks-new-trial-based-on-fina.html?m=1
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
The " fact Freeh " report love it


Anthony Lubrano, an outspoken renegade member of the Penn State board of trustees, opened up about the inner workings of that board, still in full cover-up mode.

Lubrano, who left the board in 2018 when his term was up, but was reelected, and returns to be sworn in today, also spoke candidly about the lack of due process at every stage of the so-called Penn State sex abuse scandal.


Lubrano did his talking on the latest episode of Search Warrant, a podcast hosted by three former cops, and joined by your humble Big Trial correspondent. Lubrano also opened up about his proposed resolution to have the university go to court and sue former FBI Director Louis Freeh, to reclaim the $8.3 million the university paid for Freeh's "fact-free report," as Lubrano put it.


The entire two-hour podcast can be heard here.
 

kane

EOG master
Three years and this scumbag is still posting bullshit stories about his child rapist hero, LMAO. Fact, your child rapist hero will die in prison, get over it already, hopefully he's getting treated the same way he treated those young boys, you're obviously a sick motherfucker who probably fucks little boys as well, you should be reported to the proper authorities
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
A public reprimand , that's it . Lives get destroyed and she gets a tongue lashing unreal

Lawyers' board castigates former state Supreme Court justice for work on Jerry Sandusky case

For errors in Jerry Sandusky case, former Penn State attorney gets scolding from lawyers’ board


By CRAIG R. MCCOY
TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE |
JUL 22, 2020 AT 3:45 PM




FILE - Former Penn State attorney Cynthia Baldwin (Carolyn Kaster/AP)



Attorney Cynthia Baldwin was formally reprimanded for her handling of the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State.


Pennsylvania’s disciplinary board for lawyers formally castigated a former state Supreme Court justice Wednesday, saying her legal work in the Penn State child sex-abuse scandal was marked by “incompetence” that violated the rights of top university administrators.


“You failed in your responsibilities,” Baldwin was told by James C. Haggerty, chairperson of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. “You failed to recognize the magnitude of the challenge.”


For Baldwin, the reprimand was a bitter end to an ordeal that began almost a decade ago when the investigation into sex abuser Sandusky and Penn State’s response to his wrongdoing dominated national news.


The board, an arm of the state Supreme Court, officially delivered a reprimand that had been ordered by the high court in February. The session was conducted on YouTube because of the coronavirus pandemic. Baldwin, 75, her frowning face visible within one box in the live stream, was silent throughout the six-minute denunciation.


The court found that the former justice violated four provisions of the state ethics code for lawyers. Among them was improperly revealing the confidences of former Penn State President Graham B. Spanier and two other former top administrators, which Haggerty said led to criminal charges against them.


Sandusky, a longtime assistant to Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, is serving at least 30 years in prison for molesting 10 boys. Prosecutors later said top administrators quickly decided not to alert authorities about a key allegation against Sandusky and later misled investigators and hid evidence about their actions.


Before becoming a justice, Baldwin, a Democrat, spent 16 years as a Common Pleas judge in Allegheny County. She was the first Black woman to win election to the county bench. Then-Gov. Ed Rendell appointed her to the high court in 2006. She served out the final two years of a departing justice’s term, stepped down, and in 2010 became general counsel for Penn State University. She was also on Penn State’s board.


At crucial sessions before an investigative grand jury in 2011, she sought to represent both Penn State as an institution, and the three top administrators who were under investigation for a suspected cover-up: Spanier, Vice President Gary Schultz and Athletic Director Tim Curley. All three would later be arrested in the scandal.


Two Common Pleas judges found no fault with Baldwin's multiple roles. But in a scathing 2016 opinion, the state Superior Court tossed out the most serious charges against the three men because of her conduct.


The appeals court said Baldwin and a top state prosecutor in the case, Frank Fina, had both violated the men's rights. It said Fina had wrongly called Baldwin herself as a witness against the men in a later grand jury proceeding.


The counsel to the lawyers’ disciplinary board then filed complaints against Baldwin and Fina. Review panels later rejected both complaints.


In Baldwin's case, her review panel issued a 43-page opinion in 2018 concluding that she had fully briefed the three men on her various legal roles. Moreover, the panel said, the men lied to her about their lenient response to Sandusky, falsely leading her to think no conflict existed between them and Penn State. The panel said she had a right to testify before prosecutor Fina about their lies in part to make it plain she had not joined in their cover-up.


Though the panels effectively cleared Baldwin and Fina, the full Disciplinary Board rejected that view and urged the state Supreme Court to discipline them. The high court did so, imposing its harsher punishment on Fina. His law license was suspended for a year and a day, while Baldwin faced only the verbal reprimand.


In his remarks Wednesday, Haggerty painted Baldwin as in over her head in a complex criminal case and oblivious that the probe had moved beyond Sandusky to the three administrators.


"Despite the enormity of the situation," said Haggerty, a Philadelphia personal-injury lawyer, "you failed to prepare yourself or your clients for the grand jury testimony in even the most basic manner."


Haggerty said Baldwin, because of her missteps, fatally undermined the cases against the three administrators.


After the Superior Court threw out the most serious felony perjury and obstruction charges against the trio, Curley and Schultz pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of child endangerment. They each served less than three months behind bars.


Spanier went to trial and was found guilty of the same misdemeanor. That verdict was overturned last year by a federal judge who ruled that Spanier had been convicted under a statute not in effect when he was at Penn State.



A Superior Court ruled that the actions of Cynthia Baldwin, the university's then-general counsel, were improper in testifying against Gary Schultz, Graham Spanier and Tim Curley during grand jury proceedings. (Contributed Photo / AP)

(c)2020 The Philadelphia Inquirer
https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylv...0200722-n6cwqyufonb77cfrvb53jpteyi-story.html
 
Top