What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)

This is a terrible tragedy for the Paterno family, obviously they are the real victims here. :rolleyes: To answer your question, I have no idea if she is guilty of anything. But I know those kids that Sandusky abused were not guilty of anything, and they suffered a lot more than lost swimming privileges.
So what if they suffered more than lost swimming privileges? Should we rape the Paterno family to even things out? I see no reason Sue should have lost swimming privileges.
You forgot to put :rolleyes: in there. You can't fight emoticons without emoticons. It's a silly comparison to relate Sue's activities to what happened to the kids. Unless there's info that supports her being complicit in this, it's silly to ban her from the pool.

 
Pretty sure the Sue Paterno thing was a misunderstanding.ETA:

Sue Paterno, wife of former head football coach Joe Paterno, was indeed told to leave a Penn State campus pool recently, according to a source close to the family.The story created online chatter about the Penn State Natatorium's holiday schedule. When university spokesman Bill Mahon said Thursday that Sue Paterno was not turned away from the Natatorium - because the facility is closed for Thanksgiving - it created the impression that The Patriot-News' original story was wrong.Our story was correct. Sue Paterno never even went to the Natatorium. She always works out at the football building's pool and that is the pool she was asked to leave.Now, the Paternos are talking with Intercollegiate Athletics about their ability to continue using the pool and other facilities in the Lasch football building, Mahon said. Discussions are underway to work out those details. Retired former football coach Jerry Sandusky maintained an office on campus for many years and used campus facilities before the current child sex abuse scandal enveloped him - including long after a 2002 report involving Sandusky and a young boy in the football building showers reached Paterno and other school officials.
And it would be silly to ban her from using the facilities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a terrible tragedy for the Paterno family, obviously they are the real victims here. :rolleyes: To answer your question, I have no idea if she is guilty of anything. But I know those kids that Sandusky abused were not guilty of anything, and they suffered a lot more than lost swimming privileges.
So what if they suffered more than lost swimming privileges? Should we rape the Paterno family to even things out? I see no reason Sue should have lost swimming privileges.
You forgot to put :rolleyes: in there. You can't fight emoticons without emoticons. It's a silly comparison to relate Sue's activities to what happened to the kids. Unless there's info that supports her being complicit in this, it's silly to ban her from the pool.
Let her swim, who cares? Just pointing out that a lot of people who are guilty of nothing are suffering much worse in this situation. Just for example, a post about a victim choosing to withdraw from school because other students are angry gets almost no play in this forum, but Sue Paterno being told she can't swim for free is an issue to be focused on. Just another example of how the cult of personality of Paterno has skewed people's judgment. Sue Paterno not being allowed to swim one day doesn't even rank in the top 100 of bad consequences for people accused of no wrongdoing, and yet here we are focusing on the big name instead of the real victims.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty sure the Sue Paterno thing was a misunderstanding.ETA:

Sue Paterno, wife of former head football coach Joe Paterno, was indeed told to leave a Penn State campus pool recently, according to a source close to the family.The story created online chatter about the Penn State Natatorium's holiday schedule. When university spokesman Bill Mahon said Thursday that Sue Paterno was not turned away from the Natatorium - because the facility is closed for Thanksgiving - it created the impression that The Patriot-News' original story was wrong.Our story was correct. Sue Paterno never even went to the Natatorium. She always works out at the football building's pool and that is the pool she was asked to leave.Now, the Paternos are talking with Intercollegiate Athletics about their ability to continue using the pool and other facilities in the Lasch football building, Mahon said. Discussions are underway to work out those details. Retired former football coach Jerry Sandusky maintained an office on campus for many years and used campus facilities before the current child sex abuse scandal enveloped him - including long after a 2002 report involving Sandusky and a young boy in the football building showers reached Paterno and other school officials.
And it would be silly to ban her from using the facilities.
Shouldn't the school do everthing possible to distance themselves, including the use of on-campus facilities (which is what Sandusky continued to do) from the Paterno's? They have to show that the school takes allegations seriously that Paterno enables a child rapist to roam his campus for 10 years plus, and looked the other way, correct?
 
This is a terrible tragedy for the Paterno family, obviously they are the real victims here. :rolleyes: To answer your question, I have no idea if she is guilty of anything. But I know those kids that Sandusky abused were not guilty of anything, and they suffered a lot more than lost swimming privileges.
So what if they suffered more than lost swimming privileges? Should we rape the Paterno family to even things out? I see no reason Sue should have lost swimming privileges.
I think it's expected that Penn St. distance themselves from the Paterno's.
 
Unless the pool is public access, kick the hag out. She can open a fire plug like the rest of us.
I doubt that the players pool is for public usage, so I would totally understand why Penn St. is denying the wife a rapist enabler special access.
 
This is a terrible tragedy for the Paterno family, obviously they are the real victims here. :rolleyes: To answer your question, I have no idea if she is guilty of anything. But I know those kids that Sandusky abused were not guilty of anything, and they suffered a lot more than lost swimming privileges.
So what if they suffered more than lost swimming privileges? Should we rape the Paterno family to even things out? I see no reason Sue should have lost swimming privileges.
You forgot to put :rolleyes: in there. You can't fight emoticons without emoticons. It's a silly comparison to relate Sue's activities to what happened to the kids. Unless there's info that supports her being complicit in this, it's silly to ban her from the pool.
Let her swim, who cares? Just pointing out that a lot of people who are guilty of nothing are suffering much worse in this situation. Just for example, a post about a victim choosing to withdraw from school because other students are angry gets almost no play in this forum, but Sue Paterno being told she can't swim for free is an issue to be focused on. Just another example of how the cult of personality of Paterno has skewed people's judgment. Sue Paterno not being allowed to swim one day doesn't even rank in the top 100 of bad consequences for people accused of no wrongdoing, and yet here we are focusing on the big name instead of the real victims.
:goodposting:
 
This is a terrible tragedy for the Paterno family, obviously they are the real victims here. :rolleyes: To answer your question, I have no idea if she is guilty of anything. But I know those kids that Sandusky abused were not guilty of anything, and they suffered a lot more than lost swimming privileges.
So what if they suffered more than lost swimming privileges? Should we rape the Paterno family to even things out? I see no reason Sue should have lost swimming privileges.
You forgot to put :rolleyes: in there. You can't fight emoticons without emoticons. It's a silly comparison to relate Sue's activities to what happened to the kids. Unless there's info that supports her being complicit in this, it's silly to ban her from the pool.
Let her swim, who cares? Just pointing out that a lot of people who are guilty of nothing are suffering much worse in this situation. Just for example, a post about a victim choosing to withdraw from school because other students are angry gets almost no play in this forum, but Sue Paterno being told she can't swim for free is an issue to be focused on. Just another example of how the cult of personality of Paterno has skewed people's judgment. Sue Paterno not being allowed to swim one day doesn't even rank in the top 100 of bad consequences for people accused of no wrongdoing, and yet here we are focusing on the big name instead of the real victims.
:goodposting:
I'm hardly outraged over Sue Paterno being turned away from the football team's pool. It's a pretty simple consequence of her husband enabling a child rapist on campus. That said, of course, there are much larger issues in this story to be outraged out, namely, as this example above illustrates, how many people put the success of a football team over the life of a child. There are many people who either turned their heads to look away to enable this, don't understand why people would have issues with this position, or simply think they are being made victims of this (like the Paterno's)....it does paint a picture of how ugly people in that state are, and how messed up their list of priorities are.
 
Let her swim, who cares? Just pointing out that a lot of people who are guilty of nothing are suffering much worse in this situation. Just for example, a post about a victim choosing to withdraw from school because other students are angry gets almost no play in this forum, but Sue Paterno being told she can't swim for free is an issue to be focused on. Just another example of how the cult of personality of Paterno has skewed people's judgment. Sue Paterno not being allowed to swim one day doesn't even rank in the top 100 of bad consequences for people accused of no wrongdoing, and yet here we are focusing on the big name instead of the real victims.
:goodposting:
Wrong. This is a worthless comparison. The Sue Paterno/swimming story became a forum topic AFTER amosmoses posted that he was happy about Sue's treatment, and it is his vindictiveness which has been the focus of attention. No one posted that they were happy about the mistreatment of the victim at his high school. I agree that this is a very minor side story.
 
Let her swim, who cares? Just pointing out that a lot of people who are guilty of nothing are suffering much worse in this situation. Just for example, a post about a victim choosing to withdraw from school because other students are angry gets almost no play in this forum, but Sue Paterno being told she can't swim for free is an issue to be focused on. Just another example of how the cult of personality of Paterno has skewed people's judgment. Sue Paterno not being allowed to swim one day doesn't even rank in the top 100 of bad consequences for people accused of no wrongdoing, and yet here we are focusing on the big name instead of the real victims.
:goodposting:
Wrong. This is a worthless comparison. The Sue Paterno/swimming story became a forum topic AFTER amosmoses posted that he was happy about Sue's treatment, and it is his vindictiveness which has been the focus of attention. No one posted that they were happy about the mistreatment of the victim at his high school. I agree that this is a very minor side story.
Wadsworth didn't accuse anyone of being happy about the mistreatment of the victim in high school.
 
Let her swim, who cares? Just pointing out that a lot of people who are guilty of nothing are suffering much worse in this situation. Just for example, a post about a victim choosing to withdraw from school because other students are angry gets almost no play in this forum, but Sue Paterno being told she can't swim for free is an issue to be focused on. Just another example of how the cult of personality of Paterno has skewed people's judgment. Sue Paterno not being allowed to swim one day doesn't even rank in the top 100 of bad consequences for people accused of no wrongdoing, and yet here we are focusing on the big name instead of the real victims.
:goodposting:
Wrong. This is a worthless comparison. The Sue Paterno/swimming story became a forum topic AFTER amosmoses posted that he was happy about Sue's treatment, and it is his vindictiveness which has been the focus of attention. No one posted that they were happy about the mistreatment of the victim at his high school. I agree that this is a very minor side story.
Wadsworth didn't accuse anyone of being happy about the mistreatment of the victim in high school.
He said we were focusing on Sue Paterno instead of the real victims, which is incorrect. The focus is on the vindictive response from amosmoses.
 
Let her swim, who cares? Just pointing out that a lot of people who are guilty of nothing are suffering much worse in this situation. Just for example, a post about a victim choosing to withdraw from school because other students are angry gets almost no play in this forum, but Sue Paterno being told she can't swim for free is an issue to be focused on. Just another example of how the cult of personality of Paterno has skewed people's judgment. Sue Paterno not being allowed to swim one day doesn't even rank in the top 100 of bad consequences for people accused of no wrongdoing, and yet here we are focusing on the big name instead of the real victims.
:goodposting:
Wrong. This is a worthless comparison. The Sue Paterno/swimming story became a forum topic AFTER amosmoses posted that he was happy about Sue's treatment, and it is his vindictiveness which has been the focus of attention. No one posted that they were happy about the mistreatment of the victim at his high school. I agree that this is a very minor side story.
Wadsworth didn't accuse anyone of being happy about the mistreatment of the victim in high school.
He said we were focusing on Sue Paterno instead of the real victims, which is incorrect. The focus is on the vindictive response from amosmoses.
I don't give a crap about amosmoses. Why do you? I was agreeing that we should be talking more about the victims like the kid in that high school and what they have had to endure and that the story about Sue Paterno isn't worth our time. And why would you even say something like "No one posted that they were happy about the mistreatment of the victim at his high school."? WTF does that have to do with anything Wadsworth or I said? His post was very good but your's was dumb and irrelevant. You are making stuff up and focusing on someone who nobody cares about or should about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let her swim, who cares? Just pointing out that a lot of people who are guilty of nothing are suffering much worse in this situation. Just for example, a post about a victim choosing to withdraw from school because other students are angry gets almost no play in this forum, but Sue Paterno being told she can't swim for free is an issue to be focused on. Just another example of how the cult of personality of Paterno has skewed people's judgment. Sue Paterno not being allowed to swim one day doesn't even rank in the top 100 of bad consequences for people accused of no wrongdoing, and yet here we are focusing on the big name instead of the real victims.
:goodposting:
Wrong. This is a worthless comparison. The Sue Paterno/swimming story became a forum topic AFTER amosmoses posted that he was happy about Sue's treatment, and it is his vindictiveness which has been the focus of attention. No one posted that they were happy about the mistreatment of the victim at his high school. I agree that this is a very minor side story.
Wadsworth didn't accuse anyone of being happy about the mistreatment of the victim in high school.
He said we were focusing on Sue Paterno instead of the real victims, which is incorrect. The focus is on the vindictive response from amosmoses.
I don't give a crap about amosmoses. Why do you? I was agreeing that we should be talking more about the victims like the kid in that high school and what they have had to endure and that the story about Sue Paterno isn't worth our time. And why would you even say something like "No one posted that they were happy about the mistreatment of the victim at his high school."? WTF does that have to do with anything Wadsworth or I said? His post was very good but your's was dumb and irrelevant. You are making stuff up and focusing on someone who nobody cares about or should about.
You're failing miserably here. Responding to opinions in posts is the essence of a forum board. And please link to something that I made up.
 
Let her swim, who cares? Just pointing out that a lot of people who are guilty of nothing are suffering much worse in this situation. Just for example, a post about a victim choosing to withdraw from school because other students are angry gets almost no play in this forum, but Sue Paterno being told she can't swim for free is an issue to be focused on. Just another example of how the cult of personality of Paterno has skewed people's judgment. Sue Paterno not being allowed to swim one day doesn't even rank in the top 100 of bad consequences for people accused of no wrongdoing, and yet here we are focusing on the big name instead of the real victims.
:goodposting:
Wrong. This is a worthless comparison. The Sue Paterno/swimming story became a forum topic AFTER amosmoses posted that he was happy about Sue's treatment, and it is his vindictiveness which has been the focus of attention. No one posted that they were happy about the mistreatment of the victim at his high school. I agree that this is a very minor side story.
Wadsworth didn't accuse anyone of being happy about the mistreatment of the victim in high school.
He said we were focusing on Sue Paterno instead of the real victims, which is incorrect. The focus is on the vindictive response from amosmoses.
I don't give a crap about amosmoses. Why do you? I was agreeing that we should be talking more about the victims like the kid in that high school and what they have had to endure and that the story about Sue Paterno isn't worth our time. And why would you even say something like "No one posted that they were happy about the mistreatment of the victim at his high school."? WTF does that have to do with anything Wadsworth or I said? His post was very good but your's was dumb and irrelevant. You are making stuff up and focusing on someone who nobody cares about or should about.
You're failing miserably here. Responding to opinions in posts is the essence of a forum board. And please link to something that I made up.
You didn't answer my question. Why would you even say something like "No one posted that they were happy about the mistreatment of the victim at his high school."? WTF does that have to do with anything Wadsworth or I said?
 
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-pennstate-charity

Lawyers see victim civil suits v. Sandusky charity

By KEVIN BEGOS, Associated Press

PITTSBURGH (AP)—Lawyers want a youth charity established by a former Penn State football assistant coach at the heart of a child molestation scandal to stay solvent so they can file future lawsuits for victims.

The Second Mile shouldn’t be allowed to dissolve its assets, according to a lawsuit filed late Wednesday on behalf of someone who claims to be a victim of Jerry Sandusky, the charity’s founder. The complaint also suggests some of the future legal strategies that may be used in civil lawsuits.

Lawyers Benjamin Andreozzi and Jeffrey Fritz are seeking an injunction to stop The Second Mile from dissolving or transferring its assets. Nonprofit corporations that cease operations are generally allowed to transfer assets to other charitable groups with a similar mission.

“We felt it was necessary to take this action after learning the organization was considering transferring its programs and not continuing its operations,” Andreozzi said, referring to reports last week that the charity was mulling several different options for its future, including the possibility of shutting down.

“We believe it is in the best interest of our clients, as well as the other victims, to ensure that the organization is being financially responsible. The injunction would not interrupt the everyday operations of The Second Mile or its existing programs,” Andreozzi said in a statement.

Sandusky, Penn State’s former defensive coordinator and coach Joe Paterno’s one-time heir apparent, founded The Second Mile in 1977. The group said last week it was considering its future in light of the scandal and its options include closing, though no decision has been made. The charity’s most recent tax filing showed it had almost $9 million in assets.

David Woodle, who was named acting CEO earlier this month after longtime leader Jack Raykovitz resigned, said the organization is looking at three options as it moves forward: restructuring and keeping its programs going, even if it means doing so at a reduced level of service and funding; maintaining the programs by transferring them to other organizations; or shutting down.

“Our primary goal is to sustain the programs for the sake of the kids,” Woodle said.

Sandusky set up The Second Mile for youngsters from broken homes and troubled backgrounds, building it into an organization that helped as many as 100,000 children a year through camps and fundraisers.

But in the aftermath of the charges against him, questions have been raised about his role in the charity and how much its officials knew of the allegations against him before the release of a state grand jury report this month.

State prosecutors contend that running the charity gave Sandusky “access to hundreds of boys, many of whom were vulnerable due to their social situations.”

The grand jury said Penn State officials told Raykovitz in 2002 that there had been an issue with Sandusky and a minor. But the charity said it took no action against Sandusky because Penn State did not find any wrongdoing.

Sandusky informed The Second Mile’s board in November 2008 that he was under investigation. The charity said it subsequently barred him from activities involving children.

Andreozzi and Fritz’ lawsuit said the accuser—identified as Victim No. 4— intends to charge The Second Mile with “failing to ban or restrict overnight activities between Sandusky and children” and failing to follow policies used by other organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, such as the “Two-Deep” rule, which generally calls for two adult supervisors on all outings.

The lawsuit also suggests that The Second Mile was negligent both in the supervision of children and in the supervision of Sandusky, and claims that the charity failed to provide the victim “with any assistance in coping with the injuries sustained from sexual assaults.”

The Second Mile has received the filing and will adhere to its legal responsibilities, a spokesman said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Sandusky is charged with sexually abusing eight boys over a 15-year period. Authorities said he met them through the charity. Sandusky has acknowledged he showered with boys but said he never molested them.

The lawsuit claims that at least 11 accusers have come forward in the case, but the additional cases are apparently still under investigation by authorities.

Andreozzi, whose firm specializes in sexual abuse litigation, and Fritz represent at least one client who accuses Sandusky of severe sexual assault. Andreozzi has said they are in “active communication” with other potential clients.

The attorney general’s office has not confirmed if more complaints from different accusers will result in more charges.

 
Pretty sure the Sue Paterno thing was a misunderstanding.ETA:

Sue Paterno, wife of former head football coach Joe Paterno, was indeed told to leave a Penn State campus pool recently, according to a source close to the family.The story created online chatter about the Penn State Natatorium's holiday schedule. When university spokesman Bill Mahon said Thursday that Sue Paterno was not turned away from the Natatorium - because the facility is closed for Thanksgiving - it created the impression that The Patriot-News' original story was wrong.Our story was correct. Sue Paterno never even went to the Natatorium. She always works out at the football building's pool and that is the pool she was asked to leave.Now, the Paternos are talking with Intercollegiate Athletics about their ability to continue using the pool and other facilities in the Lasch football building, Mahon said. Discussions are underway to work out those details. Retired former football coach Jerry Sandusky maintained an office on campus for many years and used campus facilities before the current child sex abuse scandal enveloped him - including long after a 2002 report involving Sandusky and a young boy in the football building showers reached Paterno and other school officials.
And it would be silly to ban her from using the facilities.
Shouldn't the school do everthing possible to distance themselves, including the use of on-campus facilities (which is what Sandusky continued to do) from the Paterno's? They have to show that the school takes allegations seriously that Paterno enables a child rapist to roam his campus for 10 years plus, and looked the other way, correct?
I'm comfortable, knowing what we already know, with PSU's decision to fire Paterno.But come on, we have no evidence whatsoever at this point that Mrs Paterno was at all involved or knowledgeable about what went on. Let the woman exercise.
 
I am surprised Sandusky is still alive. I thought he would have ended himself to keep from having to face these charges and go to prison.

 
Family member said among new cases
Probably the reason why Sandusky's daughter-in-law asked the court to supervise his visits with her children.
Ding ding dingThe latest complaint was filed by the wife of Matt Sandusky, who was the same person who filed for a restraining order when Jerry Sandusky was first arrested.
Are the son and dil divorced? Why would you need a restraining order? Just don't take the kids around Sandusky? :confused:
 
'Not Sure said:
'The Future Champs said:
'Not Sure said:
'The Future Champs said:
'Not Sure said:
'The Future Champs said:
'Not Sure said:
'Wadsworth said:
Let her swim, who cares? Just pointing out that a lot of people who are guilty of nothing are suffering much worse in this situation. Just for example, a post about a victim choosing to withdraw from school because other students are angry gets almost no play in this forum, but Sue Paterno being told she can't swim for free is an issue to be focused on. Just another example of how the cult of personality of Paterno has skewed people's judgment. Sue Paterno not being allowed to swim one day doesn't even rank in the top 100 of bad consequences for people accused of no wrongdoing, and yet here we are focusing on the big name instead of the real victims.
:goodposting:
Wrong. This is a worthless comparison. The Sue Paterno/swimming story became a forum topic AFTER amosmoses posted that he was happy about Sue's treatment, and it is his vindictiveness which has been the focus of attention. No one posted that they were happy about the mistreatment of the victim at his high school. I agree that this is a very minor side story.
Wadsworth didn't accuse anyone of being happy about the mistreatment of the victim in high school.
He said we were focusing on Sue Paterno instead of the real victims, which is incorrect. The focus is on the vindictive response from amosmoses.
I don't give a crap about amosmoses. Why do you? I was agreeing that we should be talking more about the victims like the kid in that high school and what they have had to endure and that the story about Sue Paterno isn't worth our time. And why would you even say something like "No one posted that they were happy about the mistreatment of the victim at his high school."? WTF does that have to do with anything Wadsworth or I said? His post was very good but your's was dumb and irrelevant. You are making stuff up and focusing on someone who nobody cares about or should about.
You're failing miserably here. Responding to opinions in posts is the essence of a forum board. And please link to something that I made up.
You didn't answer my question. Why would you even say something like "No one posted that they were happy about the mistreatment of the victim at his high school."? WTF does that have to do with anything Wadsworth or I said?
It's the same reason there has been more talk about Paterno than Sandusky. Things we all agree on don't warrant much discussion.
 
link

The U.S. Department of Education has told Penn State University it would send representatives to the University Park campus beginning today to investigate whether the university failed to comply with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act in response to allegations of sex offenses by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.

"We are making every effort to provide the review team with immediate access to all requested records and information sources pertaining to all aspects of Clery Act compliance," Penn State President Rodney Erickson said about the review, according to the school's website. "The notification letter included a long list of information the committee needs, and we have been busy gathering as much of that information in advance of their visit as possible."

Under the Clery Act, colleges and universities are required to disclose the number of criminal offenses on campus that are reported each year. In addition, in certain cases, the institution must issue a timely warning if a reported crime represents a threat to the campus community, according to the Department of Education.

According to PSU, members of the review team will be interviewing those with responsibilities involving campus security, policing, judicial affairs, residence life, student affairs, athletics, Greek letter organizations and more.

The federal law is named for Jeanne Clery, a 19-year-old Lehigh University freshman who was raped and murdered by another student in her campus residence hall in 1986.
 
link

The U.S. Department of Education has told Penn State University it would send representatives to the University Park campus beginning today to investigate whether the university failed to comply with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act in response to allegations of sex offenses by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.

"We are making every effort to provide the review team with immediate access to all requested records and information sources pertaining to all aspects of Clery Act compliance," Penn State President Rodney Erickson said about the review, according to the school's website. "The notification letter included a long list of information the committee needs, and we have been busy gathering as much of that information in advance of their visit as possible."

Under the Clery Act, colleges and universities are required to disclose the number of criminal offenses on campus that are reported each year. In addition, in certain cases, the institution must issue a timely warning if a reported crime represents a threat to the campus community, according to the Department of Education.

According to PSU, members of the review team will be interviewing those with responsibilities involving campus security, policing, judicial affairs, residence life, student affairs, athletics, Greek letter organizations and more.

The federal law is named for Jeanne Clery, a 19-year-old Lehigh University freshman who was raped and murdered by another student in her campus residence hall in 1986.
Nice. I think it will take the feds to tear down the child rapist enabler and child rapist protecter house that is PSU.
 
New accuser files lawsuit against Jerry Sandusky

By Andy Colwell, The Patriot-News

Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky sexually abused a boy more than 100 times, then threatened to harm his family to keep him quiet, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday that details new accusations not included in criminal charges against Sandusky.

The lawsuit is the first in the Penn State child sex-abuse scandal and identifies the plaintiff, now 29 years old, only as John Doe. It claims Sandusky abused the boy from 1992 to 1996 at the coach's State College home, in a Penn State locker room, on trips to Philadelphia and at a college football bowl game.

The alleged victim claims that his "unwanted" contact with Sandusky began when he was 10 years old.

"I am the man in this lawsuit," the unidentified victim said in a statement released by his St. Paul, Minn., attorney, Jeffrey Anderson. "I'm writing this statement and taking this action because I don't want other kids to be hurt and abused by Jerry Sandusky or anybody… to allow people like him to do it, rape kids!

"I never told anybody what he did to me over 100 times at all kinds of places until the newspapers reported that he had abused other kids and the people at Penn State and The Second Mile (the charity for at-risk children founded by Sandusky) didn't do the things they should have to protect me and the other kids."

The victim said he had been "hurting for a long time because of what happened" and now feels "even more tormented that I have learned of so many other kids were abused after me. "

The lawsuit names Sandusky, Penn State University and The Second Mile as defendants in a 27-page claim, which seeks at least $400,000 in damages, alleges abuse by Sandusky, negligence and that the three defendants conspired to "endanger children."

The man was not among the eight victims mentioned in a grand jury report. He filed a new complaint Tuesday with law enforcement, but his attorney wouldn't say to which agency.

Anderson said he believes Sandusky could not control his sexual impulses toward children and harshly criticized officials who failed to report their suspicions.

"We need to address the institutional recklessness and failures," said Anderson, who specializes in clergy sex-abuse lawsuits. "Was it because of power, money, fear, loyalty, lack of education?"

Sandusky's attorney, Joseph Amendola, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Sandusky has acknowledged that he showered with boys but has denied molesting them.

Penn State spokeswoman Lisa Powers said that the university had not yet received the court documents.

"As with any litigation, we are unable to comment on specifics related to the case,'' Powers said.

The charity said it will respond after reviewing the lawsuit, but added: "The Second Mile will adhere to its legal responsibilities throughout this process. As always, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families."

The man who filed the lawsuit said Sandusky gave him gifts, travel and privileges after meeting him through his charity, The Second Mile, in 1992. The abuse began shortly after and lasted until 1996, the suit said.

Sandusky was charged in early November with abusing eight boys, some on campus, over 15 years, allegations that were not immediately brought to the attention of authorities even though high-level people at Penn State apparently knew about at least one of them.

The scandal has resulted in the departures of school President Graham Spanier and longtime coach Joe Paterno. Athletic Director Tim Curley has been placed on administrative leave, and Vice President Gary Schultz, who was in charge of the university's police department, has stepped down.

Schultz and Curley are charged with lying to the grand jury and failure to report to police, and Sandusky is charged with child sex abuse. All maintain their innocence.

 
Serious question for the LawyerGuys around here, and I promise that I have no agenda with this question:

If you have a cleint who is claiming that they were sexual assaulted 15-20 years ago, and no one had ever witnessed it, how do you present the case? What evidence do you present?

 
'ClownCausedChaos said:
Serious question for the LawyerGuys around here, and I promise that I have no agenda with this question:

If you have a cleint who is claiming that they were sexual assaulted 15-20 years ago, and no one had ever witnessed it, how do you present the case? What evidence do you present?
I'm not a LawyerGuy, but I would think the proof of guilt stadard would be lowered greatly in the minds of the jurors when the accused is named Sandusky/Penn State/Second Mile. IMO this is where some smart judge work needs to happen to try and weed out real victims from money-grabbers (if that is the case). Once the case gets to a jury, it's over.
 
'ClownCausedChaos said:
Serious question for the LawyerGuys around here, and I promise that I have no agenda with this question:

If you have a cleint who is claiming that they were sexual assaulted 15-20 years ago, and no one had ever witnessed it, how do you present the case? What evidence do you present?
I'm not a LawyerGuy, but I would think the proof of guilt stadard would be lowered greatly in the minds of the jurors when the accused is named Sandusky/Penn State/Second Mile. IMO this is where some smart judge work needs to happen to try and weed out real victims from money-grabbers (if that is the case). Once the case gets to a jury, it's over.
And I completely agree with you that in this particular instance, the names of the accused would probably be enough.I guess I was just asking out of curiosity in a general sense.

 
did someone post the onion article in here?

don't wanna repeat things in this thread, that would be rude

 
I'm not a LawyerGuy, but I would think the proof of guilt stadard would be lowered greatly in the minds of the jurors when the accused is named Sandusky/Penn State/Second Mile. IMO this is where some smart judge work needs to happen to try and weed out real victims from money-grabbers (if that is the case). Once the case gets to a jury, it's over.
Remember, though -- this latest case is a civil case, not new criminal charges. There shouldn't be a jury involved.
 
I'm not a LawyerGuy, but I would think the proof of guilt stadard would be lowered greatly in the minds of the jurors when the accused is named Sandusky/Penn State/Second Mile. IMO this is where some smart judge work needs to happen to try and weed out real victims from money-grabbers (if that is the case). Once the case gets to a jury, it's over.
Remember, though -- this latest case is a civil case, not new criminal charges. There shouldn't be a jury involved.
Civil cases have juries, unless both parties agree to have a judge decide it.
 
I'm not a LawyerGuy, but I would think the proof of guilt stadard would be lowered greatly in the minds of the jurors when the accused is named Sandusky/Penn State/Second Mile. IMO this is where some smart judge work needs to happen to try and weed out real victims from money-grabbers (if that is the case). Once the case gets to a jury, it's over.
Remember, though -- this latest case is a civil case, not new criminal charges. There shouldn't be a jury involved.
:confused:
 
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) -- Penn State University officials have vowed to increase transparency and ethical standards and plan to donate $1.5 million in bowl proceeds to a pair of sex-crime advocacy organizations in the wake of shocking sex-abuse allegations levied against the school's once-revered assistant football coach.

University President Rod Erickson promised the donation Thursday morning, a day after he and other administrators faced pointed questions at a student-organized town hall forum.

Erickson told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday that the Big Ten bowl revenue, which usually goes back to the athletic department, will go to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

"This presents an excellent opportunity for Penn State to raise the national visibility of this issue," Erickson said. "Our students and fans are focused on a cause to play for, to cheer for."

The Wednesday night forum came on the heels of fresh sex abuse allegations against former coach Jerry Sandusky, who was accused in a lawsuit Wednesday of sexually abusing a young boy more than 100 times after meeting him through the charity the coach founded in the 1970s.

Authorities have charged Sandusky with sexually abusing eight boys over a 15-year span, and the state police commissioner has criticized school leaders for failing to do more to alert authorities to the allegations. The ex-coach has acknowledged that he showered with boys but denied molesting them.

Ethics would be raised "to a new level so that everyone at the university understands not just the legal thing to do, but the moral thing to do, so that we learn to do the right thing the first time, every time," Erickson told about 450 attendees at a crowded auditorium at the student union building.

Students appeared grateful to get answers more than three weeks after Sandusky was charged Nov. 5, hopeful it would aid in the arduous healing process.

"I think this is a good start for a lot of good things that can happen at the university," said student Andrew Comes, 21, following the two-hour forum. "It's a singularly bad event, but there can still be positive repercussions and good things happening from it."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/12/01/penn-state-donation.ap/index.html#ixzz1fL6B7s5b

 
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) -- Penn State University officials have vowed to increase transparency and ethical standards and plan to donate $1.5 million in bowl proceeds to a pair of sex-crime advocacy organizations in the wake of shocking sex-abuse allegations levied against the school's once-revered assistant football coach.

University President Rod Erickson promised the donation Thursday morning, a day after he and other administrators faced pointed questions at a student-organized town hall forum.

Erickson told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday that the Big Ten bowl revenue, which usually goes back to the athletic department, will go to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

"This presents an excellent opportunity for Penn State to raise the national visibility of this issue," Erickson said. "Our students and fans are focused on a cause to play for, to cheer for."

The Wednesday night forum came on the heels of fresh sex abuse allegations against former coach Jerry Sandusky, who was accused in a lawsuit Wednesday of sexually abusing a young boy more than 100 times after meeting him through the charity the coach founded in the 1970s.

Authorities have charged Sandusky with sexually abusing eight boys over a 15-year span, and the state police commissioner has criticized school leaders for failing to do more to alert authorities to the allegations. The ex-coach has acknowledged that he showered with boys but denied molesting them.

Ethics would be raised "to a new level so that everyone at the university understands not just the legal thing to do, but the moral thing to do, so that we learn to do the right thing the first time, every time," Erickson told about 450 attendees at a crowded auditorium at the student union building.

Students appeared grateful to get answers more than three weeks after Sandusky was charged Nov. 5, hopeful it would aid in the arduous healing process.

"I think this is a good start for a lot of good things that can happen at the university," said student Andrew Comes, 21, following the two-hour forum. "It's a singularly bad event, but there can still be positive repercussions and good things happening from it."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/12/01/penn-state-donation.ap/index.html#ixzz1fL6B7s5b
No Andrew, it was decades of repeated events.
 
1.5 Million isn't even worth announcing. How much are they going to make from their bowl? How much did the football program make this year? This program raped children and they are going to give 10% or less of its yearly income. Nice.

 
Here is a multi-million dollar smoking gun for why Paterno would not want to expose Sandusky back in 2002...

link

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- Former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno had close business ties with board members of The Second Mile, the charity founded by alleged child molester and former Nittany Lions assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, the online publication The Daily reported.

Paterno and three fellow investors, including longtime Second Mile board chairman Robert Poole, secured financing to build a $125 million luxury retirement community around 2002, according to public records, The Daily reported Monday.

Paterno was partnered with that team of investors in developing a golf resort and nearby restaurant and inn, The Daily reported. Paterno also partnered with other current and former Second Mile board members on a bottled water company, a coaching website and a chain of convenience stores, according to the report.

Sandusky is charged with abusing eight boys over a 15-year span in a scandal that has enveloped the school and tarnished the reputation of its football program. He has maintained he never sexually abused children.

A lottery has been established for public seating for Sandusky's next court hearing on the charges.

The Centre County Court of Common Pleas said Monday that applications for seating at the Dec. 13 preliminary hearing would be accepted for 24 hours on the county's webpage starting Wednesday at noon ET. A random drawing will then be held to assign seats. Those who get seats will be notified on Friday.

A court statement said space was limited for the hearing but did not specify how much public seating was available.
 
Here is a multi-million dollar smoking gun for why Paterno would not want to expose Sandusky back in 2002...

link

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- Former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno had close business ties with board members of The Second Mile, the charity founded by alleged child molester and former Nittany Lions assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, the online publication The Daily reported.

Paterno and three fellow investors, including longtime Second Mile board chairman Robert Poole, secured financing to build a $125 million luxury retirement community around 2002, according to public records, The Daily reported Monday.

Paterno was partnered with that team of investors in developing a golf resort and nearby restaurant and inn, The Daily reported. Paterno also partnered with other current and former Second Mile board members on a bottled water company, a coaching website and a chain of convenience stores, according to the report.
How is this a smoking gun? I don't even understand the motive being alleged. The victims could go after Second Mile's assets in a tort case, but unless the board members somehow co-mingled their personal assets, they couldn't go after the board members' private assets, which is what would be financing the business venture.
 
I'm just saying that Paterno might have withheld information or coerced others to downplay the accusations because he had millions of dollars invested in business with the Second Mile.

If the child molestation stuff had surfaced back in 2002, I presume that Paterno stood to lose millions.

 
I'm just saying that Paterno might have withheld information or coerced others to downplay the accusations because he had millions of dollars invested in business with the Second Mile.If the child molestation stuff had surfaced back in 2002, I presume that Paterno stood to lose millions.
You watch too many movies.
 
I'm just saying that Paterno might have withheld information or coerced others to downplay the accusations because he had millions of dollars invested in business with the Second Mile.If the child molestation stuff had surfaced back in 2002, I presume that Paterno stood to lose millions.
He didn't have millions of dollars of business invested with Second Mile. He had millions of dollars of business invested in private projects along with other investors who happened to be on the Second Mile board. This is a very important distinction. The assets of Second Mile may have been in jeapardy from a civil suit, but not the assets of the investors who were on the Second Mile board. Absent some wacky business processes that no sophisticated investors would engage in, there would be no reason to "pierce the veil" and look to the board member's assets.
 
Tom Bradley this morning on 93.7 the Fan in Pittsburgh said this thing is "overblown" when asked if it could effect him being hired as head coach, they need to boot him as well, what a dumb statement

 
I'm just saying that Paterno might have withheld information or coerced others to downplay the accusations because he had millions of dollars invested in business with the Second Mile.If the child molestation stuff had surfaced back in 2002, I presume that Paterno stood to lose millions.
He didn't have millions of dollars of business invested with Second Mile. He had millions of dollars of business invested in private projects along with other investors who happened to be on the Second Mile board. This is a very important distinction. The assets of Second Mile may have been in jeapardy from a civil suit, but not the assets of the investors who were on the Second Mile board. Absent some wacky business processes that no sophisticated investors would engage in, there would be no reason to "pierce the veil" and look to the board member's assets.
if the luxury retirement home deal was being struck in 2002, then this stuff coming to light certainly could have put the kibosh on the whole thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top