Nittany Nightmare Continues Past Sandusky: Former President Spanier Charged- NEW Charges for Curley and Schultz Filed
Happy Valley- PA On the heels of convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky’s transfer to his new home, what most predicted would follow- has.
Former Penn State President Graham Spanier, fired by the Penn State Board of Trust the same day as legendary late-Nittany Lions Coach Joe Paterno, is facing serious charges today filed by Sandusky’s prosecutors.
Spanier is facing counts of obstruction of justice, perjury, conspiracy, endangering the welfare of children and failure to report allegations of child abuse.
Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, who were facing perjury and charges based on “non-reporting”, are now facing all five similar charges as Spanier- additional filings occurred simultaneously.
Linda L. Kelly stated the men “used their positions to conceal and cover up for years the activities of a known child predator,” on Thursday following the announcement.
Please check back to www.blinkoncrime for this developing story.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
2,787 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
wish Baldwin weren’t redacted.
How did she manage that?
Pending matter? Not sure.
B
@J-J the Real. The Baldwin transcript seems to recount a single meeting on the record with Baldwin, Feudale & prosecutors.
Baldwin appears to have presented herself in Judge’s chambers before Spanier’s GJ appearance, under the pretext of accompanying him, for the purpose of attempting to limit the scope of a subpoena to Penn State for emails. Her drop-in timing was to the surprise of the Judge, who was not even shown a copy of the subpoena by her, and the prosecutors, one of whom knew she wanted to talk to the Judge but assumed she’d do so after the Spanier testimony so as not to make GJs wait. In the meeting, the Judge refers to her as Counsel for Spanier and only at the conclusion does the Judge elicit by questioning who she represents. It is clear she does not know the legal bases (terminology) nor the procedure to use to request a narrowed subpoena scope for her client PS. I suppose this transcript is one PS’s Counsel should look at to size up any malpractice claim PS may wish to make.
just googled Baldwin to eval her current “practice of law” & saw this
http://www.centredaily.com/2013/12/22/3953883/graham-spaniers-lawyer-accuses.html
Justice Baldwin is in hot water, scalding I would say. So is the point that a proffer letter is not immunity? Does she have anything pending with the Bar over this?
B
According to that article, she made a proffer in Oct 2012, was given immunity for GJ testimony, testified for 2 hours & hung up Spanier by his Ba//s, and now this Judge has ruled Spanier’s defense cannot call her, which prevents cross.
GJ testimony (99.9% character opinion it seems) will stand, uncrossable. Shades of J Kantor’s courtroom.
“A Penn State lawyer, Michael Mustokoff, and Baldwin’s lawyer, Charles De Monaco, were a part of the closed-door discussion and agreed with Fina’s assessment.
“The university believes that with regard to all aspects of former Justice Baldwin’s representation of the university, that is the university’s privilege,” Mustokoff said.”
http://www.centredaily.com/2013/12/18/3948239/penn-state-waived-attorney-client.html#storylink=cpy
So my Q is was Mike ever Baldwin’s law clerk? Who was Mike’s supervisor on this date who waived the A-C privilege? What was Baldwin’s last day as Mike’s Supv?
same url
“Baldwin later went on to tell the grand jury about how she responded to a subpoena that requested documentation about Sandusky in early 2011. She testified that Curley and Schultz told her they didn’t have anything”
Well, we have a transcript of Baldwin assuring the Judge in chambers in 2011 in her “sandbag surprise meeting” that she was turning over subpoena-responsive complete & exhaustive records & emails to him by Friday along with “culled” docs to Fina on same day. She never mentioned “I have nothing from Curley & Schultz.” But then the female prosector herself told the Judge on the record that the Judge & prosectors were getting “mixed messages” from Cindy, as the Judge called her.
@J-J in PA the Real.
Refresh my weak memory.
back to Duane Morris.
http://www.duanemorris.com/attorneys/michaelmmustokoff.html
Outside Counsel for Penn State on the sole matter of PS
waiving attorney privilege for Baldwin?
Or, Is he Charles DeM’s law school mate?
did he do more for PS?
http://www.timesherald.com/general-news/20131222/lawyer-cynthia-baldwin-told-feds-in-2012-former-penn-state-president-graham-spanier-was-trustworthy
url above
“Baldwin’s lawyer Charles De Monaco said Friday that Baldwin’s view of Spanier changed during the summer of 2012, particularly after the release of a scathing report into the Sandusky matter produced for Penn State by former FBI director Louis Freeh.
“Much like the public at large, Justice Baldwin learned for the first time in the summer of 2012 about the conduct of the defendants as a result of documents and e-mails which were discussed for the first time with the release of the Freeh Report in July 2012,” De Monaco said. “For those reasons, Justice Baldwin was asked about these issues when she testified before the grand jury in October 2012.”
This is insane. She was responsible to produce those emails & averred to Feudale in transcript would be completely delivered “on Friday” on one usb in 2011
How about her not having HER OWN COUNSEL at proffer?? Can you proffer yourself as a witness while retained?
B
maybe Michael M is a Philadelphia Friend of Freeh?
I don’t mean to be unpleasant, but my
opinion after reading the transcript of subpoena issues
Baldwin raised in Chambers with Feudale & prosecutors
–it’s timing, structure & content deficiencies–one could almost think
she had a form of dementia. So given her appointments: PS Board President, State Supr Court;
PS’ first inhouse Counsel, I have to wonder what Governor(s) ties all 3 appointments
together and Why Such a Legal Weakling (just my
opinion, sorry) …and was the appointment controller a Friend of Freeh? and of Mike M who Waived PS’ privilege to let Cindy testify? And why is the Dauphine County Judge blocking her cross?
how did this guy go from qui tam to penn state sandusky crim defense?
https://touch.www.linkedin.com/?sessionid=4440651896717312&as=false&rs=false#public-profile/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fpub%2Fmichael-m-mustokoff%2F47%2Fb8b%2F466
was someone on PS Board a ceo of a pharma company or otherwise conmected to qui tam defense?
@Blink. Iirc the article said C DeMonaco repped her in the mtg.
“Can you proffer yourself as a witness while retained?
B”
The article says Mikie M, a qui tam pro (who is quite lucrative)
waived the attorney-client privilege for Penn State about 3 months after
she left the PS Counsel job.
I wonder if she had retained him as out house
counsel before leaving.
correction: WHICH is quite lucrative…
Don’t know this “emotional stakeholder,” but seems a good summary:
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/12/whos-telling-truth-baldwin-or-everyone.html?m=1
A few things here.
1. The prosecution redacted things, not Baldwin.
2. The judge asked who she represented and she said PSU “solely.”
3. Baldwin did not have the subpoena with her, so it would be a question of what it covered. That seemed to be the gist of her comments in that regard.
4. Baldwin indicated that IT was looking for the e-mails. According to the filings, there was a special unit, SOS, that PSU had to get the e-mails. That unit was not involved in the finding an “culling” of the e-mails. At there preliminary hearing, one of the witnesses indicated that they had been recovered.
5. As for “hot water,” probably not. An attorney MAY violate attorney-client privilege, unilaterally:
“to prevent, mitigate or rectify the consequences of a client’s criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer’s services are being or had been used;”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/pa/code/PA_CODE.HTM#Rule_1.6%28c%29%281%29
You can make the argument (and I think it is fairly strong) that Baldwin had an attorney-client relationship with Spanier. Even if there was a formal relationship between the two, Baldwin could ethicall testify if she reasonably believed there was a criminal act that used her services.
Respectfully JJ- not without informing her current client of her intentions to do so and severing that relationship via a court ordered withdrawal, imo.
This was all ex parte as I understand it. At the risk of sounding glib- she’s a former supreme court justice- she can say plainly, “we have a conflict and are at cross purposes.”
B
As to Mustokoff, I think Baldwin became an attorney before Baldwin was even a judge, so no. He was based in Phila and she was from Pittsburgh. He also wrote at least one article on the nature A/C privilege.
http://www.martindale.com/Michael-M-Mustokoff/1539520-lawyer.htm
De Marco is from Pittsburgh, and was an ADA, so it is possible that he knew Baldwin from that, either as a coworker or a judge. He is or was on the PA Bar ethics committee.
Both men handle “whistle blower” law suits. Neither went to PSU or to the same schools.
Blink, the ethics rules do not have anything requiring a court order, though she could only withdraw with a court order once serving as counsel of record. At that point in time, Spanier was not charged. He certainly did not have an expectation that Baldwin would represent him, AT THAT POINT, as she was no longer PSU counsel.
@J-J PA — Real.
TH for response.
my responses prefaced by ***
” J. J. in Phila (the real one) says:
December 24, 2013 at 12:22 am
A few things here.
1. The prosecution redacted things, not Baldwin.
***Can you give me the background of why just this little meeting, at which Baldwin was mostly not present but Fina opined at length on subpoena email PS discovery, prior to Spanier’s GJ testimony, was released to the public
Clearly both prosecutors & the Judge were caught off guard in this Cindy-initiated mtg wrt discoveryo,
2. The judge asked who she represented and she said PSU “solely.
*** after he & Fina kibbitzed, in camera, calling her, & treating her, as Spanier’s Counsel,
3. Baldwin did not have the subpoena with her, so it would be a question of what it covered. That seemed to be the gist of her comments in that regard.
*** she showed up early, sandbagging the Judge & prosecutors, so you’d think she’d bring a xerox of the subpoena she wanted to restrict the scope of, or quash.
When she went into the Feudale ad hoc mtg, I don’t know from the transcrript that “quash” was in her vocab until he tutored her.
4. Baldwin indicated that IT was looking for the e-mails. According to the filings, there was a special unit, SOS, that PSU had to get the e-mails. That unit was not involved in the finding an “culling” of the e-mails. At there preliminary hearing, one of the witnesses indicated that they had been recovered.
*** Baldwin said the emails would in their entirety be on a USB delivered to Judge that Friday.
—–
5. As for “hot water,” probably not. An attorney MAY violate attorney-client privilege, unilaterally:
“to prevent, mitigate or rectify the consequences of a client’s criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer’s services are being or had been used;”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/pa/code/PA_CODE.HTM#Rule_1.6%28c%29%281%29
You can make the argument (and I think it is fairly strong) that Baldwin had an attorney-client relationship with Spanier. Even if there was a formal relationship between the two, Baldwin could ethically testify if she reasonably believed there was a criminal act that used her services.
*****You are absolutely Right, JJ/PA.
Like an attorney who says “If anyone used a gun, please don’t tell me where the gun is.”
—–
@Respectfully JJ- not without informing her current client of her intentions to do so and severing that relationship via a court ordered withdrawal, imo.”
*****@Blink. imo, I don’t think she needed a Court ordered withdrawal. Her only client, which she clarified when asked, was PSU while employed there, and its employees eho were acting consistant within their job descriptions.
—-
wrt “Both men handle “whistle blower” law suits.”
****Qui Tam is whistleblower, but quite specialized. Any pharma on PS Board?
@Blink. wrt “J. J. in Phila (the real one) says:
December 24, 2013 at 12:52 am
Blink, the ethics rules do not have anything requiring a court order, though she could only withdraw with a court order once serving as counsel of record. At that point in time, Spanier was not charged. He certainly did not have an expectation that Baldwin would represent him, AT THAT POINT, as she was no longer PSU counsel.”
@Blink. idk PA ethics rules, but imo this is correct.
Whatever happened to the “whistleblower” type lady lawyer who worked with Ray?
Would not peck in my yard, lol.
B
sorry, just free associating.
I see Cindy as her attorney antithesis.
@Rose
Like an attorney who says “If anyone used a gun, please don’t tell me where the gun is.”
No, not like at all. It would be like the client saying to the lawyer, “Drive me to the river,” and he does, the client sees him tossing the gun. The attorney cannot knowingly assist the client commit the crime.
The ethic rules are linked. The only notice requirement deals with withdrawing from service and Baldwin did that by resigning as PSU counsel. The notice does not deal with revealing the information to LE.
What was redacted was Baldwin’s testimony before the GJ, not the Fima conference, from what I could see.
The first meeting, regarding the subpoena, dealt with scope of what they wanted and protection of non-related confidential information. It was not an attempt of quash it, and frankly, not unreasonable.
wrt “It was not an attempt of quash it, and frankly, not unreasonable.”
The transcript looked like she wanted to limit subpoena’s scope as to dates or more likely breadth,
but didn’t know the orocedure or terminology,
even if she judged it was in her client PS’s best interests.
As far as GJ testimony, as she was no longer PS’ Counsel, what do you
think about her testifying to matters she heard attending GJs
on behalf of PS employees wrt the ethics rules, or any “personal” Counsel she gave them whilst employed?
Personally I find it interesting Mike M, outside counsel for PS who waived PS’s attorney client privilege 3 months after her departure, enabling her to testify, was employef at the same Phil law firm Baldwin was employed by betwwen her brief Supreme Court tenure and her employment at PS. Personally, I think she has a lot to thank her mentors for in terms of her employment career path. And my guess is Mike’s waiver was at the behest of a Board member (a gov?), not the full Board (and not with the PS insurer’s knowledge imo).
I also wonder about her opining to GJ wrt “character” of then PS employees, including their veracity & credibility,
while they acted as employees. Her testimony lawsuits by Spanier et al against their mutual employer, doesn’t it, and the PS ins co declining to pay out? If PS Counsel deemed them nonveracious, no trustworthy
while both were employed by PS, that is. And she failed to report that to the Board. Or outside Counsel.
correction: word omitted– testimony Risks…
If I were Duane Reed’s managing
partner, I’d start to worry about that
partnership’s umbrella policy, too.
Sorry, DuaneMorris.
Not the drugstore chain
where inexpensive makeup is found.
Was free associating.
@Rose, “Quashing” the subpoena would be to cancel the subpoena. Baldwin wanted to make sure unrelated confidential information didn’t get out. She wanted to safeguard that and limit the scope, but not squash it.
My understanding is Baldwin had an ethical responsibility to testify, once she realized that someone testifying was committing perjury.
@J-J. Thank you for info.
She made no weitten or oral motion to limit the scope.
My conclusion was her mtg with the Judge, surprising him, was
because she did not initiate the IT work timely
(remember IT employee’s timeline of what he was shown when)
and therefore would be late complying, and she just wanted some judicial “Cindy” in the
hearing of prosecutors.
How would she have been aware of “perjury” were she not
in the GJ room falsely? That’s why GJ protections exist.
If perjury be had, let it come out at trial. Indictments are not
meant to be based on a former Supr Court Justice telling ordinary citizens
“he’s a liar” to secure an indictment.
@Blink.
How could MM in PA, who is a litigator for Duane Morris, serve as outside Counsel to Penn State in the matter of waiver of Penn State’s attorney-client privilege with C Baldwin wrt Gerry Sandusky’s activities & investigation and those of Spanier, Curley, Schultz?
http://www.duanemorris.com/attorneys/michaelmmustokoff.html
http://m.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_989d5bae-682c-11e3-99e6-0019bb30f31a.html?mode=jqm
” Fina said in the Oct. 22, 2012 transcript. “It was a waiver focused upon the issues of Gerald Sandusky, his relationship with the University, any conduct of his that was known by the University, and it extended to the contacts between the University and this grand jury and investigators, again, looking into Gerald Sandusky, his personal conduct, his — any alleged misconduct and indeed also the acts of the University in compliance or noncompliance with investigative efforts. All of those issues were opened to us to discuss with Miss Baldwin.””
It seems to me Mustokoff & Duane Morris had a heck of a conflict of interest with both representing Penn State and waiving privilege on Baldwin after her profer letter, as Baldwin worked for Duane Morris prior to PS Counsel, if not after.
Mustokoff’s waiver action and its broadness wrt Baldwin exposes his client Penn State to tremendous liability from Baldwin’s testimony adverse to PS and any member of its Board or staff. It turned her from a potential smoking gun to a loaded one. When will Penn State’s Board wake up wrt legal representation of the University in criminal matters?
goodness. The PS Board made Baldwin Trustee Emerita in Sept 2013!
http://www.psu.edu/trustees/members/baldwin.html
You gotta ask which Board members behind her appointment
with informal or formal power worry what she’ll say to a grand jury about them?
@Rose, Baldwin was STILL PSU counsel at that meeting with the judge in 2011. She had not withdrawn nor had she resigned.
Baldwin resigned as counsel as of 6/30/12, IIRC. I know it was in the middle of 2012. She didn’t have any obligation to tell Spanier, because Spanier was no longer President.
Further Baldwin disclosed her role to the judge, so she was not there “falsely.” It looks like what was waived was the compliance with the subpoena. That is a different issue than the perjury.
Personally, I think the PSU 3 DID regard Baldwin as their attorney and an Attorney-Client Privilege did exist, in regard to their testimony. Ethically, Baldwin can report perjury from that testimony to the court. Even if Baldwin had been hired directly by the PSU 3, she still could report that perjury, and arguably had an ethical duty to report it. (I think the ethics requirement was cited.)
Agreed. I don’t think there is any doubt they ALL believed she was representing them. That is a Hell of an oversight for all 3 to get that wrong, imo.
B
In terms of Emeritus Board Members, they have all the rights of membership, except the the right to make motions, vote, or hold office, which are basically MOST of the rights of membership.
They can speak in debate, but nobody has to listen to them.
They could be removed from executive sessions.
Basically, it is an honorary or social position. They get to show up, smooze, get invited to social events, get great seats at games. It is Penn State’s version of a knighthood.
@Blink: “Agreed. I don’t think there is any doubt they ALL believed she was representing them. That is a Hell of an oversight for all 3 to get that wrong, imo.
B”
Actually from what I understand it is quite common. There is always a tension between working for an individual and working for an organization, e.g. a corporation, and an individual within that organization. There is literature on it: http://meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/CR301000/newsletterpubs/ABAUpjohnTaskForceReport.pdf
There is also the client’s BELIEF that an attorney-client relationship exists:
“An attorney-client relationship can also be formed under more informal circumstances. If a client comes into an attorney’s office and reveals privileged or confidential information about his or her case, an attorney-client relationship may be formed. If an attorney makes a phone call on a client’s behalf, an attorney-client relationship may be formed. If a person asks for legal advice at a dinner party and the attorney gives that advice, an attorney-client relationship may be formed.”
http://www.superpages.com/supertips/attorney-client.html
However, even if that relationship exists, the attorney STILL can ethically report a crime committed in the course of that relationship. That was the gist of Judge Feudale’s (nonbinding) commentary.
@JJ. You are knowledgeable
& on point, & I thank you,
@Blink. wrt “Agreed. I don’t think there is any doubt they ALL believed she was representing them. That is a Hell of an oversight for all 3 to get that wrong, imo.
B”
Actually I think it more consistent & explainable for all 3 to be “wrong.”
reflects a School staff Admin culture.
Penn State had not previously had inhouse Counsel.
Baldwin was a new type of animal for the 3,
who probably thought her newly created inhouse job a value
plus for all, including employees.
@Rose, first, I am not particularly knowledgeable. I just look stuff up.
Honestly, 80-90% of what I post was me just being a researcher.
On top of that, I had this conversation a few months ago.
Secondly, the IS a blurred line between the corporate counsel and the individual in the corporation. Unless Baldwin made it crystal clear to the PSU 3 that she was not representing them, I think the PSU 3 may have a point when they regarded Baldwin as THEIR counsel. Some of that, but not all of it, is the PSU culture. I suspect they might be a similar situation with Courtney.
(And, as noted, it might make no difference, because the individual counsel would be in the same situation.)
Thirdly, I think you do have to ask about the oversight role of the BoT in this. If you really want to look at the PSU culture, that should be addressed.
J.J- not sure if you saw the previously held interview with the now former head coach Bradley. The JoePA culture is alive and well. Courtney is a direct link between The Second Mile and PSU AND BOT. In my view, the access to kids via this venue has never been explored to my satisfaction as well as the professional responsibilities that fell by the wayside ( at best) of it’s board and staff.
I also recall some issues with some board members disagreeing on what they were told and when. To your point, I find the whole lot culturally unchanged.
B
No I didn’t see the interview with Bradley.
Courtney may or may not be a direct link. A lot of people share attorneys. There is also nothing that shows anyone at TSM, other than Sandusky, was ever informed by PSU that the actions were sexual.
When was Countney TSM’s attorney?
http://deadspin.com/5858636/a-penn-state-attorney-who-reviewed-the-1998-police-report-against-jerry-sandusky-also-represented-the-second-mile
Courtney review above.
Spanier was a biking buddy?
I suggest Courtney & Spanier knew they had a Sandusky-
Second Mile problem at the time the conversion to
inhouse occurred. Likely the internal Office was
not set up merely due to a report recommending PS conform
to standard U practice elsewhere. they chose someone
who appeared to be a bulletproof manageable sheep due to
her past career path & former Board Pres status.
Thank you Rose, I would have been taxed to cough that up until next week conservatively.
B
The problem is, it is 1998. There is no suggestion that Courtney ever saw the reports and, other than Sandusky, no one is charged with anything illegal regarding 1998, including the PSU 3.
@JK. You are correct.
Any opinion on whether Spanier enlisted Courtney
in support of an inhouse counsel model? And that motivation
could in part be the possiblity of community rumors re
Sandusky, 2nd Mile?
If the Admin in charge of PS Police in 1998 was not sending a monthly
summary of campus investigations to U’s Counsel, that Admin was derelict in my opinion.
Derelict, yes. Criminal, no.
http://www.centredaily.com/2014/01/07/3973818/judge-hears-arguments-on-spanier.html
Imo, Ainslie’s activities in the last month are for the PR,
targeting a jury pool.
Soliciting settlement talks before filing a complaint?
Thinking Freeh would settle on any terms, even for 5 bucks?
He is a proud, arrogant person imo, and his business is
producing contracted-for reports. Why would he set a precedent
the critical content of any report defamed any employee? His firm will
just pay the litigation tab. Imo Spanier will drop this prior to trial. His judgment
in retaining attorneys seems consistant.
@Rose. Freeh is indemnified by PSU; it was in his contract.
I think Spanier should get his day in court, but he also specify why he needs his day in court. He needs to say, “Here is where I was defamed.” That is what they are asking at this point.
JJ-PA. My point is why is Ainslie posturing?
She apparently solicited a settlement discussion, having never filed a complaint.
What is Spanier seeking with this quality of representation?
Rose, a good question. It may have been some bravado on her part, but that is a guess.
Sometimes attorneys file and hope the other party will roll over; when the other party decides to fight back, they retreat with all speed. That could also be what is happening.
To an extent, we might see that with the Paterno suit. They are put into the position where, it seems, they will have to sue Penn State. That will cost them some public support.
The judge still has not ruled on the standing to sue issue. It might come down to a commercial disparage and defamation suit; it will be difficult to claim damage due to the NCAA sanction statement alone.
just a little more money flow with complicated connections
http://www.post-gazette.com/business/2014/01/12/Penn-State-leads-U-S-in-earnings-from-collected-credit-card-royalties/stories/201401120092
Thanks lizzy. Sigh. That’s one way to calculate high interest in an institution.
ba dum bump. Sorry.
B
http://www.federalreserve.gov/CollegeCreditCardAgreements/
A searchable database.