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
Link on the story: http://www.centredaily.com/2015/03/17/4655954/two-judges-file-suit-against-centre.html
“I am not grasping the issue Rose- what I think I am seeing is that Kistler was moving toward transparency and 2 judges feel their “intel” if on limits in “right to know”- these people are elected officials- there is no such thing as private while doing their jobs. And why the DA need to release such information- She has no authority over them and would likely be a conflict.
B
”
Oh no he’s not.
He is moving toward CYA for the BoC who are posturing.
1) All the Court of Common pleas judges & others, assisted by State judiciary admin office reps, called & attended a meeting Friday with Kistler (whom Exarchos claimed was consulted on each records release to criminal defense attys), Glantz & Hovde to reach agreements about RTK disclosure rules as to Judges.
The correct rule is RTK re judges is nada except for financial disclosures.
If consulted, Kistler knew that back when.
2) On interview, Glantz said CC released dates, times, & recipients if text messages of judges because they were financial record disclosures (haha). However in the interview what he said was important to his public text disclosures was the timing, quantity, & recipients. Nothing to do with finances.
3) Apparently, Glantz & Hovde agreed to some RTK judicial procedures re both release and content, but not to others.
Therefore on Monday 2 judges filed for injunctive relief on 2 Constitutional grounds. And imo they are absolutely right.
4) Just like SPM’s Supr Ct quo warranto, Kistler with deliberation after the suit was filed Monday imo rendered the suit for injunctive relief moot by enacting by his own Administrative Court order removing any RTK process as to Judges alone from the BoCs. What he enacts by Order, he can undo. So I hipe injunctive relief can go forward, but probably not. The urgency is now missing–a high hurdle. I question how he issue an Order binding the BoCs out of the clear blue without a case or controvery before him.
Imo he is Bellefonte’s Corman’s stooge, who imo is seeking to control all elected offices in CC–DA & all judicial seats, which will become like Portland patronage posts.
Apparently last Friday some agreement was reached with
But based on what grounds, what cause? What are they citing- as I understand it their suits are sealed.
B
by Statute in PA the public has no RTK
wrt the private communications of any
judge except financial releases of info.
I believe that is true in other states.
Preserves an independent judiciary.
The public gets case info unless it is sealed.
Judges are regulated wrt exparte communication
on cases. That’s it.
http://openrecords.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/open_records/4434/right-to-know_law/466460
And then
http://www.dced.state.pa.us/public/oor/SunshineAct.pdf
On Judiciary (304)
https://www.dced.state.pa.us/public/oor/pa_righttoknowlaw.pdf
Older but relevant
http://media.gibsondunn.com/fstore/documents/pubs/0103-ABALitMag-ExParte-JWeiss.pdf
Well I don’t see anyone unringing the ex parte bell- but first to admit I am a criminalist and these folks in the scrum need some oversight. Problem is- what is Kane actually capable of these days in that regard?
B
Amusingly, Kistler apparently said in Friday’s mtg to his peer judges, & affirmed in his Order, “just trust me and the Court Administrator I have not hired yet.” Then Exarchos reveals Glantz & the BoC have been consulting & relying on Kistler all along.
Watch down tge road for a vote of no confidence in Sr Pres Judge Kistler if the suit is dismissed as moot.
—
@JJinPhila. Yes, this adds credibility to SPM, esp in requesting phones owned by the Court, but what the BoCs have revealed, if there is a “conspiracy, that Kistler has played a critical role in it at important junctures by OKing the release of Gillette & Lunsford phone and text data with not only members of the DAs office but all other contacts.
@Blink. what grounds?
” allege that “past conduct of the county in releasing records has violated the judges’ constitutional and civil liberties”
Statecollege Garrett who is always sparse & as usual does not cite his source.
Anyway, damn straight, starting with their Constitutional privacy interests wrt electronic communications.
Imo BoCs want that on Judges, Glantz needs to get his crony on the
Bellefonte police force to get a warrant alleging probable cause for this or that criminal violation by a Judge.
You know, Glantz and Hovde obtaining & publishing electronic communications records of anyone, much less Judges, without a warrant just might be a criminal act. Another transgression for the OAG, as obviously SPM DA cannot investigate this release, as I trust a DA ordinarily would.
who will preside over Lee’s soon to transpire federal trial?
All this Centre Cry stuff to discredit the DA & judges might just be that
Bellefonte’s Corman and/or his donors have some history with
Lee altho their parties differ.
The only thing I can say to that is Thank God the Feds hold jurisdiction on his case. I defer to your superior knowledge over mine in this arena Rose- but I am not sure I know who the man is behind the green curtain here- or if it is more than one horse of a different color.
B
no superior knowledge
raw speculation to explain otherwise unexplanable
human behavior in this County.
The choices are two:
1 or more people with mental instability
(aka Borderline, split/divide/spin) who have set multiple social systems
involving police, govt & the Court awry & spinning,
then sit back & enjoy on social media while nattering to the press
OR
a political agenda being driven to conclusion to cement local political control & more importantly patronage.
the State OAG hums along with career civil servants regardless of elected or appointed top dogs.
Think how irrelevant A Marshall is in Portland.
“…..I don’t see anyone unringing the ex parte bell..”
I missed that. Who had any scintella
of evidence of an ex parte communication about a case?
No you didn’t- it was the basis for Shawn’s motion- Lunsord’s back and forth with half the DA’s office during sitting trials in some cases. If opposing counsel were copied ( making it non-ex parte) they would not have need to seek the content or record. Off the record communication between the sitting judge and EITHER counsel without the other is exparte.
Rule 136. Ex Parte Communication.
A) Unless otherwise authorized by law, no person shall communicate with the court in any way regarding matters pending before the court unless all parties:
1) are present or have been copied if the communication is written or in electronic form; or
2) have waived their presence or right to receive the communication.
B) If the court receives any ex parte communication, the court shall inform all parties of the communication and its content.
Comment
No ex parte communications with the court are to occur. Communications should include all parties, such as the filing of a motion, or conducting a conference or a hearing.
Attorneys are bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct. See Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.5(b). Judges are bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct. See Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(A)(4).
Attorneys and judges understand the impropriety of ex parte communications regarding matters pending before the court but many participants, such as probation officers and service providers, are not attorneys or judges. This rule ensures that all parties have received the same information that is being presented to the court so that it may be challenged or supplemented.
Administrative matters are not considered ex parte communications. ( Thus Lunsford comment about something being a scheduling issue- who is he kidding- what judge keeps their own schedule and even then IT IS NOT ADMINISTRATIVE if it is dealing with an instant matter.
Official Note
Rule 136 adopted April 29, 2011, effective July 1, 2011.
oh I love it.
http://www.wearecentralpa.com/story/d/story/lawsuits-filed-against-centre-county-commissioners/27866/Q1bbakeBrEuLAvtcRG_4tw
Wrt “- it was the basis for Shawn’s motion- Lunsord’s back and forth with half the DA’s office during sitting trials”
No evidence exists of ex parte comms wrt a case duringba hearing, even wrt Gillette’s or Kunsford’s or Grine’s text, date,time, & recipient data. If defense counsel wants to explore exparte comms with a Judge, one does it on the record with a Court reporter as to the case at issue.
Respectfully disagree Rose as I indicated with statute/Regulatory enclosure previously. PA clearly defines ex parte (2011 addendum)
B
and if Corman is not a County machination co-conspirator, imo he effected Kistler’s SC withdrawal most likely because someone knowledgeable about the Lundsford investigation alerted Corman that Kistler had advised the BoC
on RTK, and his advice woukd fare ill.
hello Blink
these disputed cases, ie Cantorna – Miller/Boob,
or judge K Gillette walker
generally have to do with egregious child abuse cases
http://www.centredaily.com/2014/12/23/4523527/reedsville-man-accused-of-child.html
If I were an auditor from the State juducial admin office, I’d take a good look at the cases Cantorna & Masorti tried with Madeira, Sloane, or McGraw as ADAs in the time period after K Arnold left, particularly child abuse cases, and see if there is a pattern.
enter a Corbett political appointment & advisor
http://www.mwn.com/bruder-joins/
http://www.mwn.com/kcolonna/
—-
Cantorna could only have known to file for texts via RTK last year, rather than ask for phone calls or emails, if his business partner used his access via Hovde to invade the privacy of Lunsford & preinform Cantorna that text phone nos could be found. In the matter of violation of privacy rights, Hovde and Glantz need to be deposed as to any phone records examined prior to any records requests for same, and any general duscyssion or hints made about text records to Cantorna, Masorti & McGraw prior to receipt of a RTK application.
“A) Unless otherwise authorized by law, no person shall communicate with the court in any way regarding matters pending before the court unless all parties:”
McGraw acknowledged few texts were between SPM & Judge Gillette in the data. Most were Gillette & Lindsay or Boob. Ditto iirc on Lunsford – mostly Boob. When else will an ADA text to get work done other than during working hours? Nothing in the data indicated the communication was in reference to a matter pending before the Court. Lunsford, Gillette-Walker, Boob, SPM, & Lindsay all deny that.
Scheduling is done on pending matters Rose. What else would need to be scheduled if it was not pending? I think SPM eluded to this iir- something about a committee. Nobody will ever convince me that of 152 texts exchanged between an ADA and Lunsford during a 3 day trial she was prosecuting that excluded the opposing counsel and during the hours the matter was in session- that there is no ex parte communication in there. No way. Additionally- being somewhat familiar and practiced in PA court procedure- most of the courtrooms do not allow cell phones to be on in the first place and any “pads” used ( which I have never seen, but I am aware of one that was used as an exhibit) need permission and notation when bailiff calls docket. JA’s schedule to avoid any concerns for impropriety and because most judge’s do not allow direct access to their smart phones. If this was “regular and customary” I doubt it would be fodder for addition to this giant bowl of Uh, stew.
B
I don’t recall Lunsford explaining contact with scheduling (tho I suggested it as a hypo).
It was SPM who offered possible reasons for contact, ie joint leadership on a Board, setting the Agendas for meetings, and so on.
Here is Lunsford’s denial (last paragraph)
http://www.centredaily.com/2014/12/05/4494457/centre-county-judge-bradley-p.html
Interestingly Cantorna made the allegation about texts on Oct 13 before he filed the RTK request on Nov 7. Who was his informal source in Oct? Has to be Hovde or Glantz. violation of judges’ privacy rights.
Here is Garrett’s story where he wildly termed 290 something messages over
60 days were “hundreds,” and few were with SPM.
“Cantorna claims that the judge gave preferential treatment to Parks Miller and her team during the McClure trial, granting unfounded objections and giving the appearance of bias towards the prosecution”
The remedy for this “bias”
on “unfounded objections”
is an appeal on the record,
not the press or BoCs.
At most, 152 texts between Foster & Lunsford in 4 days could suggest a personal relationship between those two. Actually SPM co-tried the case & was the one making objections.
Cantorna made the phone allegations
” objected and filed a post-sentencing motion demanding to have a new trial with a different judge. Cantorna’s motion included evidence that he claims demonstrates an inappropriately close relationship between Lunsford and the office of ….”
That post sentence Motion with its allegations of improper relationship with the DA’s Office was filed Nov 7, the same date he filed a RTK request to get the text records.
http://www.centredaily.com/2014/12/05/4494457/centre-county-judge-bradley-p.html
So how’d he get the data before he filed a request for it?
most unfortunately the BoC has indemnified Glantz once as to his private legal representation on Hovde’s advice who said we owe him. Glantz is going to need another private attorney on the RTK matter because arguably when directing the disclosure of Judges’ private text data (most particularly to Cantorna prior to Nov 7 if that can be proven) he acted outside his official capacity & will be personally liable in civil actions by SPM or any of 3 judges, and Foster & Boob. This could end up costing the County millions.
Interesting Sean McG forum-shopped a rape & DV case over to J Williamson
http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.detail/id/534394/Conduct-board-reprimands-area-judge.html?nav=5014
@Blink.
The texts & RTK data records in McGraw’s Motion in
Judge Williamson’s Court were between (female) Magistrate Gillette-Walker and
(female) Lindsay Foster iirc.
that was the 3 day trial where 152 texts were exchanged?
B
No, that one was Lunsford/Cantorna iirc
JJinPhila…. corrections to my copy?
Rose says:
March 18, 2015 at 7:26 am
“At most, 152 texts between Foster & Lunsford in 4 days could suggest a personal relationship between those two. Actually SPM co-tried the case & was the one making objections.”
152 in 4 days was Fister Lunsford, not Gillette.
McGraw was taking Gillette texts to Williamson.
the “conspiracy” has attempted to tar 3 County Judges and 3 DA attorneys with texts to substantiate bias and too close. won’t fly.
not one of the alleged conspirators (masorti, mcgraw, cantorna, glantz, hovde) has alleged ex parte communications.
just a “relationship with the DA OFFICE” tending to bias on the part of Judges.
they can’t allege ex parte if they can’t see the comments- isn’t it correct that nobody has seen the actual texts in the scenario you just mentioned, and said so on the record? I don’t know what they said but I stand by my comment- why would 152 texts be exchanged between the DA and the sitting judge in a trial they were both residing or attending? Does that make sense to you? In my view- this is foundational – I don’t know an attorney who would allege ex parte without a prima facie on behalf of a Judge or an ADA. Improper relationship can move to ex parte with content. (Outside of Sloan allegations of content/email- he is not a source I would count on at the moment)
Lastly- I don’t know a single judge that allows texting as an acceptable means to schedule anything- whether directly or through the JA- who I again say- is who counsel goes through and YES both are copied. I am going to get you to capitulate on this point Rose so you may as well just submit.
LOL xo
B
It was not between *** the DA *** and…
both criminal defense attorneys said relatively few were attributable to SPM
with either Gillette or Lunsford.
That is why the “relationship” in Motions is alleged with “the Office”
ok, then the ADA, or DDA whatever the nomenclature- who was prosecuting the case, when I refer to the DA office I mean the staff as a whole- I will try to be more specific- I can generalize and I agree is not a good idea in this matter.
B
Can you link where either of the 2 judges accused, or any ADA or DA, attributed the texts to “scheduling”?
Which 2 judges- those that filed sealed suits? No, I can’t.
From Parks Miller according to:
Parks Miller said the mere presence of phone contact between members of her office and judges does not imply misconduct. Contact between prosecutors and Court of Common Pleas and magisterial district judges about warrants, arrests and other legal matters happens not only during regular courthouse hours, but also after hours and on weekends, she said. She and Lunsford were also actively involved in a committee exploring the creation of a juvenile offenders drug court in June and July and some of the text messages listed in McGraw’s motion occurred during those meetings, she added.
Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2015/03/06/4637296_motion-in-rape-case-alleges-improper.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy
Best I got this moment.
But of interest:
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/nov/8/florida-prosecutor-suspended-ex-parte-contact-judge-during-murder-trial/
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/15/texas-judge-under-fire-after-disclosure-that-she-texted-prosecutor-during-trial-with-suggested-examination-questions/
https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/tag/lawyer-improper-ex-parte-contact-with-judge/
I have not read a single piece of content to construe ex parte- I can only say if someone can explain 152 text exchanges between a judge and a prosecuting attorney that does not involve the opposing counsel and finds there is no ex parte communication they better be related.
B
152 texts were with Lindsay Foster iirc
http://newslanc.com/2015/03/18/keisling-the-moral-and-ethical-decline-of-the-philadelphia-inquirer-part-3/
with all due respect, Blink. this Keisling phrase in Article 3, applies to the CC co-conspirators:
“Team Corbett’s modus operandi:
Change the conversation and demand a resignation”
in this CC case calls for resignation are facilitated not by the Inky but by new PSU graduate Garrett as well as the
CDT. How did Glantz go from barely scrapping by his first performance review with criticism on the public record
to becoming a grand old man of the BoC? Meanwhile, with access over a decade to telephonic Judicial billing records while in partnership with a criminal (felony) defense atty (in Happy Valley)? So much for the secrecy wrt confidential informants contacted. Why did Hovde last such a brief time in his new out of state job, coming back out of homesickness, really? What’s up with the Prison Board, & prison, SPM was investigating? Why did Kistler really back out of SC hearings when he’d already set up his new office at PSU?
Rose I don’t think I have that answer- just more questions at this point. Because right now- I am not sure who is the chum and who is the fisherperson.
B
the 2 judges accused of bias with motions to remove them were Lunsford (Cantorna) &
Gillette-Walker (McGraw)
(Nothing to do with the Grine-Gillette suit)
The 3 attorneys named in said Motions are primarily Foster & Boob, secondarily SPM.
To my knowledge none have attributed texts to scheduling.
The Cantorna and McGraw Motions allege a biased relationship with “the Office.”
They do not allege exparte.
Cantorna did nit appeal the child abuse conviction or sentence.
Therefore I conclude the Trial record did not substantiate his objection to the Judge’s rulings on SPM’s objections
Neither did McGraw appeal J Williamson’s ruling. If there was a scintilla of fire in these
blusterers smoke, they would have appealed.
my experience when husband & son had smartphones is that one of my texts coukd be broken up into 5-6 texts when received by them. If Foster was sending warrant language or a draft Order to a smartphone from an iphone, it could come out the other end as 10 or more texts.
” Because right now- I am not sure who is the chum and who is the fisherperson.
B”
I kind of like “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. But all the smoking, &
lit matches, is emanating from Glantz & Hovde and their attorney associates.
for your reading pleasure
(I’m not up to it myself.)
http://freehreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/1-Complaint-in-Spanier-v.-Freeh-and-Penn-State.pdf
TY- me either. My spring break is breaking, lol
B
http://www.centredaily.com/2015/03/18/4658241_former-boal-mansion-ceo-lee-indicted.html?rh=1
@Rose, I was just about to post the Chris Lee case. Good job!
There are several possibilities for the text messages.
1. Scheduling other cases.
2. Some type of outside project they were working on.
Spanier wants discovery to move forward and PSU is apparently trying to remove hs tenure (and stop paying his legal bills in the criminal case).
In the video, State Sen Corman finally rears his head on County RTK and on
pending legislation.
http://www.fox8tv.com/News/NewsDetails.asp?NewsID=16829
Hope he talks his way into bekng deposed as to any discussions
with any member of “the CC group”
in the last 4 months.
—–
How likely is it if I had a written criminal charge to get notarized that I’d take it to the only criminal defense attorney jailed by a County Judge in the last year? And then if I needed a spokesperson, I’d hire a criminal defense attorney rather than a white shoe respected civil attorney from somewhere like McQuaide Blasko? One would hire a criminal defense attorney only if a criminal charge was looming. Maybe that was the case before the affidavit as well.
I’m wondering if the DAs’ bills for their individual county-supplied phones went directly to the County Admin or if they were mailed in hard copy, per phone, to the DA’s Office, opened by the para secretary-like person, & forwarded to Admin? If they flowed thru the DA Office first, a para has the potential of being the phone records
(number to number and frequency) to Cantorna & Masorti. Imo whoever put in that first RTK request to Admin Boyde knew what he was looking for in advance.
that scenario would merit a criminal defense attorney
I wonder why Corman chose Fox 8 WWCP to place his first
televised soundbite rather than WTAJ (wearecentralpa)
which has been following the story of the suit?
never any comments on these Lee stories
http://www.statecollege.com/mobile/news/local-news/christopher-lee-faces-new-charges-trial-may-be-delayed,1463265/
Like Jerry, he believes he will prevail.
http://cnet.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=042d6394737754d012febf924be38c44
The video of the March 17 BoC is up.
They voted to hire a new attorney to stand up for “citizens”, who apparently was ready to roll & filed a suit response yesterday. I surmise he was actually engaged on Monday when the Judges’ suit was filed, as Glantz says the Harrisburg attorney was consulted on prior RTK requests & Glantz had tried to reach him Monday. (imo Glantz’ former RTK consultant, is Gen Counsel to an expansive RTK lobbyist nonprofit, and acter dispensing legal asvice to Centre County which has resulted in a civil action, has to CYA now wrt his prior legal advice)
—–
at about 19:00,
Tom Boyde reported an Exec Session 8:30 – 9:35 am to discuss Legal Matters
(and get their stories on the same page)
At 20:20 Exarchos the Treasurer kicked off discussing the preceding Friday meeting on RTK procedures wrt the Court, Kistler, & the suit. Their discussion & a press conference consumes over half the Agenda (tho not prior publicized as an agenda item).
Exarchos styles the BoC problem as the Judges “suing the citizens.” He wants to hire the best defense possible “for the citizens.” He then turns to Louis at 22:45 to explain.
(Imo this train wreck was perhaps set up by a master Statehouse chess player seeking to pass RTK legislation which is coming to a head this spring, on or about a Statewide Sunshine week.)
At 28:26 Pipes takes off.
Glantz comments: I don’t think J Kistler wrote this, I think he just signed it.
About 32:31 Pipes gets to the point of the exercise in Corman’s home County: drafting a letter to State legislators pointing to grey areas in RTK law. (Personally I think State law wrt Judiciary is very clear. Some legislator just doesn’t like the Financial records limitation.)
about 32:50, a certain BoC drama queen starts angrily whimpering, avowing “to my dying day.”
35:26 Press Conf begins
40:42 back to the lawsuit topic
Suit was filed about the same time Monday as the Admin Order.
the ignorance of these very young reporters about legal matters is surprising. They ask for spoonfeeding by Glantz. One asks whether thr judges’ suit is a lawsuit. “What is a lawsuit?” What should we call it when we write about it? What is an injunction? and “Why are they suing?” While one said at 43:00 “pardon my lack of lawyerly knowledge,” none had done any homework.
The one who said pardon my lack of lawyerly knowledge followed that with:
“the impression is the Judges (Grine & Walker) want to hide sonething.”
To which Exarchos replies “You answered yrourown question”
42:25 A reporter asks Glantz why are they suing? “Why?”
In reply, Glantz says:
“The Centre Daily Times said” “change”
No one asks Who did the CDT get that characterization from, were you interviewed?
Glantz is a man with his eye on his press at the CDT & endorses (or provided) a reporter’s words to answer a key question. Dershem looks like a well-fed petulant puppy whose owned has stepped on his tail thruout the discussion.
I have to say- the whole admin order and the civil filings by the judges in response to it gives the appearance that they do NOT wish to comply with the PA RTK law- they do not have that option and to be honest- I think what they are doing is trying to “quantify” cell records detail as non-financial records but the reality is the call/text detail and plan are part of that financial disclosure, period. I was surprised to learn that the RTK law only covers financial records in the first place- it is very narrow compared to other states. I am also not clear how if they all met and agreed on terms for the order how 3 hours later it contains language that is not representative of that outcome and in some cases violation of the rtk laws. Destroying RTK requests and original records?? Who wrote that?
B
.
@Rose. Boybe actually moves things quickly. I had requested some Gricar things for him and received them quickly.
Black, a regular commenter on Masorti site, and antiSPM on media comments, said today Kistler’s RTK Order has been stayed. She work for a law firm as a para & has seemed previously to have heard things at work not yet publicized.
—-
Fast response on an RTK is very helpful. An expansive interp of a Judge’s personal financial records subject to disclosure to include worksite budgeted items that are the responsibility of the County & are paid by the County are another matter. Phone bills aren’t the Judge’s financial obligation but the County’s. But the phone call particulars are arguably protected Constitutionally as private, not public. Or criminal Court work & DA work could not proceed.
I lay the use of electronic devices by Judges during the workday at Judge Kistler’s feet as Admin.
“Destroying RTK requests and original records?? Who wrote that?
B”
That destruction of phone records was not the wording of the Order and was only Exarchos & Glantz’s interpretation of what “destroy” reffered to. Imo they are dim bulbs.
Imo the Judge did not refer to the phone billing records themselves but he referred to the RTK original request which was to be forwarded to the Court Admin without a copy of the request being retained by Boyde.
The Penn State Court Admin office had 2 reps in the mtg iirc, and doubtless they explained to Boyde & Glantz that it is the procedure in other Counties for RTK requests with regard to Court business to be filed with the Court Administrator. The Judges’ position is revardless of who responds, telephone dafa is not the meaning of a Judge’s financial records. The latter, the legislative intent, I am sure will be shown to be assets & liabilities & personal financial matters creating a case conflict of interest. Like in Portland (remember Kantor?), Judges file disclosures of same, and significant sources of income when they run for election. Judges’ and ADA’s other personal business (like phone records) is not disclosable. If there is a corruption investigation by properly empowered LE, they have to show probable cause & get a warrant. That is the only way to get phone records. Not RTK. Glantz & Boyde know this as well, but are apparently assisting Corman in rewriting Sunshine laws this term. It is my opinion Corman is really targeting the Office of AG and the appellate Court. His motivation is political, and I expect whatever kegislation he passes, if it results in limitations on an independent State AG & Judiciary, even the Scalia Court (oops I mean Roberts) will find that PA law unConstitutional.
Itemized cell records are recognized specifically as “financial” records which are subject to release.
http://openrecords.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=4434&&PageID=462051&level=2&css=L2&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true#ques16
B
thank you Blink
if that applies to Judges, there goes their injunctive relief.
Unless the sealed requested injunction was only against the BoC
providing them and not against the Court Admin.
The solicitor said the suit mirrored things the Boc already agreed to so it was unclear, but I agree with you that they will not get injunctive relief if their goal is to only produce a total bill and not the call detail- they can’t legislate in a civil suit. If I were a betting person my guess would be that they are arguing that producing the detail is a violation of their fourth amendment rights. And I know why- there is some recent Federal decisions where historical cell ( mostly site) fell under protection from the 4th so those that were not the subject of surveillance would REQUIRE a prob cause warrant to release even their phone number pinging from the tower. That said, I worked on a case where we were able to secure every prepaid number pinging off of a tower within a 3 hour timeframe.
B
from that linked Q&A:
“What are some types of information that will NOT be available?
Home, cellular or personal phone numbers
Personal financial information…..”
Wouldn’t the Judge’s bills include phone nos?
Wouldn’t the DA bills include CI numbers? (
—–
RTK law
p3
Court or DA are proper authorities for their own agency’s business
p 6 of 42
The County Court & DA need this info (RTK contact person) on their website under Contacts
unfortunately, it appears both CC agencies websites are designed & maintained by the CC Administrator & his staff
an example of a proper RTK website posting from the Montgomery County DA
http://www.montcopa.org/index.aspx?NID=213
The County DA also has rules as the appeals agent for LE RTK denials
http://www.montcopa.org/index.aspx?NID=213
—-
footnote 3, p9 telephone nos are prohibited
under this case law
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1267cd05_2-16-06.pdf
—-
Butler County’s policy addresses DA & Courts
http://www.co.butler.pa.us/Files/Admin/Commissioners/policy%5Frecords%2Epdf
(who failed to draft a policy in Centre County, the Soliciter & Admin?)
—-
https://www.dced.state.pa.us/public/oor/pa_righttoknowlaw.pdf
See (b) Exceptions (6)(i)(a) where County-issued phones are used as personal phones.
p16 of 25
(c) Financial records – redact the exception info
—-
I now get Wolf’s best argument (which he didn’t make) for removing from the Exec Branch that last minute apptmt of Corbett’s to head the Executive Branch’s Open Records agency. Essentially he was in charge in the Leguslative Branch as Pileggi’s chief of staff drafting & enacting the Open Recirds Act. To move right over to administrate it for 6 years in the Exec Branch seems fo buck the notion of checks & balances on the Legislature. The notion Corbett put an independent regulator in as agency head is poppycock. He put in the man most responsible legislatively for the Act’s content & passage & weaknesses.
an interesting tweet analysis of subpoenas, Fina, & investigating GJ begins now 4 tweets down.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JmmyW/status/579652800914804736
It is very odd Fina wanted Sandusky secrecy for so long so other vics wouldn’t be deterred. With Lee, there was an arrest followed by publicity to motivate other vics to come forward, & a home search warrant for electronics