Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Spanier Seeks Recusal Of Judge For Undisclosed Conflict

By Ralph Cipriano

Lawyers for Graham Spanier have called on the state Superior Court judge who wrote the June 26th opinion upholding the former Penn State president's conviction on one count of endangering the welfare of a child to recuse himself from the case because of an undisclosed conflict of interest.

In a 16-page application for recusal filed yesterday, Spanier's lawyers argue that state Superior Court Judge Victor P. Stabile should disqualify himself because he previously testified in a lawsuit against Penn State and Spanier, and also attacked Spanier in an old email as an "emperor" in "new clothes."

In the application for recusal, Spanier's lawyers seek the vacating of the Superior Court's decision upholding Spanier's conviction, and a chance to reargue their appeal before a new panel of judges, or the entire Superior Court.

Three days after Judge Stabile authored a 2-1 Superior Court decision upholding Spanier's conviction, Spanier got an email from an old colleague, Philip McConnaughay, former dean of the Penn State Dickinson School of Law [DSL] from 2002 to 2013.

In the email, McConnaughay informed Spanier that "between 2003 and 2006, Judge Stabile, then a lawyer in private practice, was a leader of a group of DSL alumni who were stridently opposed to Penn State's plans to either relocate DSL or to create a second campus of DSL in State College," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

While leading that opposition, Stabile "made critical personal comments about those Penn State administrators, including Dr. Spanier, who favored such a plan," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

"Emails and documents from that period that Dr. Spanier has obtained in the past few days demonstrate that there are grounds for Judge Stabile's recusal from participation in this matter. In light of this information, the Court should vacate the Panel's decision, and the matter should be reassigned and reargued before another panel or before the Court en banc."

Penn State had proposed moving DSL from it's longtime location in Carlisle, PA to Penn State's main campus in State College. The plan "was eventually abandoned in favor of a proposal to create a two-campus law school, with facilities in Carlisle and State College," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

Both the plan to merge the two institutions, and the two-campus plan "met with substantial and vociferous opposition from a faction of the DSL alumni," Spanier's lawyers wrote. During that period, Stabile, a DSL graduate from 1982, was a member of DSL's General Alumni Association [GAA] board of directors. Stabile also served on a five-person committee of the GAA board that "criticized the proposal" put forward by Penn State, and in the process, "made several disparaging comments about those members of the Penn State administration who favored the proposal, including Dr. Spanier," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

"I still do not understand why Penn State bothered to merge Dickinson if it seems intent on changing everything about the school," Stabile wrote in a 2003 email. "They could have built their own damn school in State College and accomplished the same thing without eradicating an institution."

In another email a few days later, Stabile wrote about the plan to relocate DSL, "There is a certain arrogance here that is unacceptable."

In their brief, Spanier's lawyers cite emails critical of Spanier that were sent to the GAA, of which Stabile was a member, referring to "that chief hustler Spanier" who was allegedly "pushing for approval Saturday" of the two-campus proposal.

A report issued by the GAA board, endorsed by Stabile, described the Penn State administration as "incompetent" and criticized Spanier several times, Spanier's lawyers wrote.

"For example, the report questioned Dr. Spanier's motives in proposing the two-campus model and implied that he [Spanier] falsely attributed the original relocation idea to the DSL dean, rather than the Penn State administration," Spanier's lawyers wrote. "The report posed a rhetorical question regarding Dr. Spanier's alleged motives in putting forth the two-campus proposal: 'Surely it has nothing to do with an employment contract extended in 2003 and expiring in the next year?' "

The report also contended that Spanier "promoted in his biography his role in the DSL merger but hid his responsibility for other mergers that allegedly failed," Spanier's lawyers wrote, quoting the report.

In January 2005, the DSL Board of Governors met to vote on whether to agree with Penn State, and move forward with the two-campus plan. The day before the vote, Stabile sent an email to the GAA board, complaining that "I can't imagine why many think this is a great proposal. The emperor certainly has new clothes . . ."

"The crisis here has been been wholly fabricated by PSU," Stabile wrote. In the same email, Stabile also claimed that the two-campus plan would result in "complete subjugation by DSL."

"I have no more words left; the process that has proceeded through does not do justice to our profession, nonetheless to its leadership -- and this is an institution that teaches the rule of law!!" Stabile wrote. "Count me as embarrassed and disgusted."

In February 2005, three DSL alumni sued Penn State, Spanier, and the DSL board of governors, seeking to stop implementation of the two-campus plan. At a GAA board meeting a couple days later, Stabile "advocated intervening on behalf of the plaintiffs in their suit against Dr. Spanier," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

That's just what happened.

On May 19, 2005, Stabile testified in that litigation about his opposition to the two-campus proposal. He admitted during that dispute, "emotions were running high on both sides," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

During his testimony, Stabile described the reaction to GAA's opposition to the two-campus plan as "very hurtful to see us cast in this light. Stabile also admitted while testifying that he "was particularly hurt" to be "dismissed as . . . merely angry or somewhat of a malcontent."

"The standard for recusal requires a judge to recuse from hearing a matter where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned," Spanier's lawyers wrote. "Recusal is warranted where a judge has a 'personal bias or interest which would preclude an impartial review' or where 'his participation in the matter would give the appearance of impropriety,'" Spanier's lawyers wrote.

It's not necessary for a judge to have an actual conflict of interest to recuse himself, Spanier's lawyers wrote. Merely having "an appearance of impropriety alone forms an independent basis for recusal even when no actual bias, unfairness, or prejudice is shown" on the judge's part, Spanier's lawyers wrote, quoting case law.

"Disqualification is mandatory 'in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned,' " Spanier's lawyers wrote. "Avoiding the appearance of impropriety . . . is mandatory."

"Judge Stabile should recuse from this matter because of his prior role in strenuously and personally opposing the actions of Dr. Spanier and Penn State University regarding Dickinson School of Law," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

Stabile's past actions provide a "substantial basis to request Judge Stabile's recusal." Documents also reveal a "strident and personal reaction from Judge Stabile" to the proposals from Spanier and Penn State to move DSL, Spanier's lawyers wrote.

Stabile was "a leader of a faction of the alumni that severely criticized" Spanier, his lawyers wrote. In addition, Stabile and others "met, communicated, and prepared reports that attacked the motives, the integrity, and the competence of Dr. Spanier and other administrators involved in the two-campus proposal. Judge Stabile strongly opposed the proposal, actively worked to stop it [including by testifying in litigation filed against Dr. Spanier to accomplish this goal] and admitted that he was 'hurt' by the criticism of his opposition."

During the "bitter dispute over the two-campus proposal," Stabile "exhibited anger and personal animosity toward the Penn State administration, headed by Dr. Spanier," his lawyers wrote. Although "any bias or prejudice" against Spanier "may have diminished in the decade or so since the dispute took place," Stabile's partisan involvement "is something that should have been disclosed when Dr. Spanier's appeal was assigned to a panel that included Judge Stabile," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

Then, Spanier's lawyers quoted the standard for judicial disclosure of an apparent conflict of interest:

"Where a court has specific knowledge of a private matter or situation in which his or her impartiality may reasonably be questioned, it is his duty to disclose that information to the parties."

Judge Stabile, Spanier's lawyers argued, clearly failed to meet that standard.

Spanier, convicted on June 24, 2017, was given a sentence of 4 to 12 months, with at least two months to be served in jail. His sentence, however, has been suspended pending his appeal.

The filing seeking the recusal of Judge Stabile was the second filing in the case made yesterday by Spanier's lawyers, who also appealed the state Superior Court's upholding of Spanier's conviction on technical grounds.

The basic problem is that the attorney general's office indicted Spanier on Nov. 1, 2012 for allegedly endangering the welfare of a child back in 2001, by supposedly not doing anything about the alleged shower rape witnessed by Mike McQueary.

The problem on appeal is that the statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child [EWOC] is two years, so the Commonwealth's indictment of Spanier missed the mark by more than a decade. To uphold Spanier's appeal, the Commonwealth invoked an exception to the statute of limitations that wasn't law until 2007, an exception that wasn't raised by the Commonwealth at trial, nor considered by the jury.

In a 15-page application for re-argument, filed yesterday, Spanier's lawyers argue that in upholding Spanier's conviction"on the basis of a statue-of-limitations exception the Commonwealth never raises constitutes a dramatic departure from longstanding due process jurisprudence." Under state law, the Commonwealth was required "to give a defendant notice on the specific basis on which it alleges a prosecution is timely," according to the brief written by Timothy K. Lewis, Samuel W. Silver and Bruce P. Merensteain of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP of Philadelphia. The same set of lawyers wrote the application for recusal of Judge Stabile.

In their application for re-argument, Spanier's lawyers argued that the Superior Court cannot uphold a conviction "when the jury was not instructed to find, and did not find, that the prosecution was timely."

There are other problems with the EWOC charge that the corrupt legal system of Pennsylvania fails to recognize -- even McQueary admitted in writing he never saw an anal rape of a 10-year-old boy by Sandusky, as alleged in the grand jury presentment. The marquee crime in that indictment amounts to fiction. A jury also found Sandusky not guilty of that crime. The victim has never come forward, and a concurrent federal investigation in 2012 by former NCIS Special Agent John Snedden, previously undisclosed, determined that McQueary was not a credible witness.

At Spanier's trial, according to his lawyers, it was the state's burden to give a criminal defendant notice when the prosecution is pulling some legal games to get around the statute of limitations, which in this case had clearly lapsed by more than 10 years.

The other legal problem with Spanier's conviction was that the state's original child endangerment law, passed in 1972, did not apply to Spanier when the alleged crime that never happened, the 2001 shower rape witnessed by McQueary, supposedly took place.

In 2001, the child endangerment law, as previously discussed on this blog, did not apply to supervisors such as Spanier; it only applied to people who had direct contact with children, such as parents, teachers and guardians.

In 2007, the state legislature amended the child endangerment law to include supervisors. So convicting Spanier of a law that wasn't in effect when the crime allegedly occurred violates what's know as "the Ex Post Facto and Due Process Clauses of the state and federal constitutions, which do not permit a jury to convict a defendant for violating a state statute enacted after the conduct on which the conviction is based," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

According to Spanier's lawyers, "Pennsylvania law is clear: the Commonwealth must provide a defendant with notice of the specific exception . . . on which it relies to salvage an otherwise time-barred prosecution" at a "reasonable time before trial."

The exception that the Superior Court relied on to get around the statute of limitations was enacted by the state Legislature when it amended the child endangerment statute in 2007 to include supervisors. According to the exception, if the victim who was abused was under 20 years of age when the abuse occurred, the victim had until his 50th birthday to file criminal charges.

But that exception wasn't even law when the shower rape that didn't happen allegedly occurred. Spanier's lawyers also point out that the jury was never instructed on the exception "despite Dr. Spanier's repeated requests that the jury be instructed on the statute of limitations."

"The trial court's failure to instruct the jury on what it must find to conclude that the prosecution was timely and the lack of a jury finding that the prosecution is timely renders Dr. Spanier's conviction invalid," his lawyers concluded.

"Over Dr. Spanier's objections, the trial court instructed the jury that it could find him guilty of child endangerment if, among other things, he employed or supervised someone else who was supervising the welfare of a child," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

But that language "did not become part of the child endangerment statue until January 2007, almost six years after the events on which Dr. Spanier's" conviction was based on," Spanier's brief states.

"An instruction that permitted the jury to convict Dr. Spanier of violating a statute that was not in existence at the time of the events forming the basis for that conviction is a violation of the Ex Post Facto and Due Process Clauses of the federal and state constitutions," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

In upholding Spanier's conviction, the Superior Court relied on a case known as the Commonwealth v. Lynn, as in Msgr. William J. Lynn, the former secretary for clergy for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

In the Lynn case, Spanier's lawyers argue, the state Supreme Court held that Lynn was the "point man" who was "specifically responsible" for handling all child abuse allegations because he was "uniquely responsible for safeguarding all of their physical and moral welfare, and he supervised and directed the priests who directly interacted with [the children]."

But Spanier 's case doesn't measure up to these standards, his lawyers concluded.

"No evidence was presented that Dr. Spanier was the 'point man' for all child-abuse allegations, that he was 'specifically responsible' for handling such allegations, that he was 'uniquely responsible' for safeguarding the welfare of minor children, or that he supervised or directed an actual child abuser," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

Sandusky was a retired former employee when the 2001 shower incident allegedly occurred.

The Lynn case, as previously disclosed on this blog, was cited by Judge Stabile a total of 34 times in 29 pages to justify his upholding of Spanier's conviction. But, as previously discussed on this blog, the Lynn case is another case of imaginary rape that's an embarrassment to law enforcement.

The alleged victim in the case, former altar boy Billy Doe, AKA Danny Gallagher, has been repeatedly exposed in court transcripts and records multiple times as a lying, scheming fraud. The most recent destruction of Gallagher's credibility was filed last year by retried Detective Joe Walsh. In a 12-page affidavit, Walsh, the former lead investigator on the case, wrote that he caught Gallagher in multiple lies, and that when cornered, Gallagher admitted to the detective that he had "just made stuff up." And when Walsh repeatedly brought Gallagher's lack of credibility to the prosecutor's attention, former assistant district attorney Mariana Sorensen, she replied, "You're killing my case."

On top of Danny Gallagher the fraudulent star witness, the corrupt prosecutor who brought the case is Rufus Seth Williams, now sitting in a federal prison after he admitted to 29 counts of political corruption.

Some precedent indeed.


  1. In 2015, SERS determined that Sandusky could keep his pension because he was not a PSU employee when he was convicted. Moreover, pension forfeiture prior to 2004 was only on the basis of committing financial crimes.

    From the column:
    The board could have stripped Sandusky of his pension if he had committed the crimes when he was a Penn State employee. But none of his convictions were from when he worked at the school.

    “Because we find that nothing in the record in any way establishes that Mr. Sandusky was a PSU employee when the underlying criminal acts were committed,” the Court wrote, “we reverse the Board’s decision.” All of Sandusky’s convictions were for acts committed after 2003, well after he retired.


  2. Judges are part of the prosecution team,they are not impartial,this Judge absolutely already had it out for Spanier. Judges have preconceived ideas and get their prejudges from the mainstream media.

    Shame on you Judge Stabile, you have shown how low the justice department really is and what lengths it goes to corrupt an already corrupt system.

  3. Just another example of an unethical PA judge. Knowing that he has previously made negative comments about Spanier, Judge Victor P. Stabile should have recused himself and never heard the case. He should face disciplinary action for wasting the court's time and Spanier's time.

  4. Don't be fooled by what Ray has stated, as always he has it WRONG about the re-retirement money. Jerry Sandusky's wife only gets half of the re-torment money, which is legally her half. Get it right or don't bother to post please. It's NOT she is rolling in money like others. Ray.

    1. Ray was actually quoting the Court's Decision, which reversed the decision of the Board, by which the Court reinstated the pension that Board had stripped. But, then, you already knew that.

    2. I posted my source. If it's wrong, then Philadelphia Magazine got it wrong.

    3. The point of the post was to confirm that Sandusky was NOT EMPLOYED by PSU in 2001. Louis Freeh and the Commonwealth attempted to argue that Jerry's retirement benefits, such as having an on-campus office and campus phone line, a computer system account, and having access to campus buildings made him an employee.

      The court found that the assertions of Freeh and the Commonwealth were false.

    4. Katrina - Where do you get your information that Sandusky's wife gets half his retirement money? Legally, it all goes to Sandusky until his death. It's his choice whether he gives her 0% or 100%.

  5. Is there a link to this latest appeal?

    PennLive reported on the appeal but had no mention that Judge Stabile was asked to recuse himself.

  6. The interconnection between the Criminal Prosecution of the Church and a University, driven so clear and enlightening is to be highly commended. This would be a great Course at Law School examining the great issues embedded in these stories.

    Now might be the time to go after Cities for being complicit in criminal activity and use the same formula that was applied to deep pocketed Church and University.
    Look what they are doing to MSU because of the behavior of Dr. Nassar. They could shut that school down if they applied the same governance as applied to Penn State.

    It is brilliant when the Judge writes that PSU should start their own Law School, why should they be allowed to raid DSL.

    The Beasley Doctrine may have been applied and just pay for branding rights on the Building.
    This Judge should be prosecuted and jailed. IT's OUTRAGEOUS.

    We live in an age where Gonzo Journalism dictates the Insanity of the Justice System.
    Rolling Stone nailed the Meek Mill Story simply by following the money. He was part of a drug dealing enterprise, run by his family, that runs his music career today, that was a spoke in the wheel of the Cartels and Black Organized Crime. The raid was part of a South Division Drug Investigation run by corrupt cops. Police were protecting the competition and the traffic was coming to close to Girard Estates. When was the last time random drug tests were required for all lawyers and Police.
    The Judge was an addict hearing a drug case , prosecuted by a drug dealing DA cooperating with a dirty cop, who arrested a drug dealing thug, represented by a Brooks Brother couture attorney who is just another suave gangster who got through Law School passed the Bar and hasn't been charged convicted and incarcerated for stealing his mother's pension,
    If Meek Mill would have paid Santaguida the "fee," he would have shopped for a Judge, taken care of the DA with some 76'er tickets and the case would have been dismissed. The Politicians can't enact the Laws fast enough to address the Decline of our Society, which they have created by enabling merchants of vice to prosper, marketing a City, as Eddie the Shake when Mayor, promoted as the Tourist Capital for Victimless Crime.

    Rendell is the Godfather of Gay Prostitution. Why can't he be charged as supporting criminal acts that have only exacerbated today.

    Louie Freeh is as much of a fraud in his examination of the case and should be charged by Spanier's Counsel as part of a conspiracy to convict. How could he submit an honest report when such clear examples of prejudice is exposed by the arguments by the Judge.

    Freeh is a window to the Mueller Investigation inspired by the Obama WH. They write the conclusion before closing an investigation.


    The best and most expensive lawyers may still be incompetent, but consider how justice is weighted for the wealthy.
    All the side deals and pay-to-play fees that Cohen extorted went to pay for legal representation and he still might go to jail with Flynn and Manafort.
    Michael Cohen was spending 1/2 million a week for counsel and then hires Lanny Davis, Clinton's personal attorney to craft a deal. How bizarre, that Cohen's father-in-law got Trump to hire Cohen and Shusterman the father-in-law is a Russian gangster.

    Even Krasner could make the case for collusion with that history.

  7. Here I thought that to be charged with any crime that you have to have an identified victim. What child did Spanier endanger? This boggles my mind. What if every corporate manager is held responsible for what an ex-employee does because they should have reported any odd behavior to the police? That is what these judges are promoting. It violates multiple constitutional safeguards, but evidently PA judges have never read the Constitution of the United States.

    1. In the two biggest sex abuse scandals in perhaps the history of Pennsylvania, both Billy Doe and the boy in the Penn State showers are imaginary characters, created by prosecutors and immortalized by the media.

    2. While I don't think it's necessary to have an identified victim in every case (in the Green River Killer case, some of the bodies found weren't identified), but to make an EWOC charge the Commonwealth would have to have the identity of the person to ensure that it was actually a child.

      Interestingly, Mike McQueary told the police in November 2010 that he would be unable to identify the child. And guess what? The police never came back to McQueary after they had obtained photographs of the victims circa 2001 and asked him if any of the children might have been the shower victim.

      That tells me that the police were not all that interested in finding the victim because the case wasn't really about finding victims. It was about finding people who would implicate Spanier. The timeline of subpoenas and interviews in the case bears that out.

    3. The prosecution contended that Spanier endangered up to 4 boys allegedly abused after the 2001 shower incident, not the unidentified boy seen by McQueary. They had zero evidence the unidentified boy in the shower in 2001 was ever abused after that. They had a single, anonymous victim to testify at Spanier's trial possibly because he was the best crier, because prosecutors had some leverage on him to get his cooperation or because he was the only one who agreed to it.

      That victim kept changing the date of his abuse in his testimonies. Originally, it was before the 2001 shower incident but I don't believe Spanier's defense even cross-examined him at all.

      Not reported much at all was that one or two victims claimed they were abused by Sandusky after AG Tom Corbett took over the Sandusky investigation in March 2009. I think that makes Corbett, Fina, Noonan, Sassano and the rest of Corbett's investigation team guilty of child endangerment.

    4. Ray - I think there is big difference in having an unidentified body in a murder case and having no identified victim for sex abuse charges. A dead body and an autopsy provide clear evidence there actually was a murder victim. There is nothing but McQueary's changing testimony that the boy in the shower in 2001 was abused or, as you point out, that the victim even was a child.

      I always thought that Sandusky's lawyers should have gotten photos of some young-looking 18 year olds and asked that McQueary estimate their age after projecting their photos on a screen for a few seconds. There was never any evidence that McQueary had the knack for accurately guessing a boy's age after a 1 or 2 second glance,

      I have often posed the question online of whether anyone except Sandusky has ever been convicted of sexual abuse of an unidentified child and never got an answer.

    5. In the brief from Spanier's lawyers, they specifically reference the 2001 shower incident allegedly witnessed by McQueary, as explained in this footnote:

      As the majority acknowledged, for the exception in Section 5552(c)(3) to
      apply, the Commonwealth would have had to prove that the victim was
      under 20 years of age when the statute was amended on January 29, 2007 to
      extend the limitations period under the exception to a victim’s 50th
      birthday. See Maj. Op. 11-12. If the victim turned 20 before that date, the
      limitations period would have expired before the statute was amended and
      the prosecution would have been time-barred, even under the un-asserted
      exception in Section 5552(c)(3). See Commonwealth v. Harvey, 542 A.2d 1027,
      1030-31 (Pa. Super. 1988). Thus, on the only date any witness purported to
      see the victim, February 9, 2001, the victim had to be less than 14 years, 11
      days old. The scintilla of evidence the Commonwealth presented on this
      issue, on which the majority relied to uphold Dr. Spanier’s conviction, was
      presented solely to prove the uncontested fact that, on February 9, 2001, the
      child was under 18, a required element of the child-endangerment charge.
      See 18 PA. C.S. § 4304(a)(1).

      I do recall that at the Spanier trial, the contention was that Spanier had endangered the other alleged victims by not dealing with the McQueary shower incident.

    6. Perhaps the confusion is over this: Spanier was charged with two charges of EWOC, one a felony, the other a misdemeanor. The Commonwealth lost on the felony charge, and a contention that Spaneir had engaged in a continuing course of conduct, as in ignoring the threat posed by Sandusky to the other boys, so maybe we're dealing with the misdemeanor charge, because that was the one the jury convicted on.

    7. But the EWOC charge that Spanier's lawyers are appealing for re-argument definitely involves the 2001 McQueary shower incident.

    8. The EWOC charge indirectly involved the 2001 shower incident because the prosecution contended that incident should have made Spanier aware that Sandusky was an ongoing danger to children.

      Logically, that unidentified boy from 2001 could not be the one he was charged with endangering. The abuse allegedly witnessed by McQueary happened before Spanier was notified, and there was never any evidence presented that the unidentified boy was abused after that night. If there had never been another victim after that date, there could have been no EWOC charge.

      I think the argument Spanier's lawyers are making about the date of the unidentified boy's 20th birthday being significant has to do just with the SOL extension. If the unidentified boy was more than 14 years 11 days old on Feb. 9, 2001, then the SOL would have expired well before Spanier was charged in 2012.

      The prosecution definitely blamed Spanier unfairly, even accusing him of endangering children between 1998 and 2001 based on the 1998 investigation that cleared Sandusky.

      Victim 5, who became the anonymous victim testifying against Spanier was also very, very suspect. The Sandusky jury didn't believe him on the most serious charge. He claimed Sandusky touched him once in the showers at age 13, and he had too young to know what an erection was. He originally said the abuse happened in 1998, when he would have been 10.

      It certainly seemed like he moved up the date of his single incident of abuse so it was after Feb. 2001 to qualify for a larger settlement. Spanier's lawyers should have cross-examined him about the date.

      Spanier appears to have been convicted of endangering a boy who was abused a couple years before the McQueary-witnessed incident.

  8. You'd think a big newspaper like the Philadelphia Inquirer would be all over this too. Except that that newspaper has blinders on when the topic is sex abuse. The victims are always as pure as the driven snow, which is why the newspaper doesn't print their names. And the accused defendants are already guilty, which is why they are repeatedly hung out to dry in the news columns and on the editorial page, where the Inquirer has repeatedly called for extending the statute of limitations so that more Billy Does can file fake cases, and get paid.

    Go to, click on "The Newsroom," and read about the ideological blinders those reporters and editors labor under. It's all there in black and white.

    They are all by definition PC warriors wedded to the liberal Democratic vision of society, steeped in identity group politics, victimhood, etc. The difference is that unlike most mainstream media outlets, the Inky staffers proudly wear their biases as badges of honor.

    Anybody who doubts me should go check it out for themselves on And read my take on it:

  9. As one of those reporters once told me, "My editor isn't interested in this."



  11. Ralph,
    The Philadelphia Inquirer is "owned" by the corrupt Pennsylvania government -- their failure to report the facts or look into these miscarriages of justice has little to do with their political persuasion.

    For example, Craig McCoy and Angela Coloumbis knew that Frank Fina and his band of thugs threatened Kathleen Kane in March 2013 if she followed through on her investigation of the Sandusky case.


    March 2013 was before any of the shenanigans started with the alleged leaks (by Kane) to the Inquirer the Mondeshire case -- and then Fina's leaks about the Ali case. However, the Inquirer (and the rest of the corrupt PA media) never mention that initial threat by Fina in their timelines of Kane's case.

    To be clear, Kane didn't have a vendetta against Fina, as has been widely reported. In her election bid, she clearly was criticizing Tom Corbett for slow walking the case and didn't mention Fina at all. It was Fina and his cohorts, who were ogling porn instead of investigating Sandusky, who made the first threat and then leaked the Ali information as a pre-emptive strike to undermine the Moulton investigation.

    The Inquirer, like the rest of the corrupt PA media (PennLive, Pgh Post Gazette) didn't express much interest at all in porngate, even though the case clearly showed the judiciary had been compromised through ex parte communications between judges and prosecutors. In fact, PennLive characterized the case as boys will be boys and juvenile behavior rather than the very serious matter that it was.

    And now we have a matter of a conflict of interest in the Spanier case -- and guess who hasn't made a peep about it? The PA media!

    The only coverage of the recusal so far is BigTrial.Net and Law360

  12. In the matter of prosecutors, the Inky doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds them. They trumpet every indictment as though it was a conviction. They are part of the prosecution machinery, and so that's why they don't question prosecutors or judges.

  13. In the case of the altar boy, politics played a big part. The church was always evil, and no story they printed could ever diverge from that narrative.

    They have ignored the entire Billy Doe scandal, even though the lead detective came forward to testify about prosecutorial misconduct, and they let the Catholic school teacher who was convicted of raping little Billy out of jail nearly 12 years before his sentence was up.

    You have to be willfully blind to ignore those two bombshells. The kind of willful blindness outlined on "The Newsroom" page on

  14. The exception to "the victims are always as pure as the driven snow" is when it contradicts the politics. A good example is the current Ohio State doctor sex abuse scandal, where a powerful GOP Congressman is accused of ignoring the abuse. The news media has numerous reports attacking some of those victims for crimes or legal disputes in their pasts.

    You heard little of the criminal pasts of some of the Sandusky scandal victims and little of the extensive criminal record of Billy Doe.

  15. The Inky worked hand in hand with Crooked Castile's hand picked Administrative Head at Traffic Court, private confidential information was front page news.

    Journalist/prosecutors helped in defrauding the Commonwealth of millions and millions of dollars that were bound for the states coffers but the DOJ and the Inky did not want what could have been a very simple solution to remedy any improprieties that may have been taking place.

    Their intent was to gain glory, not in helping to solve an issue, but to incriminate people and ruin lives,reputations and bankrupting defendants, separating them from their families and their loved ones, that is the American way.

    During the Traffic Court trial when a politicians name was mentioned Inky reporters darted out the door to report the news but when their accomplice, the lying FBI agent was caught repeatedly lying, no one heard a word,the public was kept in the dark about the outrageous violation of ethics of the agent.

    Two Inky journalist/prosecutors were present during the closing arguments when the agents behavior was called in question over and over but since they were part of the scheme to defraud and malign the defendants, no chance of the public reading the truth.

    What was witnessed in the courtroom never made it to the reading public, reading their account one would wonder what courtroom they were in during the trial.

    We are all aware that prosecutors hide exculpatory evidence from defendants defense attorneys to incriminate them but what is it called when mainstream media journalists/prosecutors are in the on scheme to defraud, incriminate and hide the truth from their colleagues and the public ?

    Journalist rely on their colleagues to inform them as well as the public of the truth, these reporters failed miserably on both accounts.

    No one at the Inky, who was not already in on the scheme, was aware of the misdeeds of the FBI agent, thanks to the manipulated public opinion, which is criminal and the public should know of the reporters/prosecutors deceit.

    Its no wonder people do not believe the press, we are not reading what we are seeing. Its the same type of person who get themselves elected to community boards or homeowners associations, to advance their own agendas.

    I never realized that if you work for the Justice Department or the Inky you are endowed with rights other citizens are not entitled you, rights that enable you to condemn fellow citizens making their lives unbearable, disgracing entire families for generations, separating innocents from their families, taking pensions for a lifetime of work, journalist/reporters should face the same fate, get something wrong and its jail time and no pension and disgrace for you and your family.

  16. Watching the performance of FBI Stooge Peter Strzok testify before Congress is a chilling example of the corrupt frauds who exercise power.

    Frank Fina and Strzok would make great cell mates.

    Can you guess how many more of these cretins are out there?

  17. Strzok seems to have held his own during the proceedings, did his personal feels influenced his work, he seems to think they did not. Evidence will prove him right or wrong,everything is out in the open, there is discussion and debate on it.

    The FBI agent who testified at the Philadelphia Traffic Court trial misdeeds were hidden by the media, he is a risk to national security, the security that Americans thought they had in the FBI.

    As the agent was working for the prosecution one can only assume he had aspirations of future job promotions in the bureau.

    The rights of all citizens were trampled upon by the Inky for not reporting accurately. If we can't trust the FBI how are the Russians actions different from what this agent and the Inky did to our rights.

    1. The DOJ and FBI were well aware of Jim Kenney, when Fumo Chief of Staff, of taking bribes and fixing cases in many Courts incl. Traffic Court.

      Quite remarkable that the Inky never covered those criminal acts when destroying Vincenzo.

    2. Then he was cooperating with the government,its the only way he came out unscathed by both the feds and Inky.The Inky follows the feds orders.

      Much like Bernice DeAngelis, the former Administrative Judge during most of the investigations of Traffic Court, who took calls from the "Chief", how is it that she and her husband, a former Fumo aid were able to slither away ?

      During the trial one of the defendants questioned a reporter as to why DeAngelis was not indicted, there was an immediate ban on defendants from having any communication with the press.

      DeAngelis could not be indicted, she was the road to Crooked Castile and her part in the scheme would have been exposed.

      You would think a journalist/prosecutor would question why she was not indicted but why do that when they already had their marching orders.

    3. Russians hacked into the DNC computers to gain access to emails and opposition research on Trump, then feed on the fears of select groups of Americans to instill hatred and rage posing as other Americans expressing the same viewpoints. The Russian aim was to influence the outcome of our elections, cause chaos and undermine our resolve.

      The feds use the Inky and other mainstream media outlets to influence public opinion to change the outcome of a trial. Feds tap into private communications between lawyers and clients to gain critical evidence a defendant needs for their defense, the feds then are prepared for the evidence to discredit it. They can't maintain their winning average if they don't cheat.

      The Inky works hand in hand with the feds to instill fear in citizens on some trumped up corruption scandal or politicians gone wild, out to ruin their way of life.

      Mainstream media reporters serve as a select group of Americans used to influence the thinking of the reading public, most are ill informed on evidence and facts that present during a trial and are force feed the prosecutions "facts".

      When did mainstream media ever question an edict from the prosecution?

      When did an Inky reporter ever have an opinion that differed from the prosecutions?

      Our government wants to manipulate our opinion on anyone they feel threatened by or see a becoming to powerful, in Russia they kill the opposition, in America we indict them.

      How is this any different from what the Russians are continually attempting to do. Mainstream media silences any opinion that differs from the governments. Nothing in my opinion is more dangerous than supposedly open minded journalist who blindly side with the prosecution time after time, who feel compelled to malign and disgrace other Americans. The only "truths" we read about are government backed "truths". Its downright un-American to disagree with the prosecution.

      Imagine finding fault with a federal prosecutor or an FBI agent, its borders on heresy, our government is here to protect us from evil doers, not members of the government, who enjoy total immunity.

      The Russians don't have to work to hard to turn Americans against their own government, just let the Justice Department keep running the show and we will have no loyal citizens who believe in their government.

    4. Prosecutors don't have to "tap into communications between lawyers and clients to gain critical evidence" because the defense has to turn over any evidence they find to the prosecutors. For example, in the Schultz case, Schultz was given his Sandusky file by a secretary who stole it from his old office. Schultz's lawyer turned the file over to the prosecution.

      I agree with you that prosecutors often cheat but more usually by hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense or threatening witnesses to say what the prosecutors want them to say or face charges themselves. We saw the latter when prosecutor Frank Fina got Cynthia Baldwin to testify against her former clients. Fina had threatened to charge Baldwin with obstruction. Instead, Baldwin blamed Curley, Schultz and Spanier for the obstruction.

    5. Former President Obama warned in a speech he gave today in South Africa that the denial of facts and the rise of the strongman could be the undoing of democracy. He was talking about Trump but those words could describe a prosecutor who lies.

      Hiding or denying facts as well as using strong-arm techniques fits the bill as prosecutors put winning before facts,harming democracy.

      Prosecutors can not be the only people who have a voice, the media need to allow those that have suffered at the hands of the prosecution to be able to relate their harrowing experiences and to listen , really listen to facts. Bullying and propaganda thrive at the justice department.

      We have a president who sold us out we don't need the media to do it as well.

      Respectfully I disagree with you on the tapping of phones, I believe they do it regardless of whatever material they possess.

  18. The ex-FBI agent most visibly involved in the Sandusky scandal obviously acquitted himself very poorly, namely Louis Freeh. At least two of the Freeh Report's recommendations were for greater transparency at Penn State but then Freeh joined Penn State in court to fight for the public release of his source documents. Penn State even fought in court to prevent their own trustees from seeing Freeh's documents. Not a peep from Freeh, or the news media, that Penn State was not following his recommendations.

    Another former FBI agent, Frank Noonan, then the head of the PA State Police, vilified Paterno for moral failures even though his state troopers did an inept, and slow Sandusky investigation that allowed Sandusky to abuse boys while they were investigating. Noonan then fought transparency by refusing to allow any state troopers to speak with Moulton for his report on the Sandusky investigation.

  19. Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together," Pulitzer wrote. "An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself. The power to mould the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future generations.
    Joseph Pulitzer

    Its its too late for moulding, I do believe all is lost. Joseph Pulitzers predictions have come true.


Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.