This clusterfuck continues to snowball.

Who or what does Baldwin actually represent when she claims it is the “University” if it is not the senior administration? Is it the BoT, the students or maybe it’s only the “collection of books.” Whoever hired her needs to get the University’s money back.

And hell yes, she has an obligation to speak up when Curley and Schulz claim under oath that she is there to represent them. She stayed quiet because “of deference to the Grand Jury process” is an incredible load of crap.

I can’t keep up with all this crap

Competant competent

Sorry, 6244, couldn’t resist making that change — the context was just begging for the correction.

Yet when her name is called out she “does not remember hearing”. What the hell was she listening to?

Reading further down, I see that the answers to my questions are yes and yes. Nice to see that I agree with a “law professor [who is] recognized for his knowledge of legal ethics”.

those sudoku puzzles can be pretty engrossing…

The way I read it, Spanier canceled the meeting early in the first week of November.

I don’t know how to interpet that either. It’s almost as if he initially thought of doing the right thing, but then was advised not to….

No bullshit.

I figured if Ashton Kutcher had something to say about it, maybe one of the Baldwin brothers did too.

is how the judge presiding over the Grand Jury, all the clerks who had to be involved, and everybody from the Attorney General’s office who had to be present, all heard her say that she was representing Penn State and still let her sit in on Curley and Schultz’ testimony. Hell, if I can figure out that representing the school is not the same as representing the men, I’d think the bailiffs (yeah, I know Pennsylvania doesn’t call them bailiffs) and court reporter should realize it and maybe mention it to the judge…

not to mention a former PA Supreme Court Justice.

and only half the people show up when the time comes to leave, I will ask, “Is so-and-so meeting us there?”

Wouldn’t a natural reaction from Baldwin be, “Hey, guys, good to see you. Are your lawyers going to meet us in Harrisburg? Can we stop at the Twin Kiss on the way back to State College?”

Q. “What is the difference between the Girl Scouts and Penn State?”

A. “The Girl Scouts have adult leadership.”

Don’t want to get BSD in hot water, though.

Cynthia Baldwin wants to be in the room. Theoretically the Judge could tell her no, but practically she was on the fucking Supreme Court, that has no chance of happening. And I wasn’t listening to the first question? I didn’t want to interrupt? That’s the most flagrant bullshit I’ve ever heard in my life.

I have no idea what any of that means. But hold on to it, because it’s relevance will surface.

Mr. Davis declined to comment.

The long and short of it is that when Curley and Schultz testified to the Grand Jury, they both stated (with Cynthia Baldwin sitting only feet away) that she was their counsel. Since then, Lanny Davis has stated that this was a misunderstanding, and that Baldwin was strictly there to represent the University’s interests.

Like jesse. keeps saying – something smells funny, we just don’t quite know what it is yet.

Both Curley and Schultz testified before the Grand Jury that Justice Baldwin was their counsel at the time. Justice Baldwin, ethically could not have represented them at the time, and she denies that she did. But she did not correct the statements made by Curley or Schultz on the record. She missed it two separate times, and attributes the error to “not paying attention” and “not wanting to interrupt the process”.

What it means is still very much an open question.

So I’ll ask the obvious question that no one hear can answer: Why was the article taken down?

Ben Jones, I’m looking in your direction…

Ganim’s article basically provide a lot of back story as to how they colluded to lie.

This is wrong. The article points out an obvious conflict of interest, one that we’ve actually discussed here in the past. She asked after it, and got Justice Baldwin’s side of the story. As yet, there is no evidence of “colluded to lie”, just a fishy story.