Joe Paterno

I interrupt my regularly scheduled blog for this rant. I was planning to write “Flat Taxes and Other Urban Legends.” In fact, it is already written. But, I can't in good conscience not spew my feelings about the accusations regarding Joe Paterno. First, here are some personal disclosures. I am not a Penn State graduate. I attended one class in English composition at the Mont Alto Penn State campus when I was a senior in high school. (I got an A, thank you very much.) I have been a Penn State fan my entire life. Two of my siblings are Pitt graduates. To them I write, Dad liked me best. He left me an extra $100K in his will, because he was a Penn State fan too. So you know I am biased. I am unabashedly in the bag for Joe Paterno.

I may regret this blog if some new information comes out other than what has been disclosed through today. If I turn out to be horribly wrong, I promise to write a mea culpa blog, and I will consider appropriate and humiliating punishments readers might suggest – not including my brother Mike.

I am so angry spit is hitting my keyboard as I type. I don't really know where to start this angry spew. So I will start with my favorite Washington Post sportswriter, Mike Wise. A few days ago he wrote a blog placing a lot of blame on Joe Paterno for the actions by that subhuman vermin, Jerry Sandusky. I should write alleged subhuman vermin to be legally correct. Here is where I stand on Sandusky. I won't even let my spell check add his name to the spelling dictionary on my laptop.

Mr. Wise accused Paterno of two specific actions or more correctly omissions of actions. He wrote that Paterno should have done more for the victims of the scumbag, Sandusky, and that Paterno should have been more involved in the investigation.

I sent Mr. Wise a message asking the following question. “What column would you be writing if Joe Paterno had: 1. done more for the victims, 2. been more involved in the investigation?” I suggested that he would then be writing a column about: 1. witness tampering, and 2. obstruction of justice.

I should give you a little background about Mike Wise. Feel free to look this up on the Washington Post web site. Mr. Wise won an award for writing an article that basically stated that Gilbert Arenas was a young, black man misunderstood and exploited by the rich white devils who run the National Basketball Association. Here is how you know physicists are correct about the existence of parallel universes. Only in a fantasy alternative universe, called sports journalism, would someone win an award for article so patently ridiculous. He is a fine writer, but not much of a thinker. I am not writing this to take shots at Mr. Wise. I'll let Gilbert Arenas handle that. Read his article on Arenas, and you'll get that joke.

My experience in the legal arena consists of the following. I have sued, been sued, been deposed, witnessed depositions, been a witness in a criminal case, been an expert witness in civil cases and gotten divorced. I have far more experience in courts than I ever wished. I suspect Mr. Wise's legal experience is limited to paying speeding fines. He doesn't seem too concerned with legal niceties like speed limits. By way of disclosure, I have no speeding tickets. Of course, I probably just jinxed myself for tomorrow's commute. I hereby knock on wood.­

Let's look at the assertion that Joe Paterno should have done more for the victims. When you are involved in a potential criminal case, even if you aren't the target of the investigation, you can't contact potential witnesses. In legal jargon, this is called witness tampering. It's a crime. The idea is that you are attempting to influence the testimony of witnesses, whether that is your intention or not. In our legal system, no good deed goes unpunished. Paterno and the entire evil Penn state football empire would be seen as trying to suppress testimony from the victims. Surely anybody with an IQ above eighty can understand this. Maybe not.

The second assertion is that Paterno should have made more of an effort to push the investigation forward. He should have been more personally involved. There is another legal term for this – obstruction of justice. Paterno and the evil Penn State empire would be seen as trying to influence the police investigation. Oops – they have already been accused of that. This may be a fair accusation in terms of two university administrators.

The problem with evaluating Paterno's actions, as Separate from Sandusky's actions, lies in two areas. First pedophilia is a unspeakably, horrible crime. If Sandusky is guilty, he is truly an evil, defective unit. The world will be better off without his existence. Understandably, we get emotional about pedophilia.

Second, like Notre Dame football and Duke basketball, Penn State football arouses strong emotions. People either love Penn State and what we believe it stands for (remember I am beyond biased), or people hate the program for being sanctimonious schmucks. Ironically, Pitt fans hate Penn State, but Penn State fans don't hate Pitt. That looks to me like an inferiority complex.

To really evaluate Paterno's actions, we need to remove the emotions about pedophilia and Penn State football. We can do that by examining a hypothetical similar situation that doesn't involve all the emotions. To make it really personal, I will make this about me.

Let's assume that I work for a CPA firm, called Stitely & Karstetter. Isn't that crazy? I am going out on a limb on this one. One of the employees I supervise named, Mark David Chapman, comes to me and tells me another of my staff, Jeffrey Dahmer, has killed one of our clients, John Lennon. I haven't heard from John Lennon for a while. So I am suspicious that Mark may be right.

Look at the possibilities. One possibility is that Mark David Chapman had a grudge against Jeffrey Dahmer. Another possibility is that Jeff actually did kill John Lennon. Maybe John Lennon hasn't been killed at all. Another wild possibility, that I can't imagine could possibly happen, is that Mark David Chapman killed John Lennon. What do I really know based on Mark's statements? Am I really a witness to anything? In fact I don't know anything, and I'm not a witness to anything. Should I call the police?

Here is the unfortunate answer. I should not call the police. I should call our legal counsel. Why? Because I am in a very bad situation. If I file a police report, I could be falsely accusing an innocent man, Jeff Dahmer, based on a rumor. That is a legal problem for me. Of course maybe Jeff isn't so innocent. I don't want him killing someone else. So I need to talk to someone. I certainly don't want to talk to any of the participants. That is messing in a potential police investigation. Mike Wise won't like my answer, but I have a lot more experience in the legal world than he does. There are risks in reporting crimes you didn't witness. Our legal counsel is going to make the determination if the police should be called.

What should I do for the victim and his family? Should I call John Lennon's best friend, Paul McCartney, and express my condolences at the murder of his close buddy? Should I say how sorry I am that Stitely & Karstetter would become involved in such an act? By now, you are justifiably laughing.

When we take the emotions out of the case, put ourselves in Joe Paterno's shoes (Oh God, please not those black shoes, white socks, and high water pants.), and look at just the facts we have available, Joe Paterno did exactly what he should have done given the ugly circumstances. He reported Mike McQueary's allegations to his bosses. Yes, he did have actual bosses in Penn State. They fired him – didn't they? His bosses should have spoken to the University general counsel. I heard a couple days ago on the radio that the general counsel said he was never informed about the allegations. I don't know that for a fact. If the president of the university didn't talk to either the general counsel or the police, HE has a problem. And – I have a problem with him.

Let's now deal with the statements from that testicle-less wonder, Mike McQueary. I have never in my life insulted someone the way I just have. OK, I lied. I have maybe insulted a few IRS employees a little worse.

Let me establish some street cred here. During my marriage V 1.0, an incident happened in my house, where a young person was involved in an improper sexual encounter. My ex was unwilling to reveal the incident to me until years later. She feared what I would do – with good reason. I have a well deserved reputation for confrontations. Unlike Mr. McQueary, I would not have witnessed a sex act with a minor and said, “You guys finish up while I call my dad. I'm very distraught.” If I had called my dad, I know he would have said, “Why aren't you kicking this scumbag's ass? I'll kick yours if you don't go back and stop this.” Dad's threat would have been credible. He could kick my ass until he was seventy.

By implying that having testicles is a good thing, I am not trying to insult my female readers. I would not expect a woman to try to confront a criminal physically. Men have a natural propensity for physical confrontations with other men. We live for confrontations. How else do you explain drunken bar fights and road rage? Every weekday morning at 7:15 AM, I am on route 28 south trying to get to work. I hope someone will cut me off, so I can beat the living crap out of him. By 7:20 AM, I would run over a crippled old lady to get to the left lane. This is my attempt to intimidate you from driving on route 28 south in the morning. I need something to make my commute tolerable. I want all you people off my damn road.

For the ladies, here is how I think you would have properly reacted to the situation Mr McQueary faced. You would have made a comment about the adequacy of Sandusky's equipment. Isn't that what you always do to us? That would have brought down the tent, so to speak.

A few days ago, an e-mail was found where the ball-less wonder, McQueary, claims to have spoken to the police shortly after Sandusky assaulted a young boy in a Penn State shower. There is a little problem with McQueary's claim. Read the grand jury report. McQueary didn't tell the grand jury that he had talked to the police. Apparently, he didn't tell the police he had talked to them either. The police have no record of his report. Of course, if you believe that idiot, Steve Czaban, from the radio station, Sportstalk 980, McQueary was afraid of the Penn State “mafia.” Yes, the useless little prick used the term, mafia. The mafia would have suppressed the police report. I don't think Czaban meant to make an ethnic insult about an Italian, Paterno. That would be someone Polish insulting an Italian. As Larry the Cable Guy said, “That would be like wiping before you poop. It don't make no sense.”

Here is a visualization exercise. Picture me in a short white Penn State cheerleader outfit with blue and white pom poms. I say, “We are.” You say, “The Mafia.”

To give myself a little time to cool down while writing this, I consulted an online thesaurus. I was looking for a synonym for “idiot.” Since I have used that term about four thousand times so far, I thought I would give you a break and find a new word. The first synonym listed was “sports journalist.” The second was “Steve Czaban.” If you ever agree with him, surrender your G.E.D. I'm a little calmer now.

The district attorney in the Sandusky case has filed perjury charges against two Penn State administrators based on McQueary's testimony that he fully and completely informed the two about the incident in the Penn State shower. The grand jury report called the ball-less wonder a credible witness. How credible is he after the e-mail he sent? Not very. He is now a proven liar.

Here is a prediction for you. The two Penn State administrators will plead guilty to a lesser charge of making false statements or something like that. They won't accept a plea agreement, because they consider themselves guilty. They will accept a plea, because the prosecutor is playing with house money – tax money. She has an unlimited budget. The accused do not. If you don't believe a prosecutor will spend ridiculous amounts of tax money on a case rather than lose face, see Ken Starr versus Bill Clinton. More than $50 million was spent on a political witch hunt (I'm a Republican). We have a lovely legal system don't we?

This is what I want you to take away from this blog. First check your emotions before you jump to conclusions. That means I would like Mike Wise to take a Midol before writing the next column about this subject. Based on what we know today, Joe Paterno did exactly what was required and prudent based on what he knew.

You might reasonably ask, “Frank,since you are in the bag for Joe Paterno, what would convince you that he did something wrong?” I'm glad you asked. If we find out that Paterno knew about several earlier instances where Sandusky was accused of similar conduct and had good reason to be suspicious, I will accept a suitable punishment suggested from one of my readers. Please feel free to e-mail me about punishments you feel would be appropriate for writing this blog, fstitely@skcpas.com. I promise to take pictures.

If you agree with me at this point, please read Mike Wise's column at http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/if-jerry-sandusky-allegations-are-true-penn-state-and-joe-paterno-deserve/2011/11/05/gIQAYIucqM_story.html. Please also read the grand jury report http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4181508116.PDF. Hopefully you will understand it on a deeper level than Mr. Wise. Then, whether you agree with me or disagree, send a message to Mr. Wise at wisem@washpost.com. This is still a free country - at least until you are targeted by a district attorney.

Since I hate to ever end a blog on a down note, if you are a football fan, please take a look at this web site, http://occupyherbstreit.tumblr.com/. It is a great parody of the Occupy Wall Street movement. My brother, Mike, showed me this site when we visited him in New Zealand. Pitt fans are good for something.

Next time, I promise to get back to business. Thanks for reading! Frank