Monday, February 24, 2014


Two weeks ago, Tribune-Review Capitol correspondent and columnist Brad Bumsted helpfully explained to readers that Attorney General Kathleen Kane's announcement about unexpectedly recovered emails means either her examination of her predecessor's astonishingly lengthy Jerry Sandusky investigation has turned up damaging information, or it hasn't.

This week, he's followed it up with the equally insightful observation that the Office of Attorney General's February 2011 email dump means either Tom Corbett had something to hide, or he didn't.

As evidence that he didn't, Bumsted offers up the fact that neither Corbett nor acting Attorney General Bill Ryan had any way of knowing in February of 2011 that Kane would be elected AG the following year, launch an examination of the Sandusky case and seek those very emails.

In other words, Bumsted is asking us to believe that it never would have occurred to Corbett, who built his signature legislative corruption cases largely on email evidence, that emails ever could be used against him.

It's true that Corbett and Ryan could not have forseen in February 2011 Kane's election and eventual examination of the Sandusky case.

But what certainly did occur to them in February 2011 is that a case the OAG had largely ignored for two years was now headed toward an indictment.

There's nothing in the public record to suggest that Corbett ever seriously intended to investigate Aaron Fisher's complaint against Sandusky.  Corbett has publicly declared that he had determined he could not pursue the case without additional victims. And although Sandusky's charity The Second Mile put Sandusky in well-documented contact with hundreds of potential victims - Sandusky had even included the names of some of his victims in his 2001 memoir, Touched - for two years, no one from the OAG ever reached out to any of them.

It's fair to suppose that if the case had relied solely on the investigative efforts of the OAG, Jerry Sandusky might still be a free man.

In December of 2010, the mother of Victim 6 reached out to investigators after journalist Sara Ganim gave her their contact information.

Victim 6's complaint against Sandusky had been investigated by Centre County authorities in 1998. Corbett's office ostensibly had been investigating Sandusky since March of 2009. That they could have failed to identify Victim 6 over the course of two years - if they had been looking - is inconceivable. It's impossible to conclude that they were doing any active investigation during that time.

It was Victim 6's mother who told investigators about the book, Touched - again, it defies imagination that they wouldn't have known about it had they been conducting an active investigation. It was she who went through the book with investigators and identified victims 3, 4, 5 and 7.

Now that they had identified additional victims - and more importantly, now that Sara Ganim knew they had identified additional victims - it was clear by February 2011 that the case would proceed to an indictment.

Corbett and Ryan didn't need to forsee Kane's investigation to know how politically damaging emails from the two-year period when the case was inactive could be to Corbett.

What might the OAG have been discussing over email in the years before the email dump?

Aaron testified twice to the grand jury, to no effect, in June and November of 2009, according to his book, Silent No More. Why was he forced to do this when Corbett already had determined not to proceed without additional victims, and none had been identified by then?

Deputy AG Jonelle Eshbach told Aaron at least twice that an arrest was imminent: in February of 2010, again in March of 2010. Again, Corbett says he determined from the beginning he would not make an arrest without additional victims, and those victims weren't identified until December 2010 at the earliest. Why would Eschbach be talking about an indictment in February and March? A search warrant wasn't even executed on Sandusky's  home until June 2011.

In mid-August 2010, Eschback ignored repeated phone calls from Aaron's psychologist, Mike Gillum. When they finally spoke, Gillum said Aaron's mother wanted to go to the FBI.

It's not hard to imagine that all of these events and others like them were hot topics of email conversations within the OAG. And it's not hard to imagine that these events, which happened at a time when no one in the OAG thought anything would come of Aaron's complaint, took on quite a different cast in light of Sandusky's imminent arrest.

Bumsted muses, "If the email deletions were aimed at protecting anyone, the timeline suggests it had more to do with Corbett's public corruption cases pending at the time."

We won't suggest that Corbett didn't have plenty to hide about the pending cases - which, like Sandusky, were cases he never intended to pursue until public pressure forced his hand. But the accusations that he'd been playing politics with the legislative cases had been flying for years, with no lasting damage - after all, the only victims were unpopular politicians and their staffers.  Two years of dragging a child rape victim through hell? That's a different story.


Anonymous said...

Signor Ferrari,
Your theory is correct, as always. Corbett has abused the law for many years. The public was uninterested when the issue was legislators, however a child molestation captivates everyone's wrath.

The Corbett/Ryan/Kelly destruction of email policy would have further insulated OAG from discovery of their abuse of the law. It not only shielded OAG from the Sandusky case, it also shielded them from the multiply cases that drew staff away from the Sandusky investigation.

All hell broke loose in December 2009 when Sean Ramaley was acquitted.

We need the Feds to bring Corbett and company down.

Anonymous said...

It's a crying shame that the Patriot-News, which won a Pulitzer for coverage of the Sandusky case, has abandoned the story.

Anonymous said...

It is called Obstruction of Justice....The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of interfering with the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice.

Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, other than a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers.

Now that Bumstead is on the record too, and Ryan claims about saving costs are outright lies that can be proven before a Jury.

It is time putting these two (Ryan & Bumstead), on the Video Recorded Record before the Independent AG Special Counsel and ask them very Specific Questions about these Email Dumps to Invetsigators so they cannot later say, "I did not know," or "I cannot recall," and they will have to verify exactly when they did a study it would save money and prove it was done for cost saving and if not let a Jury decide if their timing, logic, and excuses are accurate or outright lies.

The start of shaking the truth from these outright Emails Dumps must begin by putting these Two Culprits under Oath and before Investigators or a Grand Jury NOW!

Once on the record they are stuck and have to prove what they did and said, and then the Recovered Emails will Emails can show the full truth, and they cannot recant their former statements.

Get moving on this Cover Up that needs special attention now, and watch these two Lawyer Up to no avail?

Anonymous said...

One way to verify Ryan is lying is to look at all State and Federal AG Offices and see how long they maintain their records, if the PAOAG under Ryan is one of the only one that dumps Emails after 6 months there is your proof right there for them to explain as they answer questions.

This is becoming a joke of an Investigation, when Blog Boards have to tell the AG how to ask the right questions before they recover the emails?

This is what needed in the Media, to flush the truth on the Emails Dumps?

Anonymous said...

The first question is:

Does an acting Attorney General, functioning in a caretaker role, have the authority to change the policy of an Attorney General?

The second question is:

Why did Corbett nominated and Senate confirmed Linda Kelly continue the policy?

Anonymous said...

Legislators who did not even know Mike Veon are wishing for the good old days when Veon was in leadership. About 40% of the House Democratic Caucus are first and second term members and they are discovering that, for decades, it used to be that each legislator got one secretary. Having to share secretaries is messing them up with their constituents and making their reelection efforts more difficult. There is now word circulating from Leadership that even more cuts in staff, including district office staff, will be necessary in order to keep all that high paid Leadership staff working. So, words is the "Young Turks", realizing that they may be a majority in the next session, are planning Leadership shifts that will shift funds from those high paid Leadership staff to more secretaries and more district office staff. So, the battle begins. It should be interesting.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to hear that Gov Corbett underwent surgery in Pittsburgh this morning. He assigned power to the Lt Gov for about an hour. Wishing him a full recovery.

I wonder if the Lt Gov destroyed and documents while he was "acting Governor?"

Di "acting" executives have the authority to change policy? Bill Ryan, OAG

Anonymous said...

It seems someone in House Democratic Leadership does read this. We hear there was much griping about the Young Turks. They know that they are vulnerable for reelection because Leadership won't give theme enough staff to reach constituents. It seems some are now being told the caucus has no more money to give to them and they are left to fend for themselves.

Meanwhile, Brian Sims has made the dispute public. The Young Turks are off to defeat---incumbent Democrats.

The House Democrats will fight more to see who gets to be Minority Leader than actually trying to unite to take the majority.

No one can say things are gotten better.

Anonymous said...

If one watched Frontline on the, "Secrets Of The Vatican," it gave a tremendous insight and documentations of what happen with the Vatican Catholic Scandal in details.

It is east to see parallels to what happen at Penn State and how powerful people, millionaires with political connections, fanatics, and Second Mile with Penn State use images of being superior and above reproach for cover ups used to intimidate anyone especially the victims of such abuse.

They reveal how the Lawsuits were filed against any accuser to recover Attorney Fees against Victims whose Statue of Limitation was over so they could only speak out not be able to file charges.

Spanier often intimidated anyone that challenged Penn State image?

They show how the Victims, Doctors and Families were bribed to be silent so child abuse was kept silent and it continued for over decades.

Sandusky did the same thing buying gifts to victims to recant and delay telling others, but Corbett investigator never acted fast enough?

It showed how a Young Priest Organization called The Legion of Christ whose head was very sick Pedophile who recruited nothing but young men and raised millions for the order and misused and unaccountable and was praised when they had documentation of 21 Victims as written by other Priests that witness it.

Sandusky was just like him based on the victims testimony, but Corbett kept a low profile matter for years?

It shows how it was covered up, passed on, and ignored for years; part full of confusion, part in protecting money raised by this Legion Order, part disbelief, and part to protect the corruption of the Vatican.

Just like Penn State Leadership and Coaches knew something was going on and Corbett ignored it for 14 years with individual self-interests?

It shows how Priest that did expose these scandals were intimidated into silence and careers ruined, similar to what Freeh uncovered of Spanier missed by the PAOAG.

It showed how powerful allies outright would mock the Victims, call them liars, and intimidate them even when they did speak out, and still no one would investigate or listen. Just like Schultz, University Police, DPW, Penn State, Spanier, Curley, Paterno, DA Gricar, and Corbett OAG long delays, dumped emails, and not letting the Childs Predator Unit investigate with no explanation?

Anonymous said...

It shows the Catholic Vatican Child Abuse Scandal is not over, that many victims are still out there, and the New Pope is trying to change the Vatican, but more disclosure needs to come out. The same for Penn State, how they handled the scandal is very similar to the Vatican and moving on is not longer an option.

It is graphic in revelation but it touches how victims felt, were hurt, and psychologically injured that is hard for average people like ourselves to understand and avoid in discussing it in any details.

Many others are far more right about how Penn State is acting now, thinks it is over, and really does not care so long winning football and new President prevail again, Corbett too.

Due to Corbett this has not really been fully investigated.

The NCAA did Penn State a favor by the Consent Decree and not doing a Full Investigation?

It also taught me that Second Mile and every one of their Members, Benefactors, and Corbett's entire AG Office needs investigated by a Federal Independent Special Prosecutor with intimidating Grand Juries, Subpoena Powers, Immunity and Arrests Powers to be convene. Spanier's Consultant Work should be suspended by the Federal Government not embraced and protected, the 2 Victim's Attorneys with cases still pending should demand an investigation.

The Legislature, Judicial Judges near to Penn State, Last 3 AG's And Acting AGs, and the last 3 Governors, along with the Trustees, Paterno Family, Former Coaches, need to be brought under the Grand Juries and go on record what they knew, and when they knew it, and explain their support in spite what has come out to date.

If properly investigated by outside Independent Special Counsel they will be horrified and they have a right to demand a Federal Investigation especially on Second Mile's entire organization, and its participation and no investigation worthy from an AG now Governor that took, $600,000 + from them and gave them a $3 million Grant later removed 4 months before the delayed Grand Jury Report after the 409th Win week.

There needs to be a PBS Program on what happen at the AG Corbett Office and Penn State to get these investigations going further.

You will understand once you watch this Frontline Program.

Anonymous said...

Dear Geoffrey Moulton, Kathleen Kane' s special investigator of the handling of the Sandusky matter at

Please Read & Investigate:

What has to be understood is Corbett knew The Second Mile and especially Sandusky was under investigation.

The Second Mile had an obligation to disclose the accusations of Victim 1 and the Clinton County CYS Office (who formally TERMINATED their formal relationship with The Second Mile that included an in-house, full-time "Second Mile Coordinator" at the Clinton County CYS Offices!) even after the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, The Second Mile's State-Licensor and Regulator as to Childcare Services, conducted a FORMAL INVESTIGATION and HEARING relative to Victim 1's very specific and CYS-Registered Complaint and the RESULT of that DPW INVESTIGATION AND FORMAL HEARING WAS A FINDING OF GUILT AGAINST THE CHARTY VIA ITS FOUNDER, MOST POWERFUL CONTROL PERSON BY CHARTER AND ITS PUBLIC FACE & PRIMARY FUNDRAISER????

The charity has an obligation to disclose that The Second Mile's State regulator found in favor of a participants formally registered COMPLAINT OF SEX ABUSE VIA THE CHARITY???

Donors and participants have no right to understand that the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare made such a finding against The Charity's operations including it FOUNDER, PRIMARY FUNDRAISER and MOST POWERFUL PERSON BY CHARITY CHARTER has been listed by the LICENSING STATE AGENCY on the "Child Abuse Registry" as a pedophile via the adjudication of Victim 1's CYS-Registered Formal Complaint and DPW Complaint Investigation Process???

The Second Mile even directly lied to donors and participants in March 2011 after the Harrisburg Patriot News published their news breaking story that Sanduksy was under investigation due to Victim 1's Complaint on March 31, 2011 -- not only did TSM lie to donors and participants that called TSM about the story, but the Charity's CEO Dr. Jack Raykovitz lied directly in the Harrisburg Patriot News in a letter that was published on 3/31/2011 responding to the news breaking story where CEO Raykovitz denies any knowledge that the DPW, the Charity's Licensor, had FOUND AGAINST the Charity and its Founder in regards to Victim 1 all the way back in February 2009!!!

Is anyone freaking kidding me that not disclosing anything about this and allowing Sandusky to continue association with the charity as it's primary face and fundraiser until almost 2011 was not fraud and a knowing deception on the part of The Second Mile???

Why was The Office Of Attorney General in the Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania doing nothing about these Campaign Donations, Charity Donations, when they knew Sandusky was under a Grand Jury Investigation????

The OAG has responsibility to protect the public from this type of CLEAR charitable fraud???

What is this BS legal evaluation based upon - certainly not the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennasylvania!!!

Anonymous said...

Yea, here's another interesting article regarding the lack of transparency by THE SECOND MILE Executives GIVEN A PASS BY FRANK FINA regarding both 2001 (which THE SECOND MILE incorrectly claims is 2002 despite acknowledging that they were contacted by Tim Curley regarding the incident and it would have had to have been 2001 in their files - so why did they not point out it was 2/9/2001 rather then play along with the OAG's original claim that they received this report from Tim Curley sometime in March 2002???

Weird how THE SECOND MILE can't even read their own files regarding such reports correctly!?!?) - anyway here is the article about THE SECOND MILE M's lack of candor and transparency regarding both 2001 and 2008 (oh yea, these same liars supposedly knew nothing whatsoever about DPW's Formal Investigation in 1998 - mmmmhhhhhmmmm, yea, whatever.....FRANK FINA SAYS):

"""Former Second Mile Board Members Say They Were Never Told of Abuse Allegations Against Founder""""


"""STATE COLLEGE, Pa. – Former board members of Jerry Sandusky's charity say its CEO never told them about a 2002 shower incident that is the focus of child sexual abuse charges against the retired Penn State assistant coach. If they knew Sandusky had been banned from bringing kids on campus, they say they could have taken steps to better protect children a decade ago.

"Not one thing was said to us," said Bradley P. Lunsford, a Centre County judge who served on the Second Mile board between 2001 and 2005. "Not a damn thing."

If more information had been given to board members, they "would have asked the follow-up question: Why? You don't know? Who knows? Who can we talk to? Has this been reported to the police?" Lunsford said. "I guarantee you there would have been a competition among all those people to be the first to ask the question, `Why is he not allowed on campus?"'

Lunsford and four other former board members at The Second Mile point the finger at Jack Raykovitz, a close friend of Sandusky's who ran the charity until resigning following the former coach's Nov. 5 arrest.

A former prosecutor, Lunsford said Raykovitz had an obligation to tell the board. "There are a number of people around that table who have been involved with children's charities for years and there's a very good chance that if given accurate information about what the allegation was, there's a lot of people around that table who could have done something about it."""

Anonymous said...

"""Former Second Mile Board Members Say They Were Never Told of Abuse Allegations Against Founder""""


"""STATE COLLEGE, Pa. – Former board members of Jerry Sandusky's charity say its CEO never told them about a 2002 shower incident that is the focus of child sexual abuse charges against the retired Penn State assistant coach. If they knew Sandusky had been banned from bringing kids on campus, they say they could have taken steps to better protect children a decade ago.

"Not one thing was said to us," said Bradley P. Lunsford, a Centre County judge who served on the Second Mile board between 2001 and 2005. "Not a damn thing."

If more information had been given to board members, they "would have asked the follow-up question: Why? You don't know? Who knows? Who can we talk to? Has this been reported to the police?" Lunsford said. "I guarantee you there would have been a competition among all those people to be the first to ask the question, `Why is he not allowed on campus?"'

Lunsford and four other former board members at The Second Mile point the finger at Jack Raykovitz, a close friend of Sandusky's who ran the charity until resigning following the former coach's Nov. 5 arrest.

A former prosecutor, Lunsford said Raykovitz had an obligation to tell the board. "There are a number of people around that table who have been involved with children's charities for years and there's a very good chance that if given accurate information about what the allegation was, there's a lot of people around that table who could have done something about it.

One of Raykovitz's vice presidents said Raykovitz also shared little information with his managers about a 2008 sexual abuse complaint that led to the current criminal charges against Sandusky.

And the head of Clinton County's child welfare agency, where the 2008 investigation began, said he told Raykovitz's wife in November 2008 that Sandusky had been spoken to about getting "too close" to children involved with the charity. Gerald Rosamilia said Raykovitz's wife, Katherine Genovese, who helped run The Second Mile, did not define what was meant by "too close" or give a timeframe.

Raykovitz defended himself in a telephone interview, saying he acted appropriately at all times. "There have always been steps in place to protect kids," he said.

The grand jury that charged Sandusky with 52 sexual abuse-related counts involving 10 boys said the former coach "found his victims" through The Second Mile and committed many of his offenses inside Penn State football buildings.

The nonprofit had thrived since its creation in 1977 because of Sandusky's prominence as a defensive coach at Penn State, its close ties to university donors and leaders, and its use of Penn State's athletic fields for its camps serving at-risk children. Then-coach Joe Paterno often served as master of ceremonies at The Second Mile fundraisers.

Paterno, 84, led Penn State football for more than 45 years until early November, when the sexual abuse charges against Sandusky shook the entire university and claimed the jobs of major college football's winningest coach and the school's president, Graham Spanier.

Now, with The Second Mile's future in doubt, it is unclear whether Raykovitz properly handled the charity's response to the 2002 case.""""


Anonymous said...


""""Penn State athletic director Tim Curley testified that a graduate assistant had told him in 2002 only that he had seen "inappropriate conduct" that made him feel uncomfortable, and nothing of a sexual nature. But Mike McQueary, now an assistant coach, testified to the grand jury that he told Curley he saw what he believed to be Sandusky raping the boy, who he said was about 10.

Curley, who has been charged with perjury and failure to report a sex crime, testified he told Raykovitz of inappropriate conduct and that Sandusky was prohibited from bringing youth onto the Penn State campus.

Asked what Curley told him, Raykovitz cited a Nov. 6 Second Mile statement that referred only to inappropriate conduct: "At no time was The Second Mile made aware of the very serious allegations contained in the Grand Jury report."

The statement also said Curley, who has been placed on leave, told Raykovitz the shower incident "had been internally reviewed and that there was no finding of wrongdoing."

But Lunsford said the charity's board couldn't take action in 2002 that might have prevented other assaults of children "if there's a cover-up from the source."

Even if Raykovitz had only limited information, he still should have acted more aggressively in 2002 when contacted by Curley and should have viewed Curley's ban on Sandusky bringing Second Mile kids to campus as "a red flag," Lunsford said.

As the person in charge, Raykovitz was legally required to provide the board all available information whether he believed it was true or suspected it was false, Lunsford said.

"We still need to know. That's our job," he added. "By not telling us, it essentially rendered us ineffective and we had no chance to help those children."

Informed of Lunsford's comments, Raykovitz said, "He can feel anything he wants to feel."

Charles Markham, retired president of Uni-Marts Inc. and a Second Mile board member from the late 1990s until about 2004, said that Raykovitz never discussed the 2002 case with him personally or at board meetings. "If I'd known anything in 2002, I would have had a hard time keeping it under my hat," Markham said.

Two other former board members -- Larry Snavely, who runs a State College-based higher education marketing firm, and Donald Cross, a retired Centre County school employee -- said Raykovitz never mentioned the 2002 allegation. Another former member said he was not told, but asked that he not be publicly identified.

David Woodle, acting CEO, refused to address concerns raised by board members about Raykovitz's handling of information regarding the 2002 shower incident, saying to do so would be a distraction from the goal of helping serve children.

The board of directors of a children's charity is responsible for making sure that it operates under reasonable policies and procedures to protect children, according to Daniel Borochoff, president of Chicago-based Charity Watch. Individual board members can face lawsuits for failing in their oversight duties, and The Second Mile insures its board members against such claims.

The Second Mile has been named in two civil complaints, including one that seeks to preserve the charity's assets.

David Marshall, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who represents other accusers, said: "It may have been only Sandusky who laid his hands on these children, but it is clear that a number of other individuals and agencies placed the children in harm's way by knowingly taking actions that allowed the abuse to continue even after they became fully aware of it.""""

Anonymous said...


""""Raykovitz also is facing questions about his handling of the 2008 complaint.

Rosamilia, the Clinton County youth services chief, said he had informed Raykovitz's wife in November 2008 that his office was terminating its relationship with The Second Mile because of an abuse complaint. He said he had not identified the target of that complaint, but that Genovese eventually guessed correctly that it was Sandusky.

Rosamilia, who said he mentioned his conversation with Genovese to investigators working on the current prosecution, also recalled Genovese saying that a member of The Second Mile board planned to speak with Sandusky about staying away from Second Mile events involving children.

Raykovitz said Rosamilia's description of the conversation with his wife is incorrect. He would not elaborate. Attempts to reach Genovese were unsuccessful.

Raykovitz referred questions about what he did in 2008 to a prior statement, which said that when Sandusky told The Second Mile he was being investigated because of allegations made "by an adolescent male," the organization separated him from "all of our program activities involving children." The Second Mile statement makes no mention of the sexual nature of the 2008 complaint.

He said in the interview last week some staff at The Second Mile were informed in 2008 that the complaint was the reason Sandusky was not participating in programs serving children, but only on an "as-needed basis."

Bonnie Marshall, the charity's vice president for development, said Raykovitz described the 2008 complaint to her and other senior staff as a general abuse complaint, not one of a sexual nature.

She said Raykovitz explained that Sandusky would be taking a break from programs with children but would continue fundraising.

She said she also was unaware of Genovese's conversation with Rosamilia, and was not aware that anyone at the charity had ever spoken to Sandusky about getting too close to The Second Mile children.

In 2009, when Sandusky left the charity's board, Raykovitz told the staff that child welfare officials had issued a finding of abuse against Sandusky, Marshall said. But, she added, Raykovitz described it only as a general complaint being pursued by an angry mother who had accused Sandusky of wrongdoing, not a complaint of sexual abuse.

"I thought he would have told me that this was something really bad," Marshall said. "And he didn't.""""


Anonymous said...


The former aide to House Republicans was charged with conspiracy, obstruction and hindering apprehension, accused of helping hide evidence.

The lawsuit claims that both the grand jury report that named him and the warrant for his arrest "were obtained by deceit, fraud, perjury and other corrupt means."

"The defendants waited until the eve of Zimmerman's trial to voluntarily dismiss the criminal charges against him because they knew that a trial would expose their malicious prosecution of Zimmerman and result in an acquittal," Jacob wrote in the 36-page federal complaint.

Perzel, a longtime Republican power broker from Philadelphia, was among those convicted in the case. He is currently serving time in a state prison.


Anonymous said...

In 1998, Sandusky was..........questioned in regard to Boundry issues and was..........not charged! Even so, DPW as able to indicate (flag) Sandusky and DID NOT. DPW was required by law to put a child protection plan in place at the Second Mile............and DID NOT!

That is good work by our primary child protection agency. Do any of our legislature leaders want to perform their oversight function and maybe review why DPW did not follow state law

We need to find out what involvement to the investigation/events of the Sandusky Sex Scandal that Corbett was involved in, the cover-up, the derailing of the investigation, the counter-suit, just what he knew, when he knew, and why he did not push for early indictments?

There is a real stench that coming from the Governor's Office!

Hang tight on that until September or October.

Mr. Corbett will be getting a nice present from the AG's office about his bungling (or worse) of the whole situation.

Anonymous said...

I get the feeling that a month or so ago, the following phrases were overheard in the District Attorney's office of Philadelphia:

FINA: "She seized my old hard drives? But I deleted EVERYTHING!"

FINA: "What do you mean they can RECOVER those e-mails and documents?"

FINA: "Call Tom CORBETT, call Barry FEUDALE, call the goddamnned the Public Relations with Media Connections, If she finds that stuff, we're all screwed!"

A few weeks later, the Philadelphia papers are peppered with a lot of "news" about Kathleen Kane.

Repackaging of a message + Constant drumbeat of that message = Propaganda.

The rats are leaving the ship in droves. Its all about to come crashing down.

Corbett, Fina, Blessington, Costanzo, Ryan and Feudale are going to look really bad and will need to lawyer up themselves.

Make an extra large bowl of popcorn, it might take a while - but every day you'll see the previews to a fantastic movie that will be arriving in theaters in a few months, directed by Moulton and produced by Citizen AG Kane.

Anonymous said...

So of all the things that came out the past few days and this is what she got out of it? Sheesh.

This is obviously another push by Corbett and Fina who didn't come out smelling like roses after what is now being revealed.

Fina is obviously feeling the heat from Kane. I'm starting to think we might see the Kane report sooner rather than later.

Anonymous said...

I find it very bizarre how nothing is mention that this same conversation proves Judge Feudale's subsequent statements on the record in a ruling about how the PAOAG and Courts violated Defendants Rights to be false - i.e., Frank Fina.

Beyond that, it's odd nothing is mention that the documents seem to show a conspiracy between the OAG - i.e., Corbett/Kelly/Ryan), who perpetrated many of the same questionable tactics in other prosecutions throughout multiple SWIGJ investigations and prosecutions.

Lastly, it is very strange how nothing is mention how Feudale was removed from the SWIGJ Bench in disgrace including an inappropriate e-mail that was sent to Frank Fina at his new place of employment, the Philly DA's Office, critical of Kane and warning him about the investigation that was coming by Geoffrey Moulton (Feudale writes the note suggesting a "friendly relationship" with Fina, takes various pot-shots & ad hominem attacks upon the new AG and then says that he recommends that Fina fully cooperate with the coming investigation....).

Here is a link to the article that was published by when Feudale was removed from the SWIGJ Bench - see following hotlink:

Interesting that over-top the article and right under the "headline" is a huge picture of none other then Prosecutor Frank Fina because it is quite clear that Corbett, Kelly, Ryan, Fina, Feudale, Blessington, and Costanzo, maintained relationships that violated the defendants Constitutionally-protected rights.