Tag Archives: judge John E. Jones III

Sundusky update through yardbird.com

We have received this update from Author Bill Keisling of Yardbird Books on his efforts to study the anatomy of the Penn State/Sandusky scandal, with further efforts coming:

Busted: Behind the Sandusky arrest Narcotics agent nabs Jerry Sandusky ‘Tom didn’t want to do it’

Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett made it clear to his staff that he did not want to pursue the pedophile case against former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky.

“Tom didn’t want to do it,” one Corbett associate explains.

A separate investigation involving AG office narcotics Agent Anthony Sassano in November 2010 finally broke the Corbett-imposed logjam in the Sandusky case.

Agent Sassano got a hit on Sandusky on his PACE computer database system and discovered that the former football coach was also supposedly under investigation for a pedophile complaint by Corbett’s heretofore-inactive state trooper, and prosecutor.

To read more visit:


or read a detailed insider’s timeline of the case here:


Penn State/Sandusky prediction: pleas 3 – trials 0

This post represents only the views of its author, and is in the nature of a New Years’ prognostication for 2012, with certain implications on themes that have been discussed on this site.  It was not offered sooner because of the urgency of the Conklin matters, which have been reported about, and will continue to be followed.

The prediction, as suggested in the title, is that Jerry Sandusky, and the two other fellows – Tim Curley, Athletic Director, and Gary Schultz, head of campus police – will make plea agreements to end their cases, and that there will never be another evidentiary hearing or trial related to these matters.   Sandusky can already be convicted on the testimony of McQueary, a couple victims, and Sandusky’s odd public statements – the Costas one alone sealed that fate, and the New York Times one is further relevant for these and other purposes.  Although the charges have not been studied, it is likely that the charges against Curley and Schultz have room for appropriate reduction in the plea bargain process, and that neither of them would face jail time – Barry Bonds recently avoided jail time, and he went to trial. Sandusky will likely have to do some time in jail, but there would appear to be no direct benefit to any of them to take a trial, and huge downsides on many levels – Paterno testifying, Spanier testifying, Courtney testifying, victims being further subjected to the process etc, etc, etc.  There are huge motives on all sides, including Corbett’s, for these matters to be resolved quietly, and that is the prediction  – pleas 3 – trials 0.

The prediction is made with the further admittedly aggressive suggestion that the foregoing is, or will be, an engineered result.  Call it a “conspiracy theory” if you must, it certainly would involve one, or call it an effort to urge a look at this case that will do complete justice, but there are themes that have already been discussed generally and specifically herein, including our Penn State/Good old boy’s network article, that are suggested by the circumstances, and, whether or not the prediction proves correct, will continue to be developed.  The prediction is just an opinion, of course, the questions that give rise to it are these:

How and Why was the existence of the grand jury proceeding leaked to the Patriot News in March 2011?

Did whoever leak it know that “victims” may go out and “lawyer-up”, as they say, to seek civil suits for damages?

Did they know that financial motives affect testifying victims’ credibility?

Did they know that some people with financial motives may actually try to concoct stories?

Why did they not know of these other victims through the “investigation”?

How and why did the grand jury indictment wind up in the Patriot News?

How does Marty Carlson get next-day, state-wide coverage of slanderous accusations about Bailey?

Why doesn’t Bailey get access for his response?

Why put Bailey’s picture in the Patriot with an eye-patch he wore for a couple weeks a few years ago when he was having a health problem?

Does the Patriot News have some kind of access to the courts, or vise versa?

What kind of media access do prosecutors and former prosecutors have?

Why don’t we ever hear more about other grand jury proceedings?

How often and when are they used?

Why would Sandusky’s attorney allow him to go on national television and answer questions about his sexual attraction to young boys?

Did anybody who is involved in these cases have any interest in Sandusky doing national media appearances, without knowing what he was going to say?

Do they know those statements can be introduced against him at trial?

Why was the grand jury apparently suspended during the Corbett gubernatorial campaign?

Do they realize the names that will be on the witness lists for these trials?

Did any of them contribute to Corbett?

Do they know that Harrisburg will be a media circus for weeks, and Penn State under the spotlight of international attention?

Why was the Sandusky preliminary hearing, which he allegedly decided to waive on the morning it was scheduled, held in Bellefonte, while the others, where there was testimony, were held in Harrisburg?

Why is the new attorney general already not running for re-election?

The questions could continue, and may continue as they arise.  Of course, the answers to all of these questions are not within the power of any private citizen, save Patriot News editors, as to parts, to answer, but they all are reasonable.  They suggest themes that we will continue to develop, and as they develop, maybe those questions will be answered.  We have no interest or preference, incidentally, in the matter of pleas or trials, only that justice be done, that no one else gets hurt, and that all the proper people be brought to justice.

Thank you

Penn State lawyers and federal courts (“the good old boys network”) have role in Sandusky scandal

The immediate story being covered by this site is the attack on the law license of Don Bailey, and the damages and injuries being suffered by his clients, as reflected in the unprecedented filings that have recently been made, and as discussed in our November 5, 2011 post.  The primary purpose of this site, however, as set forth in our Welcome page, is to address the condition of the legal system, lawyers and courts, in Pennsylvania, and central Pennsylvania, in particular.  No better context can be set to study the condition of that system than that presented, not only by the Sandusky scandal, but by the role of Penn State and its attorneys in the courts.  The conditions of secrecy and control that led to the Sandusky travesty are ultimately permitted or rebuked by the courts, particularly the federal courts, whose power is immense in regulating cultural and political climates.  Penn State and its lawyers have had remarkable success in the federal courts, notwithstanding evidence of record, examples of which we will bring you, that show similar patterns of secrecy, sometimes to ruthless degrees, that demonstrate that control.  For now, we comment on the Sandusky case.

The indictment of Jerry Sandusky notes that in 1998, allegations of misconduct were reported to Wendell Courtney.  This did not surface until 2011.  Courtney is a partner in McQuaide, Blasko, a State College law firm, with a tradition at Penn State more enduring than Joe Paterno.  Courtney has also been counsel for Sandusky’s Second Mile organization.  McQuaide, Blasko handles most, if not all, of the civil rights and related litigation in the state and federal courts against Penn State.  A McQuaide partner, and prolific litigator, James Horne, is the current president of the Middle District Federal Bar Association, a position that requires close work with President Judge Kane, and Conner and Jones as well.  He was nominated and installed as president between 2009 and 2011.  The investigation under Tom Corbett is believed to have begun in 2009, then there was a hiatus until after Corbett was elected governor, and the investigative grand jury resumed in 2011.

In 1999, Sandusky retired, and the renowned coach and heir-apparent to Paterno, then only 55 years old, disappeared from the scene.  Paterno recalls a meeting with Sandusky in 1998 where he informed Sandusky that he would not become the head football coach at Penn State.  Sandusky was a hot nationwide commodity, with talk even of coaching in the NFL, and could seemingly have written his own ticket, but he never coached again.  There is no mention of what Wendell Courtney did with the information he was provided in 1998, and what, if any, relationship it bore to the end of Sandusky’s illustrious coaching career, at its zenith.


In 2002, Joe Paterno reported information he received from a graduate assistant about the misbehavior of Sandusky to the athletic director.  Although not expressly stated, it is reasonable to assume that the information was also communicated to counsel for both Penn State and Second Mile – the incident was believed to involve one of the Second Mile youths.  Corbett later became Attorney General.  No action was taken until 2011 despite the fact that the graduate assistant had witnessed a graphic violation of a child by a legendary coach on the staff of THE legendary coach, at Pennsylvania’s most prominent public institution in 2002. Additional violations allegedly occurred, again per the grand jury report, in 2005-06 and 2008.  It is abundantly clear that there was information of reprehensible criminal activity concealed in 1998 by Wendell Courtney, and that there was additional clear and unequivocal evidence of similarly graphic criminal activity concealed in 2002, and no real inquiry into how this concealment was allowed to happen.  Untold numbers of children were allegedly violated by a known predator, and a lawyer could have stopped it – a lawyer closely-connected to the courts.

It was not again until 2008 that matters were reported publicly about Sandusky, but, conspicuously, these reports did not come from anyone in the Penn State circle.  These reports came from a rural Pennsylvania high school football coach who had received information concerning some very disturbing behavior – the kind of behavior known to Courtney in 1998, and to him and many Penn State administrators in 2002.  It is believed that, through the advice of attorneys, an institutional decision was made to keep the Sandusky secret a secret forever, and that but-for the report from the high school outside of Penn State’s control, the facts would have continued to be engineered to conceal the truth, letting Sandusky continue to molest children, if that is what happened, as long as it was “not on our campus”.   The implications of a secret of this nature are unspeakable here.  The matter resurfaced in 2008, and again, even under the watchful eye of our then-Attorney General Tom Corbett, was allowed to go into a hiatus until after he became governor.  Corbett, also an attorney, has some more pointed questions to answer too.  Did Spanier and others contribute to his campaign?  Why the hiatus in the investigation of a child predator?  Were there any victims during that hiatus?  Etcetera.

The relevant point to this post relates to the principle of “acculturation” in the legal system.  In the kids-for-cash scandal, the element of acculturation was specifically cited as an obstacle to investigating the breakdown in the courts.  This was mentioned in Bailey’s King’s Bench Petition (see Bailey docket post).   It relates to the point raised by Bailey throughout that skewed loyalties motivated by politics, status, and even personal relationships, have gravely compromised equal access to justice.  This climate of acculturation, where loyalties are to the power structures which sustain the attorneys, slowly allows attorneys to turn a blind eye here and a blind eye there to actions that would otherwise dictate more direct intervention, in service to the “institution”, and the power structures that maintain it.  These are not easy things to negotiate legally, and professionally, and demonstrate why the role of the attorney, and service of that role with integrity, is so vital. When attorneys grow up professionally through these systems, they fight to maintain their personal positions, among service to other loyalties, and are acculturated to protect much, much more than the specific interest of their client in every cause at issue.  The Sandusky tragedy unfortunately illustrates the harm that can result.  We will continue provide you with examples of this principle, as we already have.  This is the essence of the problem in Pennsylvania.

Again, it is likely that Paterno at some point did convey the information he received to an attorney in 2002.  The attorney/client privilege, a vital individual protection in a system with integrity, may limit any ability to know much more than this.  To illustrate the point of this post, however, we will assume that such communication occurred.  If Paterno communicated to counsel what he testified to the grand jury, it is reasonable that Paterno was informed that he has satisfied his legal obligations.  This is what the grand jury concluded.  This is where the acculturation comes into play.  In 2002, there would already have been something to protect – the 1998 secret – which was kept to protect the institution and power structures.  The 2002 information threatened the 1998 secret, which institutionally demanded be kept secret for the same reasons.  Counsel with an institutional secret to protect would naturally instruct the purveyor of the information that since his legal duty had been satisfied, he need not and should not discuss it again with anyone, and that the attorney would take all action deemed appropriate.  Reasonable persons would heed that advice, trusting that they had placed the information in the right hands – their attorney.  Through this dynamic, if it is accurate, numerous crimes of the most heinous nature imaginable had now been covered up, and numerous more were allowed to happen.  Paterno, McQueary, and others surely did not forget what they had seen and heard, and these things were left to fester, and whether, over time, they had a duty to follow up is a moot point because the climate had been set by the institutional secret.  The longer such secrets are kept by the individual, the more daunting the prospect of being the one person to bring down the institution.  This is surely not the only such secret maintained by Penn State and its lawyers, and this is how cultural tones are set.

The hallmark of the climate of acculturation is secrecy, and secrecy is the theme of whistle blower litigation, and other civil rights litigation.  Penn State dominates the culture of central Pennsylvania, and the federal court judges in Harrisburg have sprung forth from this same climate of acculturation, through state political circles.  These courts have demonstrably protected, at least tolerated, efforts to conceal misconduct by state actors and their attorneys.  This is the “good old boys” network, and Penn State and its lawyers are big players in that network.  The good old boys network is what has given rise to the civil rights law network, and we believe both networks are working toward competing principles – equal access to justice for all in the latter case, perversion of justice for a select few in the former.  In the Sandusky case, the good old boys network has caused grievous harm to untold numbers of innocent children, and the civil rights law network will continue to shine the light on the conditions that allowed it to happen.  We will bring you specific material relating to Penn State, and other matters that touch upon our overall theme, as this mission continues to be fulfilled.

Please read on about the unprecedented action taken by Don Bailey’s clients, and allow this post provide you with some context as to why Don Bailey, and the clients he represents, are not treated with favor, as we have suggested, and has Don has suggested for years.

Thank you.

Snyder County prison inmate with information on unsolved murder case and drug trafficking involving prison officials was found dead, ruled a suicide, yet the autopsy and opinion of renowned pathologist Dr. Cryil H. Wecht suggest foul play, but Judge Jones throws out case

While incarcerated in the Snyder County Prison on April 17th, 2007, twenty-nine year-old Jeremy Wayne Dock was beaten by guards and/or others while in protective custody for “his own safety.”  Former Snyder County District Attorney Michael Sholley, current District Attorney Michael Piecuch, Coroner Bruce Hummel, Prison Board Solicitor Robert Cravitz, PSP Trooper Richard Blair and Dr. Barbara Bollinger (the county’s hired pathologist) insist he committed suicide by hanging himself with a bed sheet.  In our opinion (and based on the limited information they’ve given us access to); we strongly disagree with their consensus!

The previous summer, Jeremy was coerced by Snyder County Probation, Officer Kerry Davis into working as a confidential informant for Gary Heckman, an agent from the PA Attorney General’s Office. He was released from jail for the explicit purpose of making controlled drug purchases and did as they requested throughout the summer.  As summer ended Jeremy was expected to make buys from Jay, a heroin dealer in Allentown, which he refused to do because he feared retaliation.  Jeremy became unproductive for them, so he was again incarcerated at the Snyder County Prison on probation/ parole violations for a supposed ‘hot urinalysis’ test.

Jeremy’s girlfriend contacted Gary Heckman to ask for his help.  Jeremy was again pressured to help set up the heroin dealer in Allentown, which Gary told Jeremy would cut his impending state prison sentence in half.  Jeremy declined to provide any further assistance because he feared for his family’s safety.  It was then he was abandoned by his mentors, Kerry Davis and Gary Heckman.   After his re-incarceration in Sept. 2006, Jeremy’s “confidential informant” status was exposed by one who had the distinct responsibility of protecting his identity.

At the end of October 2006 the Snyder County District Attorney’s office alleges that a smuggling ring was operating within the Snyder County Prison involving outside persons.  An investigation was conducted by Enoch Powell, a detective from District Attorney Sholley’s office.  According to Jeremy’s letters, during interrogation on November 13th he gave Powell information on others involved in the smuggling.  He also wrote “he’s (Powell) already talked to people in here cause when they walk past or I go out in the hall they call me a snitch, plus… (another inmate) just told me today that one of the CO’s (Correction Officers) told him what I did; they (guards) are not supposed to be saying shit like that, so you and Gram need to call my lawyer John Reed about getting me transferred to Union County.”  Also present at the interrogation on Nov. 13th was Watch Commander Donald Campbell who witnessed Jeremy’s statement that implicated no less than a dozen people in the smuggling.

In a letter dated 11/15/06 Jeremy writes “I’m down here in f…… Protective Custody now” and “since I’m only PC (Protective Custody) I get a whole 2 hours of rec. instead of 1, Oh!!! The benefits of being a snitch you got to love it (not)!  Do you have any idea what it’s like to go out in the hall now when they escort me and don’t have any inmate movement they (guards) are basically telling the whole jail I’m a snitch, are they going to come home with me, and protect me and my family?”

As a result of the harassment; followed by a beating by guards, Jeremy made a written request, intended for Warden Ruth Rush, but that was intercepted by, and responded to by Watch Commander Donald Campbell in which Jeremy writes “I am writing you in regards to my housing status, how is it that I have to be housed down here, when I can be placed on G-Wing.  There have been child molesters that have been placed up there simply by Mr. Reade (the Deputy Warden) telling the wing that if anyone touches them they will be criminally charged.  I am willing to take that chance!  And if not I request that I be transferred to Union County in accordance with a violation of my 14th Amendment.  Thank you.  Jeremy W. Dock. ”  The response from WC Campbell reads “You know why you are locked up you will remain where you are located.”

In another letter dated 11/24/06 Jeremy said, “I’m in P.C. (Protective Custody) because of telling them what they wanted to know” and later “because there is supposedly so many people in this jail pissed off at me.”

On 11/27/06 Jeremy writes “I spoke with the Warden (Ruth Rush) and she is going to see about getting me out of the hole and housing me but I don’t know if that’s going to work, because supposedly there are so many people pissed at me and if they can’t figure out a way to house me then I’m probably going to Union County.”

Shortly thereafter, he was transferred to Union County Prison where he was in the general population for an uneventful 4 1/2 months.  During that time Jeremy told his girlfriend and/or his father on at least three separate occasions that if he was returned to Snyder County Prison he was “a dead man.”

Jeremy was returned to Snyder County Prison and again placed in so-called Protective Custody on April 13th, 2007.  This was six days prior to a scheduled appearance at a court  hearing where he planned to reveal information about guards and other inmates involved with the drug trafficking within the prison.  Jeremy had also acquired information about the unsolved murder of Donald E. Seebold III, which he planned to reveal to his newly appointed attorney.

Less than four days later he was dead!

                A cover-up followed Jeremy’s death that continues to this day, leaving his family and friends with many questions?  Why would Enoch Powell indiscriminately divulge the name of anyone cooperating with him in an investigation?  Why was Jeremy given up as a ‘snitch’ by the very people who had a distinct responsibility to protect his identity as a confidential informant?  Who made the decision to return Jeremy to the unsafe environment at the Snyder County Prison;and why?  Who made the decision to control the situation ‘in house’ and do extremely lengthy CPR at the jail as opposed to transporting Jeremy to a hospital, which was only minutes away?  Who decided they needed to re-create the crime scene (for photos by Trooper Blair) by hanging the sheet back on the cell door and placing Jeremy’s personal effects back in the cell after they had been moved immediately to the Deputy Wardens office an hour earlier?  Why was the evidence not properly secured?  By their own admission Deputy Warden Donald Reade and Watch Commander Donald Campbell handled scene evidence and placed items into storage later.  Why are there so many discrepancies and errors within PSP Trooper Rick Blair’s report and the incident reports given by those present during Jeremy’s death? Why did officials feel the need to mislead and lie to family members from that first day?  Is it not a clear conflict of interest for former District Attorney Sholley and current District Attorney Piecuch (both sitting members of the Snyder County Prison Board) to be responsible for investigating a murder at the county prison?  Why do law enforcement and medical professionals, not involved with this case, view this information in a different light than do those who should be held accountable for the decisions made that day?  Is there a connection between Jeremy’s death and that of Alan M. Willow, a friend and fellow inmate, who also met an untimely death, shortly after being released from the Snyder County Prison, just three short months after Jeremy’s death?  What really happened to Jeremy at the Snyder County Prison?

Judge John E. Jones threw this case out without even giving the Dock family the chance for discovery, and in typically abusive fashion.  Why?  Judge Jones is from Schuylkill County, and is believed to have political friends in Snyder County.  Was he protecting them by his decision?

Visit http://www.JeremysJustice.com to discover more about this story dedicated to the memory of Jeremy W. Dock and the hope that the truth will finally come to light.

Julian Adams Harrisburg City Police Case

The Julian Adams case involved a Harrisburg City Police officer who was effectively terminated based upon a completely manufactured charge that Adams lied under oath. He was later actually terminated when he filed a federal lawsuit.  The Chief of Police of Harrisburg, Charles Kellar, was very close to then-Mayor Steven Reed and is widely-known to be racially insensitive at least – there was evidence that he used the “N” word frequently, for example.  The Mayor was involved at the time with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission in an ongoing inquiry into alleged racial problems in the police department under Kellar, all of which was revealed during discovery.  Judge Jones would not, however, permit even the deposition of Reed, and although Adams’ case was allowed to go to trial, the developing circumstances as reflected throughout this site caused him to settle his case for minimal value without going to trial.

Motion to Compel Sanctions

Brief Opp Summary Judgment