Penn State AD Tim Curley faces charges (Paterno and PSU president are now out)

[Maximus]

Sounds like you've connected them all for us.

Who even needs the trial?

It's America, we're required to.

 

[AZ_]

It's America, we're required to.

Damn shame, I know.

We already know Paterno is a pedophile, don't need a trial to prove it.

 

[Maximus]

We already know Paterno is a pedophile, don't need a trial to prove it.

What are you babbling about now?

 

[AZ_]

What are you babbling about now?

 

[bob2the2nd]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/s...ownership-of-home-to-his-wife-for-1.html?_r=1

HMMMMMMMMMMMM

please tell me you are being sarcastic with this hmmmmm. are you seriously questioning why a 84 year old guy would sell his 11 year younger wife the house? christ almighty. there are a lot of really shady things joepa may have done, this isnt exactly one of them.

for those of you curious you cant gift a house otherwise you have to pay full taxes on it, so by selling it for a dollar you only have to pay taxes on the dollar. Also if joe were to die while the house was still in his name tried to will it to his wife she would once again have to pay taxes on it. this is a pretty damn common thing.

edit: also read somewhere in a article comment section (i know real high quality information there) that its being reported that there has been no testimony yet from anyone so far that has matched up with what McQueary told police,, specifically what he told others about what he actually saw, and in fact he may have never actually reported anything to the police.

 

[Pyro]

It's America, we're required to.

We're also required to get the verdict wrong 3 out of 4 times.

 

[AZ_]

please tell me you are being sarcastic with this hmmmmm. are you seriously questioning why a 84 year old guy would sell his 11 year younger wife the house? christ almighty. there are a lot of really shady things joepa may have done, this isnt exactly one of them.

for those of you curious you cant gift a house otherwise you have to pay full taxes on it, so by selling it for a dollar you only have to pay taxes on the dollar. Also if joe were to die while the house was still in his name tried to will it to his wife she would once again have to pay taxes on it. this is a pretty damn common thing.

edit: also read somewhere in a article comment section (i know real high quality information there) that its being reported that there has been no testimony yet from anyone so far that has matched up with what McQueary told police,, specifically what he told others about what he actually saw, and in fact he may have never actually reported anything to the police.

Apparently you're not connecting the dots.

 

[cdt]

At this point Boobie is either a satisfied 2nd mile participant or Jerry Sandusky.

 

[Phills14]

Yea that article is making something out of nothing. It is very common for older, even middle aged people, to transfer ownership of a house to their non-income earning spouse. Especially when that spouse is significantly younger. If the house remained in JoePa's name and he were to die the house would be part of his estate and be subject to probate laws and taxes. If it's in her name when he dies, no taxes are due becaue he did not own it at the time of death. It's a very common financial planning move and one that an 84 year old man should be seriously looking at no matter who they are.

 

[AZ_]

Yea that article is making something out of nothing. It is very common for older, even middle aged people, to transfer ownership of a house to their non-income earning spouse. Especially when that spouse is significantly younger. If the house remained in JoePa's name and he were to die the house would be part of his estate and be subject to probate laws and taxes. If it's in her name when he dies, no taxes are due becaue he did not own it at the time of death. It's a very common financial planning move and one that an 84 year old man should be seriously looking at no matter who they are.

Stop defending child molesters, please.

 

[Maximus]

Lawrence A. Frolik, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in elder law, said that he had “never heard” of a husband selling his share of a house for $1 to his spouse for tax or government assistance purposes.

“I can’t see any tax advantages,” Frolik said. “If someone told me that, my reaction would be, ‘Are they hoping to shield assets in case if there’s personal liability?’ ” He added, “It sounds like an attempt to avoid personal liability in having assets in his wife’s name.”

 

[DougHeil]

At this point Boobie is either a satisfied 2nd mile participant or Jerry Sandusky.

Satisfied?

 

[DougHeil]

please tell me you are being sarcastic with this hmmmmm. are you seriously questioning why a 84 year old guy would sell his 11 year younger wife the house? christ almighty. there are a lot of really shady things joepa may have done, this isnt exactly one of them.

for those of you curious you cant gift a house otherwise you have to pay full taxes on it, so by selling it for a dollar you only have to pay taxes on the dollar. Also if joe were to die while the house was still in his name tried to will it to his wife she would once again have to pay taxes on it. this is a pretty damn common thing.

edit: also read somewhere in a article comment section (i know real high quality information there) that its being reported that there has been no testimony yet from anyone so far that has matched up with what McQueary told police,, specifically what he told others about what he actually saw, and in fact he may have never actually reported anything to the police.

Well, he could have done this one/two/three years ago. The guy is 84 or so. It's not like he was young and all the sudden got old and decided he better do it "right now." You have to admit the timing of this sale is rather convenient. Just a few months ago when he knew the indictment was coming shortly.

 

[wuck]

The NY Times continues to go after this story, and I'm sure this is still only the beginning, sadly. An internet forum full of Penn State fans fueled the investigation (!).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/s...et-posting-helped-sandusky-investigators.html

Inquiry Grew Into Concerns of a Cover-Up


Some of the lowlights:

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — A critical break in the investigation of Jerry Sandusky came via a posting on the Internet: a random mention that a Penn State football coach, years before, might have seen something ugly, but kept silent.

...

Working off the brief mention on an Internet forum where people chatted about Penn State athletics, according to the two people with knowledge of the case, investigators narrowed their list of coaches likely to have seen something to Mike McQueary, then an assistant coach and the football program’s recruiting coordinator.

...

McQueary was explicit and unequivocal, the people said. He had told Paterno, the team’s longtime and widely beloved head coach, about the incident the next day, but he was filled with regret that nothing had happened.

And in 2002, after McQueary had reported what he had seen to the university’s senior officials, those officials not only never told the police, but they also never even informed the university’s top lawyer.

...

Investigators over the last week have made clear that they have serious doubts about whether so few people in senior positions of responsibility came to know of the 1998 investigation.

“You have to understand those statements in context — there is nothing that happens at State College that Joe Paterno doesn’t know, or that Graham Spanier doesn’t know,” one person involved in the investigation said.

 

[Maximus]

Judge that released Sandusky on just a signature has been pulled from the case...it has been reassigned.