Skip to main content

The following is the actual request for investigation by the US Justice Department, filed soon after the scandal broke in November of 2011 by good government activist, Gene Stilp from Harrisburg, PA.

It raised questions about what additional crimes and victims could have been prevented by a more aggressive investigation by the Attorney General's Office in PA.

The Attorney General at the time was the person who is now Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett.  

Could Tom Corbett have stopped Sandusky sooner?, and why didn't he?  We'd like to know.

November 22, 2011

COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE INVESTIGATION INTO THE SANDUSKY/PENN STATE RELATED CORRUPTION SCANDAL.

TO:  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
       FEDERAL BUILDING
       3RD AND WALNUT STREETS
       HARRISBURG, PA 17101

FR:  GENE STILP

This is a complaint and a request for an investigation in regard to all aspects surrounding the horrendous crimes in the Sandusky case and a request that the Pennsylvania state investigation also be completely and objectively reviewed.

With the announcement of the indictment of Jerry Sandusky of State College, Pennsylvania on forty counts of criminal child molestation  by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General on November 4, 2011, the entire country was shocked.

The arrest of the former Penn State assistant coach and two Penn State University officials in a coverup has led to many questions that must be answered. Each new answer leads to further questions.

In the past two weeks, with the revelations came an apparent sense among the public that there were time delays in the state investigation surrounding this case. Also it became apparent that there were a lack of personnel and resources assigned to this case by the then Attorney General Tom Corbett during the early part of the investigation.

It has become apparent that many feel that the offender could have been removed from the public years sooner than has actually occurred. The question that many ask is if any crimes could have been prevented and children saved by a more aggressive investigation and prosecution during that part of the state investigation.

Confidence in the totality of the investigation has been undermined by the huge number of questions that are unresolved.  The public wants answers and the public wants a full complete investigation no matter where the trail of evidence leads including any and all government officials who did not assign the proper number of personnel or resources to this case.

The Attorney General at the time was the person who is now Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett.

The investigation began in the early part of 2009.  According to press reports, one state trooper was assigned to the reported case of child molestation by Jerry Sandusky.  A what point during the investigation, would the investigation have been enhanced by the assignment of more personnel is a question the federal investigators could determine. The types and  nature of other resources that could  have been  assigned or that were eventually assigned can only be determined by the building of an exact chronology concerning the state investigation.

No one wants to point at the political power structure in Pennsylvania, but the fact is that Penn State University and all its various connections are deeply interwoven into the structure of those who run Pennsylvania. Every Penn State alumni and student wants a full accounting of everything and anything anyone connected with Penn State may have done in regard to this horrendous scandal and that includes any alumni, employees, or those who have contracts or associations with the university. Only through a complete objective outside investigation can confidence be restored to Penn State as an institution.

 A federal investigation of the exact persons who were or are in any way connected to the power structure at Penn State from the Board of Trustees on down, the Second Mile, the local Penn State Police, Sandusky Associates, and any law firms representing any of these parties, should be looked at.  The connections to the Second Mile run by Sandusky and his associates across the State of Pennsylvania and interstate across the country is only something that a totally objective federal investigation could do.

Chronologically, at the time of the initial part of the state investigation, Attorney General Corbett's Office was in the middle of the largest prosecution of state officials in Pennsylvania State history. At the time of the initial part of the investigation Attorney General Corbett was the leading Republican candidate for the republican nomination for governor.

The federal investigation must access the allocation of resources and ask the question: did the Attorney General's  office at that time assign the proper number of people to the Sandusky case from the first day forward or were they hampered by the major cases that were in prosecution or development at the time? In other words, was the office overtaxed by the ongoing Bonusgate and Computergate scandals and the other cases that a state's office prosecutes to a point where poor judgment led to the improper assignment of minimal resources and personnel to the Sandusky child molestation cases?

The then Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, was a recipient of campaign donations from Penn State officials and individuals with vast connections with Penn State. This complaint does not state that Tom Corbett delayed the prosecution because of any donations that were received from any one connected to the case. This complaint does state that it is common practice for an official to realize that the appearance of a conflict of interest may be present when that official is investigating a case while taking political donations from those who could potentially be involved.

Elections were held for Attorney General in 2004 and 2008. The election for governor was held in 2010. Campaign donation connections leading up the elections in the above years should be considered as a reason an elected official would consider the conflict of interest option. If the appearance of a conflict of interest is present and an official does not act on that, it not only presents a perception of a conflict of interest, it is evidence of poor judgment on the part of the official.

It is similar to Tom Corbett's lack of judgment in meeting with the a major subject of the  Bonusgate investigation, John Perzel, during the Bongusgate investigation. The Bonusgate investigation began in February, 2007 yet Tom Corbett was meeting with John Perzel in October, 2007 and being hosted by another target of the investigation connected directly to Perzel at a political fundraiser for his attorney general campaign on December 11, 2007, eleven months into the investigation.

Similarly, the lack of assigning the appropriate resources and personnel in the initial phase of the Sandusky investigation has to be looked at for this lack of good judgment. The behavior has a major effect in undermining the public's confidence in the initial phase of the investigation.  What crimes could have been prevented , who got away, and who is now beyond a statute of limitations for some specific crime?

All the connections between Penn State University and Jerry Sandusky should have been the subject of the original investigation much earlier.  This time line must be carefully laid out.

For example, the connection between the Penn State counsel who also served as the legal counsel to the Second Mile;,  the yearly fees paid to  Jerry Sandusky by the Second Mile which amounted to just under a half million dollars between 2001 and 2009;, the fact that the salaries of the executives at the Second Mile would have been jeopardized if the Second Mile suffered any kind of public association with a child molester;, the missing Second Mile files for a number of crucial years;, and  who else has been connected to Sandusky Associates.

The initiation of a federal investigation could also focus on the interstate nature of this case. Apparently the perpetrator traveled to other campuses in other states as part of his charity and football related connections.

The original separation of Sandusky from Penn State has led many to question whether or not Sandusky's behavior was the cause of his forced retirement in 1999. In other words was that year the beginning of a coverup? Who had any knowledge surrounding his separation from the Penn State program?

The federal investigation has to completely analyze the behavior of all those individual and personnel connected to the Second Mile. Sandusky had received a yearly fee of $57,000 for a number of years totally $456,000 according to press reports.

The reported grant by the State of Pennsylvania to the Sandusky's Second Mile group, has left the public with many more questions. Why did the current governor, Tom Corbett, continue the Rendell administration proposed grant of $3,000,000 to the group while knowing the details of the investigation led to the Second Mile? Corbett approved the release of the $3,000,000 in July, 2011. The explanation given by his spokesperson that Corbett could not let on to the investigation by delaying the grant does not ring soundly to most Pennsylvanians. Reasons for delays in awarding grants are numerous and any one could have been substituted for delaying the grant.

The bottom line is: could Sandusky have been off the streets many years earlier and why was he allowed to continue either through organized coverup,  institutional and individual failure to follow up on a huge number of leads,  personal omission of action by those who morally should have know better, delay in assigning proper investigative personnel and resources, delay due to the reluctance of bringing the power of the federal investigative agencies to focus on Sandusky and his foundation, or any of a number of other reasons. Only a federal investigation will accomplish this.

After all, it was the federal investigation that aggressively gathered all the facts and prosecuted the offenders in the other major assault on children in Pennsylvania's recent history, the kids for case scandal by the Luzerne County judges.

The U.S. Department of Justice has the resources and objectivity to fully investigate this horrendous scandal. Only the participation by the United States Department of Justice in every aspect of this case from can restore the Pennsylvania citizens' confidence that justice will prevail.

Contact:
http://www.genestilp.com
http://www.facebook.com/...
http://www.twitter.com/...

Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 12:59 PM PT: Updated

Originally posted to Waynestock on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM PDT.

Also republished by House of LIGHTS.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site