1998-2000-2001-2002- NOT SANDUSKY- It Wasn't Sandusky- ( It Was An IMPOSTER! )

   1998 Penn State - Reports- Morgan Building- On Campus- Complaints- Suspicions- NOT SANDUSKY. It was an IMPOSTER!
    (Man mistaken for Jerry Sandusky) Man seen in shower room. WAS NOT SANDUSKY.

    2000 Penn State - Man seen by Calhoun (Janitor) in Lasch building. WAS NOT SANDUSKY. Was not Sandusky. Looked like Sandusky but wasn't. Same man- WAS An IMPOSTER!

    2001 Penn State - Lasch building incident. NOT SANDUSKY.
     *McQUEARY incident was actually in 2002. 2001 Lasch building incident and testimony was made up. ( 2001 Evidence falsified.)
     2001 information came from Morgan building incident. Reports/Paterno notes/Police reports were all from Morgan building incident in shower room at 9:30 AM in the morning. Not from the Lasch building.

    2002- Actual incident at Lasch building- McQUEARY did not see or verify the man in shower was Sandusky. It was not Sandusky. It was a man who looked like Sandusky. McQueary was mistaken about the identity of the man in the shower room. In 2002.

1998 - Not Sandusky
1998 - Not Sandusky
2000 - Not Sandusky
2001 - Not Sandusky
2002 - Not Sandusky

In Response To @NittnyBlue2002- Explaining Morgan/ Lasch building Incidents- Evidence Tampering- Cover Up By Prosecution.

@NittanyBlue2002\ I tried to explain what happened as best I could.   I don't think McQueary lied. I think he saw the impostor and thought it was Sandusky.    I think the prosecutors tried to confuse the issue, and did. They must have had something to show McQueary to convince him that the incident was in 2001 instead of 2002.   I say they had evidence from the Morgan building incident and it was used as evidence against Sandusky. That's where the confusion comes into play.     The point is that everything about the impostor and the Morgan building was covered up by the investigators. But the evidence was called the Lasch building evidence. That's called falsifying the evidence.    No one wanted the impostor reports to surface because it would cast doubt on Sandusky being guilty.    The very evidence from the Morgan building must have been used to accuse the officials and also accuse Sandusky of rape in 2001.    That's what I'm saying. The only provable incident and evidence was from the Morgan building in 2001.    The information that proves the Morgan building incident was covered by the investigators.   The reports about the impostor in the shower rooms was also covered by the prosecutors.    Now do you understand what I'm talking about?   I was a witness to the impostor  in the shower room in 1998.

Questions About McQueary and Janitors Testimony- Revised. Read! Sandusky is innocent.

 The individual  that the janitors said they saw in the shower room in the Lasch building was Sandusky or it was not Sandusky? The small person, that was with the man they said they thought was Sandusky, a small man or a child?  
 Was the small person the same as the person McQuery said he saw in the shower room with the person he thought was Jerry Sandusky?
  Can the prosecutors (investigators) match the individual that McQueary said he saw with Sandusky  (in the Lasch building) to the small person the janitors said they saw with Sandusky?  
    Did McQueary ever give a description? Did the janitors? Did their description match? 
  " Now wait!" Was the small person that Calhoun (Jim Calhoun,)  saw with me in 1998 in the Student Services Building - (this was  before the incident with Petrosky in 2000), the same as the person he saw in 2000 with Petrosky? I THINK IT WAS.
   I think the same person was also seen by McQuery in 2000 or 2001 or whenever he said he saw a person who looked like Sandusky with a small person who appeared to be a child, maybe 12 years old. I believe that in all three incidents, the small person was actually a adult male, but just small.  
    What I'm saying is that there was a man who people mistook as Sandusky. He had a male friend who was small that people thought was a young boy. McQuery saw them together thinking it was Sandusky. The janitors saw them together and thought it was Sandusky. Calhoun and I saw them together. Calhoun was told the person in the shower room he saw with me in 1998 was Sandusky but it wasn't. He believed the small man was a child, but he wasn't. I knew the small man was not a child that Calhoun and I saw in the shower room. I knew the man who looked like Sandusky wasn't. 
    I believe Sandusky is in jail because of mistaken identity and being framed. That's all.

"The testimony from 2001 Penn State Trials had to be coached. In other words they lied."

The prosecutors/investigators took  information from an incident that happened in 2001- a year before McQueary said that he reported seeing Sandusky in the Lasch building. And then claimed that the information from the Morgan building incident had to do with Sandusky, in the Lasch building, but it didn’t.

http://donrobbinsnewcmagazine2.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-testimony-from-2001-had-to-be.html

The incident in 2001 happened. But, it didn’t include Sandusky. The investigators for Freeh and Kelly only said that it did. It didn’t. They lied and said it did but it didn’t. No one ever knew. No one checked the source of the 2001 incident. The officials were accused of covering information that had nothing to do with Sandusky.

The testimony from 2001 had to be coached. In other words they lied.

"The testimony from 2001 had to be coached. In other words they lied."

The prosecutors/investigators took  information from an incident that happened in 2001- a year before McQueary said that he reported seeing Sandusky in the Lasch building. And then claimed that the information from the Morgan building incident had to do with Sandusky, in the Lasch building, but it didn’t.

http://donrobbinsnewcmagazine2.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-testimony-from-2001-had-to-be.html

The incident in 2001 happened. But, it didn’t include Sandusky. The investigators for Freeh and Kelly only said that it did. It didn’t. They lied and said it did but it didn’t. No one ever knew. No one checked the source of the 2001 incident. The officials were accused of covering information that had nothing to do with Sandusky.

The testimony from 2001 had to be coached. In other words they lied.

 

"The PSU/Sandusky Prosecutors Used 2001 Evidence But Falsified It" (Victims Testimony Was Coached)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/penn-state-officials-attorney-calls-victim-fraud/story?id=17508219

   We know victim #2 changed his story. He could not diagram the shower room. Or which shower room in the Lasch building.

    Knowing that the 2001 incident never took place in the Lasch building, and covering the fact that an incident did take place in the Morgan building, (Student Athlete Services) in Feb of 2001, the supposed victim #2 must have been coached by the prosecutors in making up a story about 2001.

    Looking at the testimony from a standpoint if keywords used, I would speculate that certain phrases were told to the victims in private and they used the terms they were told to use in testimony. Such words as attacked, role model, victimized, were used in characterization and seemingly coached into their statements.   

         The information they (the investigators) had about 2001 was acquired from the Morgan building incident. The information, (Not what McQueary first said.) but the physical information from reports about the incident in the Morgan building. The actual information from the actual incident that happened.   The evidence. The information. From 2001.  The evidence they had about an incident in 2001.

  The POLICE report (from the Morgan building incident) - the Security guards report- (from the Morgan building incident) Paterno’s report- (from the Morgan building incident) The page in Schultz’ office about the incident. The administration report. The witnesses to the actual incident. (I was one of them.) The actual information from the Morgan building incident was used as evidence, about a story they made up about a 2001 Lasch building incident.

 There is no other recorded incident from 2001. The evidence was suppressed. That 2001 evidence was suppressed by the prosecutors. The information from an actual incident in 2001 was falsified and used to try and prove a story that was made up about the Lasch building.

   The incident was falsified.

  The victims were coached.  There was no Lasch building incident in 2001. All the evidence was concerning the Morgan building incident. The prosecutors used the evidence but falsified it.

   They also had to cover up the actual incident reports and what Paterno wrote into his office log about the Morgan building incident.

    I believe the falsified evidence was shown to the NCAA. And with that, they made the decision to pursue sanctions against the University and punish the officials.

Read posts by Don Robbins on Jerry Sandusky is Innocent Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com/jerrysanduskyisinnocent

"A Cult of Accusations" by Don Robbins (Jerry Sandusky is Innocent.)

“Cult of Accusations”

 A cult of accusations.

Organized.

Practiced.

Studied.

Orchestrated.

Connected.

Strategized.

Determined.

Sophisticated.

Manipulative.

Coercive.

Demoralizing.

Degrading.

Deliberate.

Persecuting.

Aggressive.

Arrogant.

Social.

Governmental.

Legal.

Psychological.

Grifts[DR1] .

Schemes.

Corruption.

Agency.

Office.

Authority.

 

Jerry Sandusky is innocent.

 

                  * Don Robbins 2015-

---

 [DR1]

"A man that looked like Sandusky that was messing around in the showers." True- Prosecutors Knew It.

   They knew there was a man on campus posing as Jerry Sandusky. One time he was in a shower room in the Morgan building in 1998 making a video that made it look like Sandusky was messing with a child.
     I believe the man was seen by other people and even reported by some. A security guard also reported him in 1998.
    I believe that he was reported in 1998 and there was evidence about him trying to get people to believe he was Sandusky.
     The prosecutors knew it! The Freeh investigators must have known it too.
      The prosecution didn't want anyone to know there was such a man that looked like Sandusky that was messing around in the showers.
   I think he was the man that was seen in 2002 by McQueary. I think he was also the same man Calhoun saw in the shower room in 1998 and in 2000.
 Not Sandusky.

The (Prosecutors) Covered Up An Incident in 2001 -(Not) The Officials- Sandusky Was Framed-

    The incident that was covered up at Penn State in 2001 wasn't in the Lasch building, concerning the person calling themselves victim #2.
  The incident that was covered up in 2001 was in the Student Athlete Services building. The prosecutors are covering up the incident in the Student Athlete Services building because the information from that incident was said to have been about the Lasch building incident. (They lied.)
   The real information from the Student Athlete Services building is the very information that was used to accuse the officials of covering up information. When the truth was- that, there was no incident involving Sandusky, McQueary and a child in the shower room in the Lasch building in 2001.
    Can anyone understand what they did? They used information from another incident and said that it proved something happened in the Lasch building in 2001. They then, accused the officials of covering up the information that they falsified.
  The 2001 information was falsified.

  They covered up the sources of the 2001 information because they knew it had nothing to do with Sandusky or the Lasch building and McQueary.
   The source of the information was from reports on the Student Athlete Services building in the shower room in FEBURARY 2001.
    
  
   

Sandusky Set Up On Victim #2- Police Looking For Information- - Mistaken Identity-

  I believe the incident in 1998 was a set up so police could get Sandusky to talk to the mother of the person called victim #2. As they listened in another room in her house, they hoped to get information from Sandusky on a crime that happened on the campus, but not near the Lasch building.
   The man who people mistook for Jerry Sandusky  in 1998 was reported  several times for inappropriate behavior.   ( Shower  room incident 1998 at the Morgan building.)http://donrobbinspennstate.blogspot.com/2014/08/there-is-person-that-janitor-calhoun.html  Police did not know if the man people reported was Jerry Sandusky or not.

They wanted to check and see if he was in the area of the crime, when it happened. They tried to trick him into admitting he was with boys at the Morgan building shower room,  the day the crime took place. The crime did happen near the Morgan building, on campus, and they knew it.
People had reported seeing Sandusky at that time.

  Later, he was cleared from suspicion of being in the area and they dropped the matter about the boy. (Called victim #2)
 
   Gricar cleared Sandusky from reports of inappropriate behavior.

   The man who looked like Sandusky acted inappropriately and people noticed and reported him as Sandusky. They must have known there was a man who was mistaken for Sandusky.

   The same man was seen in the shower room by witnesses in 1998, in the Morgan building. And in the area where the crime happened.
  A security guard also witnessed the actions of the man who looked like Sandusky in the shower room in the Morgan building.

  Was there a report written by the security guard? Yes, but I know it came up missing.

    Later, some time after 1998, Schultz wrote a false report on one incident that never happened. 

 

The 2001 Lasch Building Incident Never Happened. Actual Incident Was In Morgan Building.

The 2001 Incident in the Lasch building was a made up story.  
Here, I'll explain it to you:
   The information from the incident in 2001 that the investigators had didn't confirm the story about the Lasch building, because the 2001 information that Freeh had, came from the Morgan building incident. The 2001 Morgan building incident actually happened.  (I was there.)
The 2001 Lasch building incident claims didn't actually happen.
    The 2001 Lasch building incident was made up. It was NOT true.

   I do not believe that McQueary saw Sandusky in the Lasch building in 2002 anyway. I think the man he saw was a man who only looked like Sandusky, but wasn't Sandusky.
    The same man was reported in 1998. And that is also the same man that Calhoun said he saw in the Lasch building in 2000.

"Jerry Sandusky Is Innocent" by Don Robbins

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/31/how-penn-state-beat-the-sandusky-rap.html
Jerry Sandusky Is Innocent

Lawyers, government, organizational rhetoric, technicalities, laws, bylaws, regulations, studies, more investigations, discoveries, internal memos, emails, discussions, sanctions, fines, definitions, committees, boards, examinations, insights, moral judgments, Grand juries, judges, police, investigators, reports, courts, statements, media coverage, analysis, viewpoints, counter points, arguments, hearsay, testimony, evidence, claims, witnesses, victims, dates, crimes, punishment, accusations, convictions, prosecutors, defenders, …….

    Jerry Sandusky is innocent.  

 

                                                                    

Don Robbins 2015

 

 

 

 

Jerry Sandusky Is Innocent

Lawyers, government, organizational rhetoric, technicalities, laws, bylaws, regulations, studies, more investigations, discoveries, internal memos, emails, discussions, sanctions, fines, definitions, committees, boards, examinations, insights, moral judgments, Grand juries, judges, police, investigators, reports, courts, statements, media coverage, analysis, viewpoints, counter points, arguments, hearsay, testimony, evidence, claims, witnesses, victims, dates, crimes, punishment, accusations, convictions, prosecutors, defenders, …….

    Jerry Sandusky is innocent.  

 

                                                                     Don Robbins 2015

 

 

 

January Archive For Don Robbins Blog- Sandusky Is Innocent- Freeh Report Is Not True.

▼  January (10)

• Lasch Building Incident 2001 Shower room Victims 2...
• Untrue Statement From Freeh Report- Page 54 From F...
• There wasn't any complaints about Sandusky in 1998...
• Case In Study- Link References- 1998-2001 Complai...
• Morgan building 1998 PSU- Office incident- Were Re...
• Investigating Agencies In 1998- Incident- Not Abus...
• Dept. of Education- Clery Act; - 2001 Info.- Sandu...
• "NCAA - FREEH- Partnership In Persecutions- Penn S...
• The Jerry Sandusky Facts- Penn State Trials- READ ...
• Places In The Heart (Amazon Instant Video) Review...

Lasch Building Incident 2001 Shower room Victims 2-4&5- Not True- Morgan building Covered By Freeh Report

                       "Sandusky is Innocent"  
 Student Athlete Services building- Morgan building incident 1998-
Mistaken identity of man reported to be Sandusky
 Incident covered by prosecution -Freeh.

    2001- Morgan building incident (Actual incident)
   Incident reported by prosecution never happened in the Lsach building. 2001 Victim 2.
  No other incidents reported in 2001.
 Victims 4 -5.

   Report by prosecution from 1998 Smeal building ( Small Business Admin. building) Calhoun was not in building. No other person saw Sandusky. Petrosky did not talk to Calhoun before he left to go to security office. No one saw Calhoun leave for security building office after he made phone call. Stated he made the phone call from the building where Petrosky was in.
 Petrosky said he saw no one. 12 Years later he changed his testimony. Calhoun did not say he saw Sandusky that night. He said he saw a man with a child. He did not mention Sandusky.

   Nothing was said about the Morgan building incident in 1998 when Calhoun saw the man he believed to be Sandusky in a shower room with what appeared to be a child. Turned out to be a small man posing as a child as they made a video. Steinbrenner was in the shower at the time with the men making the video.

  Nothing has ever been mentioned about the Sandusky look alike posing as Sandusky or the Steinbrenner incident.

   The Freeh report apparently covers the fact that a man did pose as Sandusky on several occasions and several people reported seeing Sandusky when it was actually the imposter. Calhoun and Pretrosky most likely saw the imposter with the childlike man in the shower room in the Lasch building in 2000.



  

Untrue Statement From Freeh Report- Page 54 From Freeh Report- Untrue- (Explanation.)

Full Text On Freeh Report

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-freeh-report-sandusky-penn-state-20120712-pdf-htmlstory.html 

 

Statement From Freeh Report; Untrue

                                                                       Page 54 from report- Lasch building 2001- Claims by Freeh in report- Untrue

                                                                       

 

j

 

Victim 2 -Feb. 2001 Lash Building Information fabricated. No incident at Lasch building in 2001. No records. No witness. . Incident happened in Morgan Building at 9:30 Am in the Morgan building.

Information copied from Morgan building incident and called Sandusky incident by Freeh.

 

Victim 4- Alamo Bowl- Made up story. Speculation dropped. There were no charges filed. Child admitted making up story about oral sex bet.

 

Victim 5- No incident at Lasch building in 2001. Only record or information on incident was at Morgan building.

 

 

(Actual incident at Lasch building 1998)

 

 

 

 

 

 

There wasn't any complaints about Sandusky in 1998. . The Freeh Report Had To Be False

  There wasn't any complaints about Sandusky in 1998. That's what I'm saying.
  The complaints were about a man who people thought was Sandusky.
    There was a complaint by the mother of the child mentioned in the Freeh report but no charges were filed.
    There were other complaints and reports in 1998 -specifically concerning claims from the Morgan building actions, but it wasn't Sandusky people reported. It was another man. '

*This is the link to the article Penn State President Speaks Out About Sandusky Case -Freeh Report-http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/934eb96b299c49a6bc23a54482b46e91/US--Penn-State-President
 The Freeh report concluded that former administrators Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, and former football coach Joe Paterno intentionally concealed key facts about Sandusky's child sex abuse to avoid bad publicity after receiving complaints in 1998 and 2001

Sandusky was cleared by Gricar. 1998.
That's what I'm saying.
  There was an incident but it wasn't Sandusky.
  There was another investigation but Sandusky was cleared in it.

The Freeh report had to be false .

Case In Study- Link References- 1998-2001 Complaints Invalidated- Evidence Falsified?

Penn State president 'not a fan' of Freeh report into Sandusky, criticizes NCAA penalties Article.

The complaints about Sandusky in 1998 was a matter of mistaken identity and a matter of a criminal investigation that had nothing to do with sexual allegations. Sandusky was cleared on both accounts.

 In 2001, the complaints were fabricated by the prosecutors in 2012. The 2001 incident and any reports had nothing to do with Sandusky. http://donrobbinsnewcmagazine2.blogspot.com/2014/10/2001-incident-had-nothing-to-do-with.html

 The Freeh investigators may have falsified evidence or received falsified evidence. http://donrobbinsnewcmagazine2.blogspot.com/2015/01/t-jerry-sandusky-facts-penn-state.html 
Either way evidence was falsified and complaints were fabricated.

 Next phase- Planting evidence. Was evidence [planted by prosecutors?

    

Morgan building 1998 PSU- Office incident- Were Reports Mistaken For Speculation?

Morgan building PSU campus 1998- Office break in- incident- crime- office lower level- C.I.A.- F.B.I.- Reports sealed classified-
  Questions whether Sandusky was in the area at the time. Sandusky cleared, matter dropped. Investigation outcome not shared with public.
    Incident had nothing to do with Sandusky. There was a man who looked like Sandusky seen in the area at the time.
   Reports on the other man not made public.
Security guard missing? Unknown.
    Information on Gricar or other agencies reports could be mistaken for speculation on Sandusky.
       

     

Investigating Agencies In 1998- Incident- Not Abuse- Sandusky Cleared- Officials Not Notified- Gricar Investigation 1998-

Excerpt from: NCAA FREEH Worked Together-

  ESPN Article- NCAA and FREEH Worked Together- Statement from article:
"The culture of Penn State's football program and university leaders' duty to report suspected criminal behavior were central findings of the Freeh report."

(Highlight CRIMINAL behavior.) Criminal, not just sexual crimes, but any crimes.

 There was an indication on crimes during 1998 and sometime before and after 1998 Sandusky was reported by people, but it wasn't Sandusky. .
   Gricar during this time was called in and cleared Sandusky concerning another investigation.
   Sandusky was reported to have been seen in an area during an incident that was apparently looked into by several different agencies at the time. The incident was not about abuse or sexual crimes.
  It was found out by Gricar that Sandusky was not the person people thought they saw during the time the incident occurred. (The crime. Not the shower room incident.)
    Like I said, there was a man in the area at the time of the incident but it wasn't Sandusky. People apparently mistook him for Sandusky on that occasions and several other occasions.  

   So there was enough information to make a determination that there was something happening and the officials did not have  reports on  what was investigated by those agencies. The officials were not told anything about the incident and the agencies kept the investigation classified.
   This may have made it look like they did not respond to the situation.
  Also Sandusky was said to have been in the area at the time. So there may have been a report on him by Gricar or other agencies that were investigating the matter.
  I know that it wasn't Sandusky there at that time because I saw the man in the shower room in the Morgan building in 1998. The man wasn't Sandusky. Even though Calhoun was told that it was.
 
  

  
   

Dept. of Education- Clery Act; - 2001 Info.- Sandusky Falsely Imprisoned- Penn State Set Up- (Opinion) DRR.

  

In and before 1998 at the Morgan building shower room. The guy who looked like Jerry Sandusky was running around the campus, and shower rooms, doing stuff to make people believe it was Jerry Sandusky. Him and his accomplice.

   Calhoun saw the man once, at the same time I did, in 1998 in the shower room in the Morgan building. (Student Athlete Services). Calhoun was told that the man was Sandusky, but it wasn’t actually Sandusky.

   Apparently the imposter was in the Lasch building in 2000, when Calhoun and Petrosky saw him in the shower room with his partner. Calhoun believed it was Sandusky but it wasn’t. It was the same man he saw in the Morgan building in 1998.

    I believe that McQueary also saw the same man in the Lasch building in 2002.

    I believe that the man who looked like Sandusky was told to do things to make people suspicious of Jerry Sandusky.

    I believe that if there was a child abused by a man who was thought to be Sandusky it was actually the imposter. NOT SANDUSKY.

 But I also believe that there was conspiracy in the testimonies against Sandusky before and during the trial.

  The evidence from 2001 was falsified. It was possible to check the information and conclude that the information wasn’t about Sandusky in the Lasch building in 2001.

       I believe the prosecutors acted with Freeh and Kelly and set the officials up and accused the University as they implicated Sandusky and falsely accused them of wrongdoing.

  I believe Jerry Sandusky is innocent.

 I believe the Penn State officials were accused when the prosecutors knew they had committed no violations.

  I believe that the NCAA acted irresponsibly in the matter. They should have checked the evidence from 2001. They didn’t. They should have taken into consideration the possibility of the school –Sandusky-the officials being set up. They didn’t.

   When the facts are considered, in the future, about the framing of Penn State by investigators and State agencies, with support from local officials and authorities, I believe that the reasoning behind the actions against Penn State were fostered in politics. I believe that validating and substantiating Query laws was a primary motivation in the actions of corruption that led to the false imprisonment of Jerry Sandusky and the false accusation against the University and Penn State officials.

                                  Don Robbins. -

 

 The Department Of Education investigation; Where is the 2001 incident information?  Is collusion a part of this picture?

Collusion

[ kəˈlo͞oZHən ]

NOUN

noun: collusion

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others:

From WIKIPEDIA:

Penn State University[edit]

Main article: Penn State sex abuse scandal

The U.S. Department of Education is investigating Penn State over the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Their investigation arises from the university administration's alleged failure to report allegations of sex offenses on campus by a former school official as being a violation of the Act. Former Penn State Defensive Coach Jerry Sandusky has been convicted of sexually abusing several young boys over several years, including incidents on campus.^[13] A campus safety advocacy group called the scandal "the most extensive investigation the Department of Education has ever conducted".

  The Clery laws:

Clery Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act^[1]

Long title	Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act
Nicknames	Clery Act
Enacted by	the 101st United States Congress
Citations
Public Law	Pub.L. 101–542
Codification
Acts amended	Higher Education Act of 1965
Titles amended	20
U.S.C. sections amended	20 U.S.C. § 1092, et al
Legislative history
Introduced in the Senate as "Student Athlete Right-to-Know Act" (S. 580) by Bill Bradley (D-NJ) on March 15, 1989 Committee consideration by Senate Labor Passed the Senate on February 22, 1990 (voice vote) Passed the House as the "Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act" on June 5, 1990 (without objection) Reported by the joint conference committee on October 16, 1990; agreed to by the House on October 22, 1990 (voice vote) and by the Senate on October 24, 1990 (voice vote) Signed into law by President George H. W. Bush on November 8, 1990
Major amendments
Pub.L. 102–26 Pub.L. 102–325 Pub.L. 105–244 Pub.L. 106–386
v t e

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act or Clery Act is a federal statute codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f), with implementing regulations in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations at 34 C.F.R. 668.46.
The Clery Act requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on and near their respective campuses. Compliance is monitored by the United States Department of Education, which can impose civil penalties, up to $35,000 per violation, against institutions for each infraction and can suspend institutions from participating in federal student financial aid programs.

"NCAA - FREEH- Partnership In Persecutions- Penn State Trials and Investigations" (2001 Evidence) "Witch Hunt"

   I'm saying that Freeh's office had the 2001 information, and (they did) to begin with, assume,  that it was about Sandusky. And then, sometime later, realized  that it wasn't actually about Sandusky. They knew it wasn't because they could check it. But never admitted or reported that they did.
   At some time the information was talked about or shared with the NCAA. At that point the NCAA believed the officials to be guilty- at Penn State- of covering for Sandusky.
   That's fine, but you have to understand that it was also possible for the NCAA to check the information from the 2001 incident and make the determination that the information was falsified.
  They did not try to validate the 2001 information. They did not check sources, They did not look into the actual incident at the Morgan building.
   It's like they knew the accusations would stick, after seeing the 2001 evidence. And they went with the sanctions. (Regardless of the truth.)
  The question is; After learning about the emails between the Freeh office and the NCAA, did the NCAA know the information was falsified?
   If the NCAA checked the 2001 information, they would not  have accused the officials. It's that simple. But they did. That's all. They did.
   Jerry Sandusky was falsely accused and the officials were falsely accused by the NCAA. There was a partnership in persecutions.
    My conclusion is that the Freeh office and the NCAA knew the 2001 information, that they accused the officials of covering, was in fact falsified. They knew the information did not prove Sandusky guilty of molesting any child in a shower room on 2001.
   The NCAA knew the information was not covered up by officials. They knew together and went ahead with the witch hunt.
  
   
  

The Jerry Sandusky Facts- Penn State Trials- READ CAREFULLY! READ VERY CAREFULLY. READ IT. STUDY IT!

  Alamo bowl 1999 - Nothing happened between Sandusky and the child he saw with his wife at the game. There were no charges dropped because there were no charges filed in the first place. The suspicions were dropped about Sandusky after the kid admitted nothing happened between him and Jerry Sandusky.

  1998- Calhoun (Smeal building ) Nothing happened in the building. There was no person seen by anybody in the building that evening. There was no suspicious activities. It's doubtful that Calhoun was in the building. Petrosky said he did not see any suspicious person that evening in the building. *He changed his testimony at the court, when Sandusky went on trial.

  1998 Shower Room (Student Athlete Services building) Not Sandusky-  * A man who looked like Sandusky with a (child impersonator) and George Steinbrenner and chauffer making a video- mocking a sexual assault.
   Sandusky was not present. Calhoun was apparently told it was Sandusky. (It wasn't Sandusky.)
   Office broken into later that week -where report on incident was probably filed. (In the Student Athletic Services building.)
    Security guard- myself and Calhoun witnessed the video taping in the shower room.
   
    *Ray Gricar- It was my theory that the security guard came up missing and Gricar traced the disappearance back to the shower room incident in 1998. And then Gricar came up missing.
 (Along with the report that the security guard wrote about the Steinbrenner-Sandusky look alike- incident. )

     2000- Lasch building shower room incident, where Petrosky saw, with Calhoun, the same man that Calhoun saw in the shower room in 1998. (Not Sandusky.) It wasn't Sandusky. The child imposter was probably with him at the time.

     2001- Shower room incident in the Student Athletic Services building. No person present in the shower room. Sounds only. Most likely, sounds from fake tape made in 1998. Some of the same people saw me- and played the sound effects when I entered the locker room- with the people touring the campus.
     Log entry about the incident in Paterno's notebook. (In the building where the incident happened.) Handwritten by Paterno.
(I witnessed it.) I was there in the office when he wrote the notes on the incident.
     Other information about the incident was typed on a paper in the office in the Student Athletic Services building office-  (same office-and Paterno was there)- down the hall from the locker room. That paper was apparently filed in his office, by Schultz, and then forgotten about.

    2001- No other incident concerning a shower room on campus.
               Nothing was reported in 2001 about Jerry Sandusky. The incident that McQueary reported was actually in 2002. The Prosecutors were wrong. Whatever evidence they had about the 2001 incident was in the Student Athletic Services building at 9:00 in the morning. That evidence has not been made public. There may have also been a video tape that people thought Sandusky was in , but wasn't. (It wasn't Sandusky.)

   2002- Nothing happened. -Mcqueary saw a man who looked like Sandusky with the little man. (Child imposter) Little man had light brown wavy hair, gray blue eyes, was about 4'7 feet tall. Weight about 100 pounds.

    It looks like there was an attempted frame up, on Jerry Sandusky- possibly an extortion attempt that went wrong. The security guard may have  came up missing after the report was filed. And the Gricar came up missing when he put the pieces of the puzzle together.
    Did the security guard come up missing? Was Gricar investigating the disaperance of the security guard?
    
    Did the look alike convince people he was Sandusky? Did he fondle children to make people believe it was Sandusky? We know he was making a video tape in the shower room in 1998. If people saw the tape they may have assumed it was Sandusky and then thought he was guilty. Is that the reason they became so motivated and sure he was guilty?

     I believe that is what happened. I believe that Sandusky is innocent.

      DID GRICAR SEE THE TAPE? DID BALDWIN? DID FREEH SEE THE TAPE? DID KELLY?
                   ?    WHERE IS THE TAPE  ?

1998 Incident -Security- Calhoun-Myself  -See Steinbrenner in Shower Room Making a Video Tape.

   
 

 

Places In The Heart (Amazon Instant Video) Review by Don Robbins -picture

This review is from: Places In The Heart (Amazon Instant Video)

"Places In The Heart" Starring Sally Field
     

Sally Fields performance ...I don't have words to describe this masterpiece. It's probably the greatest single performance in the history of movies. Danny Glover- John Malkovich- "yes, it's a great movie. An American treasure."

 

 

"Places In The Heart" Starring Sally Field