JOE PATERNO SUES TRUSTEES OF PENN STATE FOR 100 MILLION DOLLAR WRONGFUL TERMINATION

11/11/2011

STATE COLLEGE (AEAE)- JOE PATERNO THE LONGEST SERVING COLLEGE FOOTBALL COACH AND THE MOST WINNING COACH was wrongfully terminated by the Trustee's of Penn State.
Paterno, President Out at Penn State as Legal Fallout From Sex Abuse Case Continues

John Surma the Peen State's Board vice president stated “We felt we need to restore trust in the university”. Paterno was fired over an alleged sex abuse scandal. However Paterno complied with the law and informed his boss regarding the sex abuse allegation against a former coach. Paterno was under no other obligation. Further, there are only naked allegations of sex abuse, there has been no trial and everyone is presumed innocent under law. Yet the Trustee's felt they need to restore trust in the university so they terminated the most winning coach in American College Sports History giving Joe Paterno as prima facie and irrefutable case of wrongful termination against the Trustee of Penn State . The term "wrongful termination" means that Penn State has fired their Coach Joe Paterno for illegal reasons in the eyes of the law. Illegal reasons for termination by the Trustee's of Penn State include:Joe Paterno was fired in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws;

Joe Paterno was fired in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws;
Joe Paterno was wrongfully fired “to restore trust in the University” How did the firing of Joe Paterno restore trust in Penn State University?
Joe Paterno was fired in violation of oral and written employment agreements;
Joe Paterno was fired because of his age; and
Was fired in retaliation for Joe Paterno having complied with the law in reporting possible sex abuse to his boss.

Fired Joe Paterno hires high-powered Washington lawyer J ...

1 Comment

EQUAL JUSTICE PARTY
Internships not available now

Help the Equal Justice Party www. equaljusticeparty.org a registered political party in Illinois, support conservative candidates and endorses AEAE. Contribute today!
FREE SPEECH ON THE NET IS NOT 'FREE'. PEOPLE GO TO JAIL FOR BLOGGING ALL OF THE TIME. THE EQUAL JUSTICE PARTY IS FIGHTING TO MAINTAIN THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH IS SUPPOSE TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. , the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95, 33 L. Ed. 2d 212, 92 S. Ct. 2286 (1972); see also Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 537, 65 L. Ed. 2d 319, 100 S. Ct. 2326 (1980)

YOU CAN SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH BY SUPPORTING THE EQUAL JUSTICE PARTY. DONATE ON-LINE
Supporting Equal Justice Party helps to maintain the Internet a free voice and EJ supports the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution.
The Equal Justice Party (EJ) is a registered Political Action Committee in Chicago, Illinois S 10127 L 15656. The EJ supports conservative causes, conservative candidates, small government.
Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics (AEAE) www.rentamark.net is a not for profit group that supports Equal Justice www.equaljustice.org and advocates the strict enforcement of attorney ethics since 1974.
The purpose of the AEAE Blog is to exalt the law, by holding to the fundamental right of “Equal Justice” for all. It keeps “watch” on attorney and judicial misconduct issues, evolving trademark and constitutional law. It assures all people with the “good news” that in American “right” will prevail especially for those who “never” give-up “fighting” to obtain “justice”. This site adheres to the Law and the Constitution as its authority. The AEAE, is a attorney rating Service. The comments made by AEAE are not actionable because they are statements of opinion Moriarty v. Greene 732 N.E.2d 730, 740 Ill.App), citing Owen v. Can 497 N.E.2d 1145, 1148 (Ill.1986) see Law offices of David Freydin,PC v Vitoria Chamara et al No 18-3216 Seventh Circuit No 18-3216 decided 01-28-2022.
Ratings are non-actionable opinion statements David Freydin,PC v Vitoria Chamara et al citing Syngenta Seeds Inc v. Bung North America,Inc 773 F.3d 58 (8th Cir 2014) Illinois Law on expressions of Opinion , an unexplained one star review simply could not be actionable as defamation David Freydin case citing Cf. Kimzey v. Yelp!Inc. 836 F. 3d 1263, 1269-70 (9th Cir 2016)
AEAE LEGAL ETHICS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY EXPERTS, valuations, expert
witness testimony, trademark surveys, brief writer, Appellate Expert.
The author(s) graduated from Mayville State College with a BS Degree, North Dakota State University, MASTERS DEGREE and attended the University of Iowa a for a PHD. The Author(s) are the nation's most renowned
Legal Ethics experts and Intellectual Property Entrepreneur(s) with many years of experience in the field of brief writing, trademarks, licensing and
enforcement, expert witness testimony, trademark valuation Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics (AEAE) an attorney watch dog group since 1974. AEAE has appeared on FOX NEWS, CBS and in
numerous national news papers including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Sun Times etc and on many radio talk shows. AEAE accepts political contributions. AEAE, P.O. Box 60645, Chicago, Illinois 60660. Email [email protected]
312-545-4554
Copyright AEAE 2017, all rights reserved. AEAE accepts no liability for incorrect or inaccurate information appearing here. The opinions expressed here are those o f AEAE Use of this site is subject to our "terms of use" which is published here. Nothing can be duplicated without written permission.
"Litigation is the Sea We swim in,
Litigation is the Air We Breathe
Litigation is War,
Welcome to the Front!"

To Prove Defamation Case?
What Do You Have To Prove? There are two things you have to prove to be true in order to win a case of defamation of character in the court of law. First of all, you have to prove without a doubt that what was said or written about you is not true. Once you have proved that the statement is, in fact, false you have to prove that the other person said the false statement with the intent of causing you some form of harm.
The Fair Reporting Privilege is a defense to any claim of Defamation

The Fair Report Privilege applies to the information contained on this web site.

“[T]he fair report privilege has two requirements: (1) the report must be of an official proceeding; and (2) the report must be complete and accurate or a fair abridgment of the official proceeding. [Citation.] *** For a publication to be considered a fair abridgment, the report must convey to readers a substantially correct account of the official proceedings. [Citation.] A reporter is not privileged to make additions of his own that would convey a defamatory impression or to indict expressly or by innuendo the veracity or integrity of any of the parties. [Citation.] Finally, it is the accuracy of the summary, not the truth or falsity of the information being summarized, that is the benchmark of the privilege. [Citation.]” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Eubanks, 397 Ill. App. 3d at 749 (citing Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 588-90 (2006)). ¶ 30
AEAE argues it reports on the law and law suits and it is the intent of AEAE to "fairly report" these official proceedings.

AEAE has the legal right to evaluate and rate attorneys, government officials, College educators, business leaders See JOHN HENRY BROWNE, et al., AVVO, INC., et al Case No. C07-0920RSL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 18th day of December, 2007. A Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge

VERITAS OMNIA VINCIT

DISCLAIMER: The AEAE does not provide legal services or legal advice. Discussions of legal principles and authority, including, but not limited to, constitutional provisions, statutes, legislative enactments, court rules, case law, and common-law doctrines are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.

Maggie

11/14/2011 02:31:55 pm

Just to add my own 2-cents, neither Joe nor McQueary are guilty of any wrong doing. The Grand Jury cleared them both! Yet the public wants to jump on this morality bandwagon when they don't even have all of the facts in this horrible case of child abuse. These are two very honorable men, yet the public treats them like they are the ones who are quilty of a crime and hold them solely responsible for taking action. They were coaches, not administrators. They complied with school policy and reported the incident to a superior. Why is no one blaming the two men who were responsible for covering this up and lying to the Grand Jury, Curley and Schultz?!?

I hope all of these Paterno and McQueary bashers enjoy the taste of crow when all is said and done and be mature enough to accept the blame for doing their best to destroy these men's reputations.

And all of you bashers think about this one, too... if this is what you do to two men who blow the whistle on a child abuser, how can any other witness to such a horrific crime ever be motivated to report it knowing they could very likely receive the same treatment. It's sadly ironic.

Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics