Cover ups and enabling sexual abuse is equal to the crime of the abuse. This decision reeks!

Gov. Corbett covered up for Jerry Sandusky and even had DA Gricar most probably murdered in 2005 because he knew too much. Sandusky's charity was just a cover organization to hook up vulnerable children with wealthy, elite pedophiles. These people have lots of power and blackmail is how they survive. This stinks and someone needs to do something. These jerks talk about how we should follow their conservative ideologies but they are raping kids or covering up for their rich friends that do? Can anyone stand up to this evil...none dare call it conspiracy.

The Statistics shows PA has no worse then any other state, and Catholic Priests no worse then the General population.

http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html

Through some of the studies depend on how you define pedophilia (some 15 year old male staring a a 14 year old because he likes what he sees, is that pedophilia? In some cases yes, even if she does NOT object (and thinks it is funny or "cool&quot . On the other hand if the 14 year old male makes her uncomfortable that is another story, but if he stops after she objects is that still pedophilia? i.e "oops sorry" in the manner that he is sorry about being caught AND making her uncomfortable, but he liked what he saw.

Now, most pedophilia accusations involves male victims, but females can also be victims. Where do you draw the line? People make mistakes all the time, and that includes making passes, is making a pass that is un-welcomed pedophilia or just making a pass?

Now if we talk actual sexual intercourse then the numbers get lower but still hard to come by. People are know to lie about their sex lives and worse miscount them (For example, men tend to count as a sexual partner every time their had sex, including just a kiss with another person, women tend to only count people they had a long term relationship with as sexual partners).

Thus the numbers for NORMAL sexual relations is all over the place, in cases of accusation of unwanted or deviate sex, the numbers are even harder to obtain and then when obtained questionable. For example in the Kinsey report, it was reported about 10% of the population was homosexual. The Kinsey Report used the widest definition of Homosexuality but also was affected by three near by homosexuals communities. In each of these Communities it became known that they could get free health care at Kinsey Clinic, in exchange for giving some information on sexual activity. Statisticians who looked at the numbers said that these three communities made the numbers unreliably to high. Attempts to "Control" for this error failed for no one wanted to do what was needed, a smaller study elsewhere without a nearby homosexual community, and then used the numbers from that smaller study to control the numbers in the Kinsey Study. The numbers are to high, 94% of the population enter into pair bonds. That leaves only 6% to be homosexuals, and about 3% of the population are Schizophrenic and thus unlikely to ever mate. A recent British survey shows 1 1/2 % admitted to being Homosexuals. That would be comparable to previous studies that indicate 3% of all males are Homosexuals, and 1% of all females are homosexuals. Thus other studies contradict the Kinsey Report, but all of these studies have their own problems (mostly do to the size of the population used in each study).

The best to view these studies with caution and NOT to go to far afield from what the Author of these studies were doing. I only bring them up to show the numbers are all over the place, but the most reliable numbers tend to indicate 10% of the population does pedophilia and most of that is within families (i.e. Fathers to it to their children, who in turn when they are adults do it to their children and on and on). Thus the dilemma of Judges in such cases. Number one rule in the law is the victim should NOT be punished more then the perpetrator when it comes time for punishment, but how can that be done if the victim is dependent on the perpetrator for support? i.e. who is being punished more, a Father who goes to jail and gets three meals a day and a bed to sleep in, or his son, who can no longer depend on his father's income and thus has to move out of his home, leave his fields and maybe his mother have food for him. Who is being punished more? In that scenario the victim more then the perpetrator.

Such problem happens in CYS cases all the time and it is a problem. Thus to make sure Fathers in such cases continue to pay support, many end up not spending any state time, but held in County Jails. The reason is thus they can be jailed at night, but go back to their day job during the day time and earn money to pay support with.

As to Sandusky, he is a rarity, a non family member doing pedophilia. Now such acts are NOT that rare, but much rarer then in family pedophilia. On the other hand Corbett should have been held accountable for that screw up. The Center County DA was missing, his successor indicated that he had had business relations with Sandusky and could NOT handle the case, thus as in all such conflicts, the case became the responsibly of the Attorney General, who was Corbett at that time. The problem was Corbet hated Paterno, for Paterno had NOT supported him for Governor (Paterno refused to endorse Corbett on the grounds Paterno had NEVER endorsed anyone for Governor, for the Governors of Pennsylvania sit on the Board of Trustees of Penn State and thus his boss). Corbett hated that non-endorsement and was in no mood to support Paterno when things became rough, and in fact did all he could to get rid of Paterno for NOT helping him, Corbett, getting elected Governor.

It was either for revenge against Paterno, a decision to concentrate on Democrats in Corruption cases or just plan incompetency, Corbett assigned only one State Trooper to look into the case, till it blew up from outside sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal

Just a comment, that Pennsylvania is no worse, or better then any other state.

Just a comment? lol Interesting though. I was being slightly sarcastic about Penn. I just think Corbett's wealthy buddies were part of a pedophile ring involving blackmail much like The Franklin Scandal or The Franklin Cover-up elucidated. The forward was written by CIA Director William Colby who stated that Dick Cheney was involved in occult sexual rituals, pedophiliac blackmail and sexual abuse of children...read it for yourself...I couldn't believe what I was reading.

The part that said, that one is NOT gulity of a crime, becasue you employed a person who commited that crime and did that crime without your knowledge, consent or input? or

That ruling that supervision means more then appointing someone to a post?

or is there something else in the decision you do not like?

Here is the decision of you want to read it:

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A23005-13o%20-%201016613421853550.pdf?cb=1

this stuff up.

At least Conspiracy, or Misprision of felony. If not worse.

have been struck down by several courts.

From the article, it looks like the child-endangerment laws on the books at the time applied only to parents and caregivers. Most states have since expanded their laws to require at least reporting of suspected abuse on the part of just about any adult. There are some school officials here in Houston who recently ran afoul of Texas's laws in that regard.

He was also charged with conspiracy but was acquitted by the jury.

The Trial Court ruled the mere act of appointing the pedophile to a parish, even with instructions he is to be watched, was supervision and thus if that person did a criminal act, the person who sent him to that location is also criminally liable.

On appeal, Superior Court ruled no. First this act was done during the time period the pre 2007 amendments were adopted (adding the phase, "or a person that employs or supervises such a person&quot :

The present act as it reads:

“A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support.”

The pre-2007 version:

“A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support.”

The findings of fact by the Jury could NOT be reversed, thus the court made its ruling giving the State all benefits of the doubt, i.e. if a dispute as to the facts exist, the court ruled it must accept what the State said the Facts were not the Defense. The problem, given that factual situation, there was NO EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT DID ANYTHING BUT made an appointment of the pedophile and afterward he had no supervisory duties over that priest.

Remember the priest being charged is NOT the bishop, but his assistant who advised the Bishop NOT to appoint this priest but that recommendation was over ridden. That point did not come up in the appeal, for that is a dispute as to facts, and since the Jury found the Defendant Guilty, the court on appeal must accept that did not happen. i.e. The Defendant made the appointment on his own. The problem for the State was there was no evidence that the Defendant had any supervisory power over the pedophile after the pedophile was appointed. Under the pre 2007 law, the law applicable in this case, even if the Defendant did have the duty to supervise, the act did not make that a crime.

In the opinion, which I posted below, the goes on to say there is no evidence that the State Legislature ever intended this statute to apply to co-conspirators, thus misprison and other Conspiracy theory of criminal liability do not come into play.

AS to the issue of Supervision, the State maintained the added phase just clarified existing law, the Defendant claimed otherwise. The Court made findings of law that indicate that it did not think the evidence even supported a finding of guilty under existing law, i.e. what supervision of the pedophile did the Defendant actually do? The Court was reluctant to say, if you are a supervisor of a person who committed a crime against a minor, you are also guilty of that crime, by merely employing the person who did the crime. The court did NOT have to review the law on the issue it is to broad, for that broad language was NO in place prior to 2007, but indicated it might.

Last edited Thu Dec 26, 2013, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A23005-13o%20-%201016613421853550.pdf?cb=1

Pages 1-17 are the facts in the case

Pages 18-21 is the prior procedures in this case

Pages 22-24:

It is undisputed that Appellant was tried under the pre-amended version of the EWOC statute. Prior to January 29, 2007, the statute read: “A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 4304(a)(1). The 2007 amendment added language, inter alia, such that the statute now reads: “A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support.”
18 Pa.C.S. § 4304(a) (current) (emphasis added).

It is undisputed that Avery was supervising D.G. when he sexually abused the boy. It is also undisputed that Appellant did not have any direct supervisory role over D.G. or any other child put at risk by Avery’s presence at St. Jerome’s. The Commonwealth’s contention at trial was that Appellant, in his capacity as the Archdiocese’s point-man on priests accused of sexual abuse, violated the pre-amended EWOC statute by placing Avery in an environment where he knew there was a significant risk that Avery would
sexually abuse minors (or by failing to remove him once there were indications that Avery might reoffend). Thus, independent of whether Appellant owed a duty of care to the children of St. Jerome’s, or to D.G. in
particular, the prohibited conduct of his alleged violation of the EWOC statute was his inadequate supervision of Avery.

Appellant claims the pre-amended EWOC statute did not encompass the conduct of a supervisor of a “person supervising the welfare of a child.” He contends that by the plain meaning of the terms of the pre-amended statute, it imposed criminal liability only upon those directly supervising children. He maintains that decisional law examining the pre-amended statute limited the class of persons subject to criminal liability to “parents and parental surrogates.” Appellant’s Brief, at 19. Appellant also directs our attention to the 2007 amendment language as a compelling indication that the prior version of the statute, the one under which Appellant’s conviction rests, did not encompass persons described by the additional language, i.e.,
those who employ or supervise the class of individuals that were within the purview of the pre-amended version. In essence, he argues that the legislature’s inclusion of the “or a person that employs or supervises such a person” language in the amended statute indicated an intent to add a class of persons not originally subject to liability under the pre-amended version.

Pages 34-35:


Thus, the plain language of the pre-amended EWOC statute requires proof, as an element of the offense, that the accused was a supervisor of an endangered child victim when the conduct or condition giving rise to the offense occurred.

In doing so, we reject the interpretation of the trial court, as endorsed by the Commonwealth, that inclusion of the terms “the welfare of” in 18 Pa.C.S. § 4304(a) implies that “the statute does not require that an individual be a ‘supervisor of a child’ to fall under EWOC’s umbrella of criminal liability.” TCO, at 183. The plain meaning of the terms of that clause does not support such a construction. And, despite the broad
purpose of the EWOC statute as outlined in Mack, “[w]hen the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence was not sufficient to support
Appellant’s conviction for EWOC as a principal actor, because the Commonwealth failed to offer any evidence that Appellant was a supervisor of D.G. or any other child at St. Jerome’s.

Then Page 41 of the opinion:

Nevertheless, Avery was appointed to a chaplaincy so as to limit his contact with children. There was no evidence that Appellant explicitly or implicitly approved of Avery’s supervision of minors at St. Jerome’s. In fact, the Commonwealth’s own evidence demonstrated that upon Avery’s placement at St. Jerome’s rectory, that parish’s pastor, Father Graham, was told that Avery “was not to be around children and was to live in the parish, be around other priests, and minster to the local hospital.” N.T., 5/23/12, at 50. Even if these facts did not extinguish the risk that Avery presented to the parish, the Commonwealth’s evidence was not sufficient to support the notion that the natural and probable consequence of Appellant’s conduct was Avery’s intentional act of molestation (which was the only conduct that could have given rise to Avery’s EWOC violation). Such an inference was far too tenuous a proposition to satisfy the Commonwealth’s burden of proof, even viewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
We conclude, therefore, that the theories of accomplice liability applied by the trial court in this case were not supported by sufficient evidence. There was no underlying EWOC offense committed by Avery when Appellant facilitated his appointment to the St. Jerome’s rectory, or when Avery was permitted to remain at St. Jerome’s after Appellant received the influx of negative information about Avery’s rehabilitation. When there was an underlying EWOC violation, Appellant’s accomplice liability to EWOC was unsupported by sufficient evidence. Appellant did not know or know of D.G., he was not sufficiently aware Avery’s supervision of D.G. or any other child at St. Jerome’s, nor did he have any specific information that Avery intended or was preparing to molest D.G. or any other child at St. Jerome’s. In sum, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Appellant acted with the “intent of promoting or facilitating” an EWOC offense.

Having determined that the evidence was not sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for EWOC either as a principal or as an accomplice, we are compelled to reverse Appellant’s judgment of sentence. And, as there are no other offenses for which he was convicted in this case, Appellant is
ordered discharged forthwith.

Judgment of sentence reversed. Appellant is discharged.
Judgment Entered.

clearly didn't apply in this situation -- which is why legislators changed the law in 2007.

A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person,

Does that mean someone who employs a person who is supervising a child, but the employer only hires that person to run a cash register (i.e. hired someone who is supervising the welfare of a child under 18 year of age, but hired that person to run a Cash Register) is guilty of child abuse if that employee does child abuse?

That sentence with the added phase is poorly written. The intention was to include Supervisors of people who abuse children but when such Supervisor is part of function of supervising the child, not supervising or employing the perpetrator in a occupation not related to care of the child.

The problem is, the phase is NOT worded in away to make it clear what supervision or employment is part of the supervision of the child, it can be construed to mean any employment or supervision of a person who is also supervising and abusing a child.

The court did NOT have to address that badly worded phase in this decision, but the hints is all through the opinion. The General Assembly needs to re write this phase it is badly written.

You're right, the court didn't have to address it, but now we're on notice. The General Assembly needs to fix it or that law will be useless, too.