"We Are!" all taxpayers so it matters.
http://www.wearecentralpa.com/news/sandusky-pension-reinstated
http://www.wearecentralpa.com/news/sandusky-pension-reinstated
Last edited:
Sadly, I think it's probably the legal conclusion....UNLESS they can provide proof he raped kids while still on the psu payroll. Public pension laws are a bit weird....like Jerry.I didn't click this link (got burned like that once before, can never be too careful), but if this is valid, someone should file suit. (I'd do it if I were still a PA resident, but since I no longer am, I don't have standing to sue.)
I would like to grab that MFing Sandusky by his throat.
There is the possibility of appeal to the Supreme Court.
There is the possibility of appeal to the Supreme Court.
"We Are" gets used alot in them thar woods.....
But.....I thought one just did....like 1988.... annnnnd a judicial ruling which stated it can proceed....making this decision to allow pension particular vomit worthy....disgraceful....there is something wrong in PA....both with this...and the stooges....and whatever other larger scheme it may entail...this is some messy s*it going on....and no that does not make joe a "good guy"....Sandusky didn't wait to retire before he became a sicko.
But until a victim comes forth and claims that they were victimized while he was still coaching, there's not much that can be done.
Unfortunately the legal ruling is that you can not retroactively apply laws. I wanted his pension taken away but unfortunately I think the courts ruled correctly on this one. What the court ruled is that the law taking away his pension was not passed until 2004 which was after he was an employee off the university. Therefore they could not retroactively apply it to what occurred when he was an employee in 1998. It make sense in that regard because then it would allow legislatures to create random laws and retroactively apply them to remove pension. For example there is a budget crisis. If they upheld this they could pass a law saying any one civic red of a speeding ticket while an employee forfeits their pension. They could then take away anyone's pension who met that condition.Sadly, I think it's probably the legal conclusion....UNLESS they can provide proof he raped kids while still on the psu payroll. Public pension laws are a bit weird....like Jerry.
Very good post and spot on, and thank you!Unfortunately the legal ruling is that you can not retroactively apply laws. I wanted his pension taken away but unfortunately I think the courts ruled correctly on this one. What the court ruled is that the law taking away his pension was not passed until 2004 which was after he was an employee off the university. Therefore they could not retroactively apply it to what occurred when he was an employee in 1998. It make sense in that regard because then it would allow legislatures to create random laws and retroactively apply them to remove pension. For example there is a budget crisis. If they upheld this they could pass a law saying any one civic red of a speeding ticket while an employee forfeits their pension. They could then take away anyone's pension who met that condition.
Unfortunately the legal ruling is that you can not retroactively apply laws. I wanted his pension taken away but unfortunately I think the courts ruled correctly on this one. What the court ruled is that the law taking away his pension was not passed until 2004 which was after he was an employee off the university. Therefore they could not retroactively apply it to what occurred when he was an employee in 1998. It make sense in that regard because then it would allow legislatures to create random laws and retroactively apply them to remove pension. For example there is a budget crisis. If they upheld this they could pass a law saying any one civic red of a speeding ticket while an employee forfeits their pension. They could then take away anyone's pension who met that condition.
Nope....the pension funds are NOT part of the general fund. Trusteed outside of that mess......poorly designed, underfunded, management issues , but those $$$ aren't accessible for anything but the retirees.Unfortunately the legal ruling is that you can not retroactively apply laws. I wanted his pension taken away but unfortunately I think the courts ruled correctly on this one. What the court ruled is that the law taking away his pension was not passed until 2004 which was after he was an employee off the university. Therefore they could not retroactively apply it to what occurred when he was an employee in 1998. It make sense in that regard because then it would allow legislatures to create random laws and retroactively apply them to remove pension. For example there is a budget crisis. If they upheld this they could pass a law saying any one civic red of a speeding ticket while an employee forfeits their pension. They could then take away anyone's pension who met that condition.
Ex post facto.Very good post and spot on, and thank you!
100% correct.
"Ex post facto" laws are expressly forbidden in the US Constitution, and our Founding Fathers were wise to include that.
People have to take emotion out of this. Like it or not, Sandusky remains an American citizen and he is protected under the law.