A copy of a document sent to me by a source and dated February 28,2000 ( a link is provided at the bottom)
and further corroborated by other documentation has revealed that MBNA bank (now Bank of America) beginning in 2000 and throughout the entire tenure of Louis Freeh as the bank's vice chairman and general counsel, was
a major corporate sponsor of Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile and continued to be
throughout Freeh's tenure at the bank from 2001 to 2006 when MBNA bank was bought
by Bank of America for $35 billion. Freeh at the time cashed in $20 million in stock options.
As the document shows, in April of 2000, less than two years after the 1998 Sandusky investigation, MBNA bank sponsored a testimonial dinner at Penn State to honor Jerry Sandusky. This relationship and sponsorship of Sandusky and Second Mile by MBNA bank continued while Freeh became the bank's vice chairman and general counsel.
Given MBNA bank's important financial relationship to Penn State and their relationship to Jerry Sandusky
and Second Mile as one of Sandusky's biggest biggest
corporate sponsors and Freeh's position as vice chairman and general
counsel,and given Freeh's friendship with Ric Struthers, an MBNA vice president who sat on Sandusky's Second Mile Board of Directors from 2000 to at least 2006, the conflicts of interest involving Freeh, MBNA bank, it's executives and Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile are so great, so irreconcilable, and so
substantive it raises many legitimate questions on ethical grounds alone, as to why Freeh was even chosen to conduct the investigation and completely invalidates the Freeh Report as an honest, objective independent investigation, untainted by bias or self interest.
And that Freeh did not disclose this conflict of interest and ethcially disqualify himself from conducting it, further erodes Freeh's credibility, the credibility of the report, and calls into question Freeh's real motives.It also begs the question, did the Penn State Board of Trustees know about this conflict of interest before assigning Freeh to do the investigation? If so then their motives for hiring Freeh, perhaps to insure that they are taken off the hook, must be questioned since the conflicts of interest are so great that Freeh never should have been allowed to do the investigation in the first place.
Aside from the clear lack of ethics the conflicts of interest indicate,and how they invalidate the Freeh Report, they also raise other serious questions. Specifically what did Freeh and other MBNA bank
executives know of the 1998 Sandusky investigation and when did they know it? Or
McQueary's 2001 allegations? What did Ric Struthers know and when did he know
it? And was the Freeh Report and its unsubstantiated conclusions and accusations against Joe Paterno and others actually
Freeh trying to shield MBNA bank executives,personal friends like Ric Struthers and even himself
from bad or damaging publicity and not as Freeh alleged, Joe Paterno trying to
shield Penn State?
The evidence shows that a major and mutually lucrative financial agreement had been completed between MBNA bank and Penn
State, negotiated in part by MBNA bank vice president Ric Struthers less than two years after the 1998 Sandusky investigation on possible allegations of child abuse. The agreement called for MBNA bank
to pay Penn State $30 million just for its mailing list. MBNA bank used that list to solicit and
provide credit cards to Penn State students and faculty. Ric Struthers, as already
noted, sat on the Board of Directors of Jerry Sandusky's Second Mile.
bank one of Sandusky's biggest corporate sponsors and its vice president of the credit card division sitting on Sandusky's Board, along with the conflicts of interest that make Freeh's investigation worthless, is it possible that Struthers, Freeh, or other MBNA bank executives knew nothing of the 1998 Sandusky investigation?Is it possible that they didnt?
It is believed that they did know and protecting that information along with Freeh not wanting to lose a $6 million pay day were the motives behind Freeh not recusing himself from doing the investigation and his motives behind his unsubstantiated conclusions and manipulation and mischaracterization of evidence to pin the blame and focus attention on Paterno and others.
That MBNA bank executives, including Freeh, knew about the 1998 investigation of Sanduskyis re-enforced by their professional relationship with and unqiue position of Gary Schultz.
Schultz was head of
Penn State police services, and as the emails in the Freeh Report show, was privy
to all the details concerning the 1998 investigation of Sandusky. Thomas
Harmon, Captain of Penn State police kept Schultz, as his superior, informed of
the progress of the investigation, details and it's outcome. It was Schultz who Curley turned to for
updates concerning the progress of the investigation.
But Gary Schultz was also Vice President of Business and
Finance at Penn State and as such most certainly was directly involved in the financial negotiations between Penn State, Ric Struthers, and MBNA bank. And as VP of Business and Finance it was Schultz who most certainly had to approve the deal negotiated with Struthers and MBNA bank..
Is it possible that with
knowledge of the 1998 Sandusky investigation as head of Penn State police services, and his position as Vice President of Business and Finance and after negotiating a large and financial deal with MBNA bank and Ric Struthers, (who also happened to be a
former Penn State grad, class of '77) that Schultz would not mention to Struthers,
even in a general off the record way anything about the 1998 investigation of Sandusky or that there
even was an investigation? Is it possible Schultz would allow MBNA bank with whom he had negotiated a large financial deal beneficial to Penn State, to
become a major corporate sponsor of Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile and
allow Struthers to sit on Sandusky's Board of Directors without a word to anyone there about the 1998 Sandusky investigation?
It is believed that is not possible. It is highly unlikely Schultz would have kept that information from
Struthers, especially since the investigation ended with no charges against
Sandusky. And given the possible exposure for both Struthers and MBNA bank and the possibility for
embarrassing or damaging publicity, they would
have certainly held Schultz accountable had they not been informed and
then later learned of Schultz' knowledge of the 1998 Sandusky investigation for
child abuse if things went bad with Sandusky as they eventually did.
Would Schultz have put such a lucrative business arrangement for Penn
State at risk , would he have jeopardized it and allowed the exposure of MBNA
bank as a major corporate sponsor of Sandusky and Second Mile and for Struthers to
sit on Sandusky's board without saying a word? It is believed not. The evidence points to the fact that they knew.
Consequently, given the relationship between Struthers and Louis Freeh it is unlikely Struthers would not have passed on whatever information he had from Schultz about the 1998 investigation to Freeh.,in his position as vice chairman and general counsel of MBNA and as a former FBI director.And a personal friend as well as colleauge of Struthers.
Freeh's relationship with Struthers was first reported, in March of 2012,
when Jim DiStefano, a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer who was aware of Freeh's position at MBNA bank and their financial connection to Penn State
called Penn State and asked about the apparent conflict of interest. DiStefano
was suspicious because the bio of Freeh that was released when it had been announced that
he would do the investigation touted other aspects of Freeh's resume but didnt mention the relationship between MBNA bank where Freeh was vice chairman and Penn
A Penn State spokeswoman referred DiStifano to the board's special
committee for the investigation. They in turn referred DiStefano to Kekst &
Co, the PR agency the board had hired. DiStefano reported that Jeremy Fielding
of Kekst & Co. told him in 2012 " Judge Freeh has had no previous personal
connection to Penn State university".
That, as it turns out was not true. In 2005 Penn State honored MBNA
bank vice president Ric Struthers, with a
testimonial dinner at Penn State. The featured guest speaker at that Penn State dinner for
Struthers was Louis Freeh.
There is now more credible questions raised about whether MBNA bank executives, Ric Struthers
and possibly Freeh himself knew about the 1998 Sandusky investigation than there
is that Joe Paterno knew. And even if Paterno did know ( for which there is still not
a single shred of actual proof) what Paterno would have known would have been no
different from anything Ric Struthers,other MBNA bank executives or even Freeh
himself would have known . Yet Freeh used that same knowledge as "evidence" that Paterno was involved in a cover up to shield Penn State from bad publicity. But
there is now more credible evidence that suggests it was Louis Freeh who used unsubstantiated conclusions, fabrications and
manipulated evidence and intimidated witnessess, who was the one trying to shield MBNA bank executives from bad publicity, not Joe Paterno,
This became especially important since MBNA bank had been bought by Bank of America in 2006 and still employs many of MBNA bank's executives including Struthers. Any connection to Sandusky or Second Mile or evidence that their executives knew of the investigation in 1998 would have damaging consequences.
Even the most ardent of Freeh's supporters (assuming there still are any) could
not argue that the conflict of interest between Freeh, his position at MBNA
bank as vice chairman and general counsel the bank's major sponsorship of Sandusky and Second
Mile and Freeh's relationship with Ric Struthers who sat on
Sandusky's Board of Directors, would not, if ethics prevailed, have disqualified Freeh from conducting the
investigation. And no one can argue that this conflict of interest, aside from the questions it raises about Freeh's own knowledge and that of other MBNA bank executives,doesn't invalidate the Freeh Report as an honest, objective, independent investigation.
Based on these conflicts of interest and the substantial questions they raise and in the interests of fairness and justice the NCAA
should immediately suspend its sanctions against Penn State which are based entirely on the Freeh Report, at the very least pending their own
investigation as one of Freeh's investigators already suggested, and any and all
actions taken based on the Freeh Report should be put on hold until a true
investigation can take place. Or it is concluded that one isnt neccessary and simply let the justice system given the upcoming trials of Curley and Schultz, run their course before any other action is taken.
The revelation of these conflicts of interest also once again proves the ineptitude, incompetence, journalistic dishonesty, and the injustice caused by the mainstream news media, as well as simply flat out stupidity from journalists at Time Magazine, CNN, ESPN, the Philadelphia Daily News, and countless radio talk show hosts and others who were only too glad to jump on their self-serving bandwagon , accept the Freeh Report at face value, and in so doing made a mockery of justice and what journalism is supposed to be.
Until we get some answers from Tim Curley and Gary Schultz there are other questions still to be answered. This time of Louis Freeh. But if
his history of allegations of unethical conduct is any indication, don't expect to get any answers. At least not from him. But in the meantime, there is only one action to be taken based on the Freeh Report and based on the irreconcillable conflicts of interest that exists. Discard it.
And reverse every action taken upon which it was based, until something more honest, objective, untainted and reliable can take it's place.