Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Sofronoff stripped bare ... Deceit ... Betrayal ... Drumgold hung out to dry as a result of Sofronoff-Albrechtsen information "tryst" ... Latest derailment of conspiracies about the prosecution of manosphere darling, Bruce Lehrmann ... Derangement syndrome ... Sofronoff's "serious corruption" ... Devastation among devoted Banana Benders ... Read more >>

Politics Media Law Society


Bag lady ... Don't call the results until the fat lady sings … Senator's criminal record hidden from view … Inspiration from our B-grade business leaders … Forget the sexual harassment, Dicey Heydon is coming out of the deep freeze ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Capital crimes ... Dangerous words likely to be scrubbed from the Trump era lexicon ... Musk and his techie vandals ... The shredder going full blast at the FBI ... Stolen national security documents sent back to Mar-a-Lago ... Cabinet clown show ... White supremacy unleashed ... Consumer protection prosecutions dropped ... Lawyers and law firms threatened ... Roger Fitch from Washington ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian's Bloggers

Letter from London ... Holiday season ... Mother's Day, Lent, Chocolate ... Publisher wants money from Russell Brand for unpublished books ... Paralegal accessed forbidden documents to qualify for legal training contract ... Birthday card payout ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

"True to form, the ACT corruption watchdog has put itself at the centre of perceptions of bias with a finding against eminent former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC that serves only to debase the definition of serious corrupt conduct."

The Australian with its unique perspective on "bias" ... March 22, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Judgment for sale ... Melbourne University Publishing's decision to produce Justice Lee's Lehrmann judgment as a commercial product is not without its problems ... The omnishambles continues ... Melbourne lawyer Nilay B. Patel explains ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Defamation and other misadventures ... So sexy, said the actress of the Chief Justice ... Daphnis dunks women in hot water ... Another (male) judge frocks-up ... Inside Madge's mouth ... Stephen Archer defamed ... David Levine strangles more English ... Justice Dean Mildren "the idiot" ... From Justinian's archive, April 22, 2004 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« The Republican dream | Main | He kept off the front page »
Wednesday
Dec212011

Horseplay won't bugger-up the football dollars

Jerry Sandusky, the Penn State football coach up on child sex charges, has a very helpful lawyer with a sparkling media strategy ... Trial will be a needless formality ... Stand-by for extensively legalled media portraits of the Iron Ore Queen ... Pillsbury Flom files 

WTF is Jerry Sandusky's lawyer doing?

Sandusky, the retired assistant coach of Pennsylvania State University has been charged with more than 50 counts of child sex abuse.

Other casualties include head coach Joe Paterno and University President, Graham Spanier. Both were sacked for not doing enough when confronted with the allegation that Sandusky had anally raped a boy in the shower.

To the unfamiliar, the money and attention Americans give to college football is unfathomable.

It is reflected in the moistened eyes of Joe Paterno's adoring athletes and Penn State's well-to-do alumni who called him Papa Joe, a moniker they wisely no longer embrace.

College football brings in $50 million a year to the venerable university. No one at Penn State was going to let a little horseplay, as Sandusky likes to call it, interfere with that sort of green. All for a bunch of bloated uni students who run around in a game with an average actual playing time of 12 minutes.

Sandusky: "I enjoy young people"The criminal charges have pumped up the righteously indignant, who have burst out everywhere.

Sandusky has been viciously scarified in the media, and his trial relegated to a needless formality.

Stepping into this breach is Sandusky's lawyer, Joe Amendola. Joe's qualifications for the gig include impregnating (as the Americans so quaintly call it) his 16-year-old client (it's OK cause she later became his wife) when representing her in an emancipation petition.

Part of Joe's media strategy was to do a studio TV interview with Bob Costas (a seasoned sportscaster and talk show host) on NBC. 

Joe then volunteered to get his client on the phone, and the interview went ahead with Joe and Bob present in the studio and Sandusky on the line answering questions while the camera dwelt on Joe's face.

Picture this little exchange with long hesitations by Sandusky before he gave his answers, or just slip into court on the first day of trial where it will be the centerpiece of the prosecutor's opening statement:  

Costas: Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?

Sandusky: Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?

Costas: Yes.

Sandusky: Sexually attracted, you know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys. 

Talking heads everywhere were aghast at Amendola's apparent incompetence.

Amendola: unlikely to be a third roundJoe evidently did not share their view and promptly proffered his client for a second interview with New York Times journo, Jo Becker.  This was not just a carefully scripted exchange, but several interviews all recorded, and partly filmed as well. In Joe's house.

Sandusky explained his answers in the Costas interview saying:

"I am attracted to boys, girls too ...", before Joe interrupted, "Not sexually attracted."

Of course not.

This led to a fresh round of chastisement by the talking heads ("you do the cam, you do the can")  and another video clip for the prosecutor's opening.

Creepily entertaining as all this is, I suspect even Amendola will hesitate to do a third round.

One can sympathize with his frustration, if not his judgment.

*   *   *

Litigants in Australia are afforded a much more comforting measure of protection.

Other than anodyne reports of the court proceedings, the media is gagged from discussing pending criminal trials or else be held in contempt of court.

In civil matters, the courts will sometimes oblige with a suppression order if a litigant wants to hide some nasty contretemps from the hoi polloi. 

Rinehart: plenty of staying powerGina Rinehart had to endure day after day of unpleasant revelations about her payments to witnesses in the inquest into the death of her father, Lang Hancock.

At least in that instance, she had campaigned relentlessly for the inquest herself. She had desperately sought to pin her father's death on her step mother and litigious foe, Rose Porteous.

Not only was she unsuccessful, but the solicitor general was forced to consider whether there may have been criminal misconduct in relation to the inquest.

Thankfully, he concluded nothing could be done and since then Gina has thrived after settling with Rose.  

Now, three of Gina's children are suing to remove her as trustee of a family trust set up by Lang Hancock for their benefit.

They allege misconduct by Gina in the trust's administration. The case would seriously undermine Gina's bottom line. 

Gina persuaded Brereton J of the NSW Supreme Court that the agreement between the parties made in 2006 to keep their disputes confidential entitled her to an interim suppression order. 

He kept that going for a while, then lifted it. Gina got a stay. Tobias AJA looked at it and reinstated the suppression order. An appeal court of three, including the Chief Justice, overturned Tobias on Monday (Dec. 19). Today she got another stay from Margaret Beazley JA, pending a special leave application to the High.

Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, a spate of media portraits on Gina is about to emerge after being extensively legalled. Gina has not cooperated with any of them. 

The sudden interest is provoked, in part, by a Citigroup projection published in June (making a host of challengeable assumptions) that Rinehart will become the richest person in the world. 

It's just all so unfair. 

Pillsbury Flom reporting 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.