Jerry Sandusky testifies in attempt to keep collecting $4,900-a-month pension

[alp227]

Source: The Patriot-News

Jerry Sandusky played Tuesday for what could be the last great win of his Penn State career: the ability to preserve his $4,900-a-month pension benefit for his wife Dorothy and their family.

In testimony at an appeal hearing in Harrisburg today, Sandusky asserted that his retirement from Penn State was clear and definitive after the 1999 Nittany Lion football season.

From that point on, he told his lawyer Chuck Benjamin, he never received a Penn State paycheck or W-2 tax form, never had university-issued business cards and, what’s more, he never held himself out as a PSU employee.

Sandusky was not physically present at the State Employees Retirement System headquarters in Harrisburg Tuesday morning.

Read more: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/01/jerry_sandusky_testifies_in_pe.html

---

Vomit alert as the article has a photo of him SMILING to the CCTV.

[Orrex]

1. This money should certainly be paid

to his many victims.

[In_The_Wind]

4. Yes.

[Vashta Nerada]

9. This.

[SummerSnow]

2. Hes an ass

[SoapBox]

3. Uhhh... Coach PERVERT...

No fucking money for you...you messed up big time and there is a price to pay for violating "public trust", including not getting this money.

Freak.

[SunSeeker]

5. There is no way his wife did not know what was going on.

She was an enabler, sacrificing those poor boys all so she could maintain the standard of living she had grown accustomed to. It would be a sick outcome indeed if she ended up succeeding in that, with the help of Jerry's pension.

[davidpdx]

49. The truth is we don't know for sure what the wife's knowledge of it was

What is being said about her is based on assumptions. From what I've read, most of the abuse happened on campus. So was she there in the men's locker room? No.

There's no doubt in my mind that what he did was sick and demented and he's gotten what he deserves for that.

I don't think the pension should be in his name though. It would be better to treat it as if he were deceased and to give her the pension directly.

[SunSeeker]

55. How could she not know? He kept boys in their house.

The boys testified he would come and molest them while they were staying in a basement bedroom at his house. One of the victims testified that he raped him there, over and over, while she was home. He told the jury that unless the basement was soundproof--and it wasn't--she would have heard his screams.

Her response? The young men were in the wrong. "Conniving," she called one of them.

Check out the Henneberger's 6/26/12 piece in the Washington Post, "Does Dottie Sandusky deserve a jail cell of her own?"

[davidpdx]

56. I thought it happened on campus

If it happened in his home, yikes. *shakes head*

[mike_c]

6. I cannot support punitively taking away someone's pension...

...for crimes that were not related to the employment agreement that gives them the right to a pension. That's a slippery slope we should not go down, IMO.

I'm a public employee on faculty at a state university, just like Sandusky. I'm not a pedophile, but no doubt I break some law or other every single day. So does most every other public employee with negotiated pensions. Should my pension be taken away, despite decades of service, because I use cannabis, for example? Some would view that as a moral issue, others simply as a legal matter. What about if I cheat on my taxes? Or just make a mistake? What if I trespass? What if I have non-consensual sex with my neighbor's kid? Where is the line, and what's the connection between having earned that pension through negotiated years of service and having committed an unrelated crime?

Sandusky is ALREADY being punished for the crimes he committed. He has been sentenced.

[Psephos]

7. insightful post n/t

[cosmicone]

8. It is simple

If you commit a felony, you lose your pension. Anything less, you keep it.

No one commits a felony every day -- infractions maybe. Perhaps a misdemeanor once a year or so.

[mike_c]

12. I cannot condone that view....

Any felony? Possession of cannabis is a felony in many states. Consensual gay sex is a felony in some states, or at least it was until recently if it isn't still. And if the punishment mandated by law and imposed by a judge is insufficient, if we need to go after the convicted person's pension even though the crime had nothing to do with that pension, why not just impose the penalty that's "right" in the first place, rather than initiating an endless chain of additional punishments?

[pnwmom]

21. There is no law that says that, and I don't think there should be.

The benefits are part of the overall employment package that is negotiated when you go to work for someone. An employer shouldn't be able to take back pension benefits anymore than they could take back salary payments. They were already earned during the years he was working there.

However, there was probably a contract. So the wording of the contract could determine whether they could claim the pension now.

[LiberalFighter]

47. Losing your pension should not be predicated soley on committing a felony.

Committing a felony while in the employ of the university and receiving a salary would be a different matter.

[herding cats]

10. Weren't there a specific list of crimes it covers?

I seem to recall it wasn't simply a blanket coverage of any crime be it related to your employment or not, but more specific than that. I believe it has a clause for indecent assault and involuntary sexual intercourse specifically which was being applied in his case.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Sandusky committed multiple felonies, on university property, within the scope of his job

at the university. That's relevant. In fact, Sandusky exposed the University to millions in damages. Also relevant.

This wasn't something Sandusky just did at home, in his basement, on his own time, with non-students.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/21/us/penn-state-victim-lawsuit/index.html

[mike_c]

13. there will always be a way to justify more revenge....

I'm sorry, I just don't agree. He's in jail. Why impoverish his family, too?

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Two reasons.

One, the University is on the hook for millions in damages at his behavior, plus systematic cover-up by his peers.
Two, Sandusky himself is liable for considerable damages, which makes his family's 'impoverishment' a likely conclusion anyway.

Either way, his estate is not collecting that pension.

[mike_c]

16. I don't know how the system in PA is set up...

...but I wonder whether Penn State being on the hook for damages has anything at all to do with his pension. In California, where I work, pensions are paid by an external entity (CalPERS), so any damages the CSU might have to pay for faculty crimes have zero impact on the pension system. They're completely separate. Plus, Sandusky's family should be protected by garnishment laws that limit the amount of his income that can be attached in the worst case, but more to the point if it's a proper pension plan-- like mine-- he should be able to name his wife as sole recipient of his pension, and SHE should certainly be protected from attachment unless she's found liable for civil damages.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. You have raised some good points.

Paying out to his estate, whether it be wife or whatever, feels inherently unjust to me, but a contract is a contract. If there's no provisions in the contract about it, then I guess it should still be paid.

Feels wrong though...

I may be biasing that on the assumption/suspicion that his wife was at least aware of the problem, even if not criminally or civilly liable. Which is not fair, and not predicated on a presumption of innocence.

I think it has something to do with my intense dislike for this sort of crime. I will try and set that aside and re-evaluate rationally.

[cosmicone]

25. Your support of criminal behavior and vile acts

is not very salubrious.

If you want to earn a pension, do so honorably, without exposing your employer to damages and without breaking laws.

[mike_c]

26. you're making stuff up....

Support of criminal behavior and vile acts? Sandusky was tried, convicted, and sentenced. I have never, and certainly not in this thread, ever suggested that any other outcome was preferred. Justice has been served.

I support just outcomes and positive solutions. You probably hate this:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people

[davidpdx]

46. I think that's a low blow and really uncalled for

No where did he say he supports Sandusky's criminal behavior (and neither do I before you make an accusation). As I stated elsewhere putting the pension in his wife's name so he can't touch it probably would be the best solution. I agree HE shouldn't get it, I disagree that his family should be left destitute because of Sandusky's behavior.

[cosmicone]

51. His wife must have known what was going on

and kept her mouth shut.

He conducted his vile acts on the pension giver's property and exposed the pension giver to multi-million dollar lawsuits.

If he had conducted an armed robbery on a bank off campus without his family's knowledge, I'd agree with you. This is a different situation altogether.

[davidpdx]

57. I hadn't read that the boys stayed at his house and someone just point that out

That pretty much changes my opinion of the wife. I didn't read a lot about it as I'm overseas and the who thing sickened me.

In terms of the pension, let the courts settle it. It will be interesting to see the results.

[Sheldon Cooper]

50. Salubrious? Wow, somebody learned a new word.

Isn't that precious?

[cosmicone]

52. I wasn't trying to be neither vexatious nor pernicious

I am simply not niggardly with polysyllabic words on occasion. There is pulchritudinous etat in being propinquitous with a language!

[jberryhill]

54. Your accusation is pretty vile

Big words or not, it doesn't come across as very intelligent to make that sort of accusation against someone who participates in a discussion about the application of law to facts.

So, everyone ever caught with marijuana should be consigned to poverty when they are old. Is that your position?

There's a broader principle at issue here.

[Thinkingabout]

32. It is not unusual if a person is dismissed because of misconduct they will lose the benefits

normally paid to those who do not get dismissed for misconduct. Yes he may be serving a prison term but when do you think those who was abused will get out of their "prison", it will always a part of their lives forever. It was a despicable crime, not once but many times, Sandusky set himself up to get access to young boys, still is lying about his crime. I feel sorry for his wife but these funds should go to the young men who was abused by Sandusky.

[davidpdx]

36. It would be interesting to see the wording of the pension the conditions

I agree what he did was vile and so was the cover-up that allowed it to continue to happen. Penn State is going to continue to be on the hook for years legally in addition to the millions they've already paid out.

A pension of almost $5,000 a month is quite a bit.

[Thinkingabout]

39. There is also a big fine Penn State has to pay, so to reward him with his pension

Might be questioned. Also if the thought Sandusky is serving his time and has not released Penn State from paying the fine.

[mike_c]

42. his pension is not a "reward...."

It's his money. He has already earned it by fulfilling the terms of his employment. As others have pointed out, there are tort procedures that can be taken to seek compensation from Sandusky, but this isn't one of them. It's pure, knee jerk revenge-as-justice.

Penn State has not been fined to my knowledge. They might be liable for civil damages, but that's a different matter. And Sandusky's pension has nothing to do with Penn State's obligation to pay damages.

Pension clawbacks are a horrible precedent. We've already seen pensions sweepingly canceled in private industry, leaving retired workers and their families completely destitute. This is just another attempt to extend that precedent to public workers. Sandusky has been convicted and sentenced as provided by law. Taking his pension-- impoverishing his family-- is unnecessary and unseemly.

[davidpdx]

45. Penn State agreed to a $60 million dollar fine

Last edited Wed Jan 8, 2014, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)

if I remember correctly in the terms of NCAA sanctions.

[mike_c]

53. to be fair, that fine was an agreement between Penn St and an organization...

...that they choose to belong to. It wasn't levied by the courts for breaking any laws (we're talking about PS here, not Sandusky). It was "voluntary" in exchange for continued affiliation with NCAA. They might also be found liable for other civil damages, but again, those are not fines-- they're settlements or judgements intended to make the injured parties whole.

[Thinkingabout]

48. Sandusky needs to man up for one time in his life, he should insist the pension fund go to

His victims, doubtful he would ever do this because a real man would not have harmed others. Just because a person has a pension does not mean they "earned" the pension. I know of many other cases where there was misconduct all benefits would be denied. This is not a plan by a corporation to deny pensions, this is a total different event. In the case of Social Security if the person is in prison then they are not able to receive the monies but the spouse could. I can feel for his wife but I feel more for the victims.

[JVS]

23. +1

[sammythecat]

28. I agree

Like others I find it a little hard to think his wife is entirely innocent, but what if she is? Or what if this happens again with a different cast of characters, a spouse and/or children who are innocent and depend on that pension, had charted a course for their lives with the expectation that money would be there?

[mike_c]

29. and regardless of what you or I think one way or another...

...Sandusky's wife is not liable for any damages. As far as I'm aware, she has never been charged with any crime or found liable for civil damages in any aspect of Sandusky's crimes. Speculation about any knowledge she might have had is just that, idle speculation.

But regardless-- I just cannot accept the prevailing revenge-as-justice culture that seems to permeate our outlook toward criminal justice. I'm reminded that the criminal justice systems with the absolute lowest rates of recidivism anywhere in the world are always the ones that treat their prisoners with respect and seek positive change rather than perpetual punishment. We get results when we work to change people for the better, rather than throwing them down a hole for perpetual torment.

[Thinkingabout]

33. Sandusky committed a crime, a drunk driver who kills someone in a accident doesn't just

serve prison time, there is still a liability to family members. Sandusky destroyed lives, to pat him on the back and reward him with a pension is wrong, if he ask for the pension to go to his victims would be a better choice.

[Bragi]

41. I agree with you. Well said. nt

[tblue]

44. Yep. It's gross to think of him getting anything he wants

but that doesn't make getting this pension wrong or illegal, far as I know. Tasteless, yes. At least some of the money should go to his victims, yes. But no one is accusing Sandusky of having good taste or caring about those kids he molested. It's his money and it doesn't matter if his wife getting it upsets some people. Public opinion is not a factor.

[Ash_F]

14. Keep the pension and divert it to the victims!

Win win!

[freshwest]

17. I wonder if it's handled like Social Securty:

What happens to the Social Security benefits of a person who goes to prison?

The Social Security Administration is required by law to suspend payment of benefits to anyone who has been convicted of a crime and is in prison for more than 30 continuous days.

If family members are receiving benefits based on the person's record, those payments will continue.

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/question-and-answer/happens-to-social-security-benefits-if-person-goes-to-prison/

So while he may not get them, what went to his wife will likely continue. She was not convicted of anything.

[LynneSin]

19. Personally I think he should keep collecting his 5k/month pension....

and then that money is then donated to help support those kids whose lives he made a living hell!

[ebbie15644]

20. I don't see how he doesn't win this.

just on the merits of the law. I am no Sandusky fan! But they put this law into affect after the fact and he was technically not employed by PSU at this time.

[bucolic_frolic]

22. A contractual payout is a contractual payout

legally garnishing wage streams for victims, including taxpayers, while allowing his spouse a retirement
that is consistent with what normalcy she can attain is another matter.

[Aerows]

24. He's a walking vomit alert

smiling or not. I don't anymore believe his wife was unaware of this going on than I believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. She shouldn't be getting money, either. He's exactly where he belongs, and if she loses out on his pension, it's what she deserves, too. Nobody is that clueless.

[kwassa]

30. believe what you like ...

but I am only a couple of degrees of separation from Jerry, and I think the wife is both clueless and in denial ....

People close to me know him, one served on his charity board in the early days, and they all say the wife had no idea. They themselves were in extreme denial for a long time. Some of their friends are still in denial that it really happened, despite all the evidence.

For many of them, this crime is outside their understanding of crime. State College was like Mayberry in a way, like an old-fashioned American community from the 1950s. Many probably never heard of a pedophile before this case.

[JEFF9K]

27. Nice FORMER WORK if you can get it.

[Skittles]

31. getting almost 5000 a month for work you did not do

now that is one sweet deal

[rpannier]

34. If there is nothing stipulated in law or contract he should keep the pension

Reworking these rules and then enforcing retroactively is a dangerous path to tread

[Recursion]

35. This is not the state's money to withhold; it's Sandusky's

Now, I certainly hope his victims sue the shit out of him and take every last penny of it, but the state has no right to withhold his pension, which belongs to him.

[bluestateguy]

37. Pensions are for working people, not child molesters

And if his old hag of a wife doesn't like it she can get a job flipping burgers at minimum wage.

[Bragi]

40. Your comment is sad

Your vengefulness clearly overwhelms your brain.

[pam4water]

38. How can that man smile?

[cthulu2016]

43. Pensions should not be dependent on good behavior.

Of course he should get whatever pension he should get if he should get a pension.