Jerry Sandusky’s lawyer, Joe Amendola, got a 16-year- old client pregnant and later married her

[avaistheone1]

Source: NY Daily News


Joe Amendola, the State College, Pa., attorney representing accused child molester Jerry Sandusky, has an interesting back story himself: He got a teen-age client pregnant during the mid-1990s.

Amendola, 63, married the girl several years after the birth of their child, The Daily reported Monday night, citing documents filed at the Centre County, Pa., courthouse.

Amendola represented a 16-year-old girl then known as Mary Iavasile when she filed an emancipation petition in September 1996. The emancipation petition said the girl had graduated from high school in two years with a 3.69 GPA and held a fulltime job at Amendola's law office.

The girl gave birth to Amendola's child when she was 17 years old, her mother, Janet Iavasile, said. Amendola would have been about 49 years old at the time. The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16.


Read more: Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/jerry-sandusky-s-lawyer-joe-amendola-a-16-year-old-client-pregnant-married-article-1.977873#ixzz1doG1Af1h

[TheWraith]

1. I'm not even sure what to say to that. nt

[d_r]

2. truth > fiction

separated

[TheWraith]

4. Quite! nt

[christx30]

18. My favorite idiom is:

Of course truth is stranger than fiction! Fiction has to make sense!

[TheWraith]

20. That's a variant on a quote from Mark Twain.

His version was that "the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible."

[FiveGoodMen]

21. That's it, exactly!

[truebrit71]

16. Un-real...

...

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

5. Yep. Articles like this are simply gossip.

A legally emancipated adult, above the age of consent in her state, engaged in a mutually consensual sexual relationship and became pregnant. Unless there's an allegation that the sex was coerced, I'm not seeing the story here.

This is basically a play on our cultural "Icky old guy screwed young woman" aversion.

[avaistheone1]

9. It is worse than icky old guy screwed young woman.

A 16 year old is a teenager, not a young woman. Moreover, there is an unequal power relationship when a man more than four decades older tries to develop a sexual relationship with a teenager. The power relationship was further skewed in his favor, as he was the girl's boss.

[Xithras]

13. I agree that the "boss" part was stupid....

...but it's important to remember that plenty of courts have ruled that employer/employee relationships are not inherently abusive, but merely have the potential to be so. There is nothing wrong with an employer and an employee having mutually consensual sex, but it IS a stupid thing to do from a legal standpoint. Even if the relationship is 100% legitimate, a bad breakup could lead to some nearly indefensible accusations.

As for her age... 16 years old is the age of consent in Pennsylvania and the majority of American states. If a 40+ year old man/woman has sex with a 16 year old young man/woman in those states, then I have to disagree that it's "worse". If society has determined that a 16 year old is mature enough to engage in sex and select their own sexual partners, then you, I, and the rest of the society should keep our traps shut about who they sleep with. The freedom to choose your own sexual partners is one of my few absolutes (assuming, of course, that everyone is consenting and of legal age). If a 16 year old wants to climb into bed with a 60 year old in a state where 16 is the age of consent, I may say "Ick" because it lays outside of my own moral comfort zone, but ultimately I can recognize that the relationship is no more "harmful" than if she slept with another 16 year old, a 20 year old, or a 25 year old.

The only people who should really have any say in this situation would normally be the girls parents (though it's usually a waste of time, I do recognize a parents right to try and limit who their minor children associate with). Because this particular young woman was legally emancipated and granted the authority to make her own decisions, this caveat really doesn't apply.

[Psephos]

44. A correct but doomed to be unpopular analysis. n/t

[catrose]

10. Lawyers aren't supposed to have sex with clients

And while I guess employers can, it's usually not considered smart.

[avaistheone1]

14. I believe you are right. I think lawyers are supposed to have a fiduciary duty to their clients.

[Xithras]

17. Things get murky when there are pre-existing relationships though.

I know of many cases where lawyers have represented girlfriends, boyfriends, wives, and husbands. The prohibitions on lawyers engaging in relationships with clients is generally applied primarily to prevent attorneys from hitting on their clients, taking advantage of people during a vulnerable time, or generally exchanging representation for sexual favors. There is also the assumption that the attorney may see him/herself as a beneficiary of the case due to the relationship, which would change the attorneys motivations. However, these prohibitions generally exclude punishment for pre-existing personal relationships, whether they are sexual or not.

And, like many of these discussions, the rules do tend to vary from state to state. Here in California, the laws simply state that attorneys cannot engage in sexual relationships with clients if doing so will impact their ability to competently represent the clients best interests in court. Generally speaking, the existence of ANY pre-existing relationship between the client and the attorney is sufficient to prove that the attorneys ability to represent was not compromised merely by the act of having sex.

It comes down to this: Can you prove that the sexual relationship was either coerced, or that it impaired the lawyers ability to represent his client competently? If the answer is no, then the relationship is legal.

[jberryhill]

27. PA did not have a rule on this at the time

I think CA was the first, because of the high-dollar family practice that goes on out there.

Always struck me as funny that CA lawyers were the only ones who couldn't screw their clients, lol.

[jberryhill]

26. That's a recent rule in PA, which did not exist at the time

[SkyDaddy7]

30. It was a 16yr old CLIENT!!

This is news especially considering the case.

[rasputinkhlyst]

33. Yes...legal age of consent....BUT she was a client as well

as an employee if I got this story right.

[avaistheone1]

6. Just as much of what Penn State did was disgustingly wrong, but legal.

:puke:

[TheWraith]

7. No, it wasn't.

Employees of educational institutions are required reporters in PA.

[avaistheone1]

8. I should have clarified that.

The assistant coach did report, but did not intervene to stop the abuse even as he observed it before his own eyes. He did fulfill his legal responsibility as I understand it, but his superiors did not. However, he fell down on his moral responsibility.

[Galraedia]

11. Actually it's not.

It may not be a felony but he could have been charged with corruption of a minor or unlawful contact, regardless whether or not the sexual intercourse was consentual.

[happyslug]

42. Not in Pennsylvania, 16 years can have sex with anyone, it is NOT criminal

The law in Pennsylvania is quite clear, the age of consent is 16. 16 being the age of Consent is just that, if someone is 16 or older you can have consensual sex with that person and NOT violated ANY Pennsylvania State Law. Please also note this change to age 16 is in derogation of the Common Law, and any LAW passed in derogation of the Common Law must be strictly construed (There is exceptions to this rule, but none applicable in this case). Given that set of facts, 16 is the cut off they is NO crime if two people over age of 16 have Consensual sex with each other.

Furthermore, if you are within four years of the person you are having sex with, the age of consent of the younger person is age 14. That was to cover the 17 year boyfriend who has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend (or 17 year old with his 14 year old girlfriend).

In the late 1990s a teacher had sex with his 12 year old female student. At trial, the 12 year old said she and the teacher had exchanged vows and were man and wife. The case went all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which held that Under Pennsylvania Law, to have a valid Common Law Marriage, both parties had to be at least 12 AND not married to someone else. Given that ruling, the Conviction of the Teacher was reversed, it is NOT a crime in any state to have consensual sex with your spouse. The fact that the Child was 12 was unimportant for Under the Common Law 12 years could consent to sex AND consent to be married. While the State Legisalture had changed the law as to sex, making it 16 instead of 12, the State Legislature had NEVER changed the law as to Common Law Marriages. Thus the State Supreme Court had to rule the age of Consent to marry was 12,and since the parties were Married no crime had occurred when they had sex.

PLEASE REMEMBER NO PARENTAL PERMISSION WAS NEEDED TO ENTER INTO A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE EVEN AT AGE 12. THE SAME RULE APPLIED TO CONSENSUAL SEX, ONE COULD AGREE TO HAVE SEX AT AGE 12 UNDER THE COMMON LAW. Thus any change from age 12 is by Statute only (This is why it is called "Statutory Rape" for it is a product of a Statute passed by the State Legislature NOT the Common Law.

Now, if you wanted a Marriage license you had to be over 18, OR had your parent's permission, but the court ruled that law only applied to Marriages done with a License, it did NOT apply to Common Law Marriages.

Now, right afterward the State Legislature passed a law that anyone agreeing to be married, even a Common Law Marriage, had to be over 18 OR have their parent's permission. In 2004, effective on January 1st, 2005 Common Law Marriages were outlawed in Pennsylvania (But if you entered into one BEFORE that date, such marriages are STILL VALID).

[jberryhill]

25. It used to be. It isn't anymore

While, yes, the age of consent in PA is 16, the Rules of Professional Conduct for PA attorneys have been revised to prohibit sexual relations during the attorney-client relationship if they did not exist prior to that relationship.

This usually comes up in family law practice, in which the concern is a loss of objectivity by the attorney in dealing with things like property division, where the lawyer may gain an interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

[SoapBox]

12. I'm being left speechless (which is WAY unusual), about how dirty this whole thing is...

Pervs, pervs, pervs.

It's SO weird.

[cstanleytech]

15. So what? The case is about Sandusky not his lawyer.

[NJCher]

19. so what?

So birds of a feather flock together.

There's not a whole lot of difference: one is attracted to girls who just crossed the 16-year old marker and the other is attracted to 10- and 12-year old boys.

Real men like, love, and affiliate themselves with age-appropriate women.


Cher

[TheWraith]

23. There is a HUGE difference.

Creepy or not, it's the difference between a legal, consensual relationship with a sexually mature person above the age of consent, and non-consensual rape of pre-pubescent children.

If Paterno had been screwing 16 and 17 year old boys instead of 10 year olds, he wouldn't be needing a lawyer right now.

[whopis01]

38. I think you are accusing the wrong person

No one has claimed Paterno was raping children.

It is Jerry Sandusky who is accused of that.

[spooky3]

24. I don't think you meant your last statement to suggest that

gay relationships among consenting adult men disqualify them from being "real men."

[JI7]

31. and men ? age appropriate women and/or men is what you meant ?

right ?

[cstanleytech]

39. Of course, you are right how could i have failed to apply the birds of a feather logic!!

[treestar]

41. No that is not evidence

And it's a logical fallacy.

It is not something a prosecutor could mention without causing a mistrial.

[treestar]

40. Agreed. It is interesting, but it doesn't provide any

evidence one way or the other about Sandusky's guilt.

[benld74]

22. Oh yeah I want this guy defending ME for SURE!

[truthisfreedom]

28. If the witnesses against Sandusky are to be believed, he's toast no matter who his lawyer is.

So who gives a flying hootie-hoo who his lawyer knocked up legally? Lucky him that the age of consent is 16 in Pennsylvania!

[liberal N proud]

29. Nothing like keeping it in the club

Pedophile defending pedophile

[24601]

35. Pedophile has a specific meaning - and that includes that the

victim would be prepubescent rather than an adolescent.

Technically, the lawyer was a "Ephebophile", an adult demonstrating sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.

Creepy perv covers all the bases.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[24601]

34. Definitely wasted his talent in the courtroom when he had so much

obvious potential for elected office.

[Psephos]

45. lol n/t

[alp227]

36. This is the actor from 'Lost' who married 16-y/o Courtney Stodden?

Oh wait, never mind. Ugh, why isn't this guy in prison? Only a pervert like him could defend a fellow pervert.

[Mnemosyne]

37. In 1993 the age of consent in PA was 14, so 'glad' learn they raised it to a more 'responsible' age.

I only stay for my daughter and grandsons. This state is foul.

[happyslug]

43. It is still 14, if the older person is within four years of the younger person

It is only 16, if the parties are more then four years apart in age.

Anyway, you must have missed the case I cited above, where the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that a 12 year could agree to enter a Common Law Marriages with someone much older then she was, and when she did, it was then legal for them to have sex (i.e. there is no law forbidding Married couples from have sex with each other, no matter their age). Furthermore the 12 year old could entered into the Marriage not only without her parent's permission but also without their knowledge.

The reason was quite sound, that had been the law in England under the Common Law and the State Legislature had NEVER modified when, who or how people could marry under the Common Law. Now effective January 1, 2005 the State has abolished Common Law Marriages (And open a whole new set or problems, when the procedures required by a Marriage by License are NOT followed to the letter, when Common Law Marriages were legal, the courts would just rule a valid Common Law Marriage took place even if the Ceremony Marriage was invalid. With the abolishment of Common Law Marriages, the Courts can NO longer do that thus people now have to go to court to correct the problem with the Ceremonial Marriage which takes time and money unlike the older system of saying that if the requirements of the Ceremonial Marriages were not meet, the requirements to have a Valid Common Law Marriage were meet).

Just comments as to the age of consent in Pennsylvania.

[Mnemosyne]

46. The monsters that raped my daughter were all over 19, she was 14.

The chief of police spent three hours trying to talk her into filing charges. She was terrified and would not file, they said they would kill her and I both.

I did miss the 12yo decision. Thanks for bringing to my attention.

PA - run by perverts.

[happyslug]

50. Hate to say this, if she was NOT willing to file, not much the police can do

That is the chief problem in every state of the Union, someone has to be willing to file charges, even statutory rape charges, and by filing I mean the VITIM must be willing to file NOT the Police or the Local DA. If such victims refuse, most police and DAs will NOT prosecute. Sorry about your daughter, but the age of consent under the Common Law was only 12, it is 14-16 in most of the world and this only since about 1860. Prior to about 1860 in most of the world it was 12 (and is some areas as low as age 7, for example Delaware of about 1895)

http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

More on the age of Consent and its change since about 1860:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

1895 Article from the New York Times that the Age of Consent for Delaware was still age 7 as of that date:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B01EEDC113AE533A25756C1A9669D94649ED7CF

[Mnemosyne]

54. Yes, I am very well aware of that, even with them pouring a bottle of liquor down her

and another girl, 13. My daughter had an entire hand shaped bruise on her chest and was dumped out of a van on the street in the middle of the night.

And I could do nothing about it, other than love and support my daughter, try living with that. It almost ended my pacifism.

[Odin2005]

47. Kinda sick, but perfectly legal.

If the young lady is happy that is all I care about.

[LanternWaste]

48. As are arranged marriages in the Middle East...

As are arranged marriages in the Middle East. :shrug:

However, when we discuss those particular marriages, we're usually not focusing on the legal merits of the matter, but on the ethics, the misogyny, the power structure, etc... and I'm pretty certain we all of us presume those brides are indeed not very happy.

[harun]

53. We're not talking about the ME

[kestrel91316]

49. I suspect Sandusky and Amendola are part of a large nest of pedophiles.

[LeftyMom]

51. I agree with you.

Surely a sign that the end is nigh. ;)

[Tansy_Gold]

52. Far more important and relevant

Did you know that Joe Amendola defended another notorious child abuser?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/jerry-sandusky-penn-state-sex-abuse-case-eerily-similar-timothy-bagshaw-boy-scout-case-decades-prior-article-1.978901