1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Joe Pa knew, there is no way he didn't....

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by leftybuff, Nov 16, 2011.

  1. leftybuff

    leftybuff Iconoclast Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    25,004
    Likes Received:
    2,723
  2. tante

    tante Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    25,787
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    I was under the impression that the court will see right through that and can negate the transfer. It is like transferring your assets before a bankruptcy case
     
  3. leftybuff

    leftybuff Iconoclast Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    25,004
    Likes Received:
    2,723
    Depends...but I think generally you are right.
     
  4. Fight CU

    Fight CU Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    6,728
    Likes Received:
    1,579
    ..
     
  5. tante

    tante Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    25,787
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    ....
     
  6. Hank

    Hank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,511
    Likes Received:
    152
    I don't think the transfer of the house means much on its face. There's a bunch of reasons why this might be done. A house that Paterno bought for 60k 40 years ago is probably not his largest asset. If we learn that Joe transferred a bunch of other assets to his wife, then that's a different story.
     
  7. BuffaloChuck

    BuffaloChuck Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    13
    Of course, this was done almost four months ago. And this isn't an spur-of-the-moment deal - this takes weeks or months of paperwork and filings. It's not like I can do this over the kitchen table.

    Maybe his legislator friends told him they were going to fix the estate taxes so on his eventual death, his wife wouldn't be additionally burdened. That'd be nice.

    Or did his State Guv friends talk about the grand jury proceedings and he and his folks decided "Better do it now before this comes out?" Gee - JoePa, what did you know? And when?

    The same two questions keep popping up. Giving off smoke. What's starting these little fires, JoePa?
     
  8. leftybuff

    leftybuff Iconoclast Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    25,004
    Likes Received:
    2,723
    Well, I think the comment from the Elder Law Prof. at Pitt is pretty good. He characterized it as an asset shielding move rather than any estate or tax planning move he had heard of...my guess is he would know.
     
  9. BuffaloChuck

    BuffaloChuck Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    13
    Lefty, yes, agreed. "Asset shielding" as called by a law prof. No telling of his credentials, though, but still - in a jury trial, it's what THEY think, not a paid lia - er, lawyer or an academic. Appearances mean something.
     
  10. BuffLuKe

    BuffLuKe Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    18,558
    Likes Received:
    1,124
    I think a trial is worse, hell, he said he should have done more for a reason. I refuse to believe somebody that has the so called character of JoPa would look the other way when this happened if he was that man of character, it wouldnt happen. Maybe all these years, even doing good things, this is who he was all along. Anyway, im sure a jury that had a brain could see that.
     
  11. J.R. Ewing

    J.R. Ewing Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    13,925
    Likes Received:
    3,655
    maybe an out of state jury
     
  12. BuffLuKe

    BuffLuKe Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    18,558
    Likes Received:
    1,124
    Would they consist of humans? I dont think the jury being from anywhere would matter if it happened as it has been said so far, maybe there is more to it. I dont know we will see im sure.
     
  13. BuffaloChuck

    BuffaloChuck Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    13
    Buff, I think the attorneys are going to get Casey Anthony's jurors. "We require iMax 3D footage, and we demand Spielburg do it, or else nothing is proof of anything bad."
     
  14. Creebuzz

    Creebuzz Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,211
    Likes Received:
    526
    My take is that the personal residence would have already been shielded as a joint asset with the spouse. Further, transferring assets to a spouse or into a trust for asset liability protection is rarey effective unless done years in advance. I agree with unnamed expert number two cited in the Times article - this appears to be benign on the surface.
     
  15. buffsblg

    buffsblg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    6
    I am an attorney and my take, along with a couple of other lawyers I have talked to is that this looks like asset protection. Joint assets are not generally protected from creditors and an estate attorney I spoke to could not come up with one estate planning purpose for such a transfer. If the wife was already a joint tenant on the home (the most likely scenario) then there was no need to make this transfer for estate purposes. I just do not buy this as "routine" Lots of folks in State College knew this grand jury was investigating Sandusky and there were news reports about it this spring. What most did not know was the extent of the Penn State cover up allegations. Looks to me like Joe knew and he (likely with the help of his son, who is an attorney) started covering his behind. It may be that Joe did not realize how nailed he was until he got called to testify but it is clear to me that once he did, his main goal was to protect himself and get that last season in to get the record for wins.
     
  16. BuffaloChuck

    BuffaloChuck Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    13
    I was first arguing "This was months before!" but obviously neglecting to consider "... and months and months later after HE testified in front of the grand jury."

    He's made his career out of predicting what the next movie, the next play, the next offensive would be. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think he could connect his "testifying before a grand jury" and thinking of what might next happen.

    "Maybe the old fumbleroosky!! Leave it on the ground and let the Missus run with it..."

    I bet it's more likely a elderly/estate issue, actually. But when he's standing under a first trickles of an avalanche, it doesn't even take a bomb to start the whole thing downward.
     

Share This Page