Paterno transfers ownership of house to his wife for $1

He is making all of the moves that screams he was either involved directly or had firsthand knowledge of what was going on.
 
LOL, yeah...part of a multi-year estate planning process. They just happened to do it now. Give me a break.
Well, to be fair, he does have more time to worry about trival things such as his estate, now that he is not coaching and harboring a pedophile. #sarcasm

Another admission of guilt, imo.
 
It makes total sense, and is just an indication he's getting quality legal advise. Of course he's going to get sued over this, it's America, a place where you can spill coffee on yourself and sue the restaurant because they gave you hot coffee.

Bottom line it's something a smart person would do regardless of whether they thought they were guilty or not.
 
It makes total sense, and is just an indication he's getting quality legal advise. Of course he's going to get sued over this, it's America, a place where you can spill coffee on yourself and sue the restaurant because they gave you hot coffee.

Bottom line it's something a smart person would do regardless of whether they thought they were guilty or not.

He's also making all the moves that someone who is innocent would make also.

Exactly. Paterno is going to get sued (among many other people). I'm not going to begrudge someone for taking legal advice.

Also for anyone out there, if you get accused of something of significant magnitude whether you did it or not get an attorney. A person who represents themselves has a fool for a client.
 
I think the fact that he made this move less than 4 months before all of this came out is what is raising some eyebrows.
 
Guys he did this 4 months ago. I don't know if he was getting legal advice than. I think this may just be a coincidence
 
he knew he had given statement to grand jury, and knew sooner or later this would come out. just being protective, no fault in that.
 
just another thing that uninformed people will blow out of proportion without any basis or reason. the title of this thread is a good example.
 
I think the fact that he made this move less than 4 months before all of this came out is what is raising some eyebrows.
Isn't it possible that 4 months ago JoePa had some idea that this was going to happen?
 
Isn't it possible that 4 months ago JoePa had some idea that this was going to happen?

Considering that he went before the grand jury in like March? Yeah.

Just think about that: Paterno knows something bad is coming for months. Yet, he goes into this season anyways, when the storm could hit at any moment. And when it hits, he still tries to pull a Jedi mind trick on everybody. :eek:

Which just goes to show how huge this man's ego was when the news broke and he still refused to step down immediately.
 
You guys have it all wrong... He's getting rid of all assets so that medicaid can pay for his nursing home stay:)
 
Isn't it possible that 4 months ago JoePa had some idea that this was going to happen?

Yes. And if I were him, I probably would have done the same if I were guilty or innocent. It makes sense. I was just pointing out why some think it's a great conspiracy and he knew more than he said he did. With that said, I agree that he knew more than he said he did but not because of the house thing.
 
Does it make difference if it was a joint ownership, before hand?

They both owned it before the transfer, now it just in her name.
 
It makes total sense, and is just an indication he's getting quality legal advise. Of course he's going to get sued over this, it's America, a place where you can spill coffee on yourself and sue the restaurant because they gave you hot coffee.

Bottom line it's something a smart person would do regardless of whether they thought they were guilty or not.

Paragraph 1: FAIL

CJ & D : : Center for Justice & Democracy

The “McDonald’s coffee” case. We have all heard it: a woman spills McDonald's coffee, sues and gets $3 million. Here are the facts of this widely misreported and misunderstood case:
Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to Stella Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:

  • By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
  • Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;
  • Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years
  • The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
  • McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
  • From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
  • Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;
  • At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
  • Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;
  • McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
  • McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”
  • McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
  • Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.
In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald's behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.” Id.

Paragraph 2: FAIL

Fraudulent Conveyance Definition

What Does Fraudulent Conveyance Mean?
The illegal transfer of property to another party in order to defer, hinder or defraud creditors.
inv_icon.jpg

Investopedia explains Fraudulent Conveyance
In order to be found guilty of fraudulent conveyance, it must be proven that the accused's intention for transferring the property was to put it out of reach of a known creditor.

Stop FAILing.
 
Last edited:
Top