Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

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

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
BuffLuKe said:
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.
Click to expand...

maybe an out of state jury
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top