Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Pennsylvania

JPZenger

(6,819 posts)

4. They weren't even going to release the fact that there was a case

Reply to JPZenger (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 09:31 PM

Mar 2015

If I read the link correctly, the PA. Supreme Court had to be persuaded to agree to even release the redacted filing. That redacted filing only includes a small portion of the text, and deletes the names.

(There was a techie one time who figured out the computer program that a law clerk had used for a redaction, and was able to undo it.)

When it comes to government and multi-billion dollar charities, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pa. Sup. Ct. hears case of illegal diversion of charity $. Refuses to release name of the charity. [View all] JPZenger Mar 2015 OP

I think you are on to something. Curmudgeoness Mar 2015 #1

I'm a PA atty. & have never heard of Redacted v. Redacted on any case. Divernan Mar 2015 #2

I think the case may have skipped county court JPZenger Mar 2015 #3

PA courts: leading the way in preferential treatment of the One Percent Divernan Mar 2015 #6

They weren't even going to release the fact that there was a case JPZenger Mar 2015 #4

On a completely unrelated matter, here is an unredacted legal argument about the Hershey Trust JPZenger Mar 2015 #5