PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #11

[Saunterer]

Switching gears for a moment I am sure many have been following the Sandusky/PSU ordeal.

It seems to me that should Gricar had moved forward with charges against Sandusky in 2005 that it put many people at jeopardy.

Who had the most to lose in regards to Sandusky being convicted? Someone behind the curtains that we do not know about? Or someone in plain view that was never thought of.

I still hold the Sandusky situation as large possibility for Ray Gricar becoming a victim of foul play.

This site has had some good analysis in my opinion albeit exaggerated at times.

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/

I strongly disagree that John Ziegler has added anything relevant to the disappearance of Ray Gricar. JMOO

 

[SuperSmith]

I strongly disagree that John Ziegler has added anything relevant to the disappearance of Ray Gricar. JMOO

IMO, JZ & RB have provided information of possible back door dealings (fraud) of 2M, DPW, CYS, and PSU Trustees for which were at jeopardy of being exposed should Sandusky get busted.

This information is in Kathleen Kane's possession so we will have to wait to see what becomes of it.

On the surface however I think we can agree with such powerful players it may provide a motive to off a hard charging District Attorney of their County with perhaps a further effort providing and elected MM to replace him, who just so happens to have a conflict of interest and needs to kick it to the AG, who then slow rolled the investigation.

Pure speculation on my part to be sure but in my opinion not one to sleep on.

 

[Saunterer]

LG held a joint account with her father in 2005. She had every right to use whatever money was in that account for any purpose whatsoever, including paying the cost of her trip back east in 2005, attorney fees for setting up the reward fund, paying RG's license renewal fees, etc...none of which is publicly reviewable or accountable to Gricar's estate in 2011 or 2013. I, for one, do not abscribe to the smoke and mirrors effort to minimize what Trackergd found for his/her $24 investment. Well done Trackergd!

 

[Saunterer]

Well I know in CA estate docs are generally public info. You can go to the Recorder's Office and have a copy of any recorded trust printed, the same with a will. If the will has been probated, you can find that in the court records.

Generally - money is not a private matter. We all like to think it is, but its not and typically it is not recognized as private by the courts. In a situation like this, where a man is missing and cannot be found, there should be very little expectation of privacy in anything he did prior to his missing. He needs to be found.

As far as LG's involvement, I have no argument with that. I would think that was natural and normal, for her to wrap up her father's affairs.

I confess I have not read all the info that Tracker found, so you guys have more info than I do.

Salem

Probated wills are public information in PA. But trusts are not generally public information. If Gricar had conveyed any real estate to a trust, it would appear on the public record. That does not appear to be the case here, as Gricar apparently owned no real estate after he and Emma conveyed their home in 2002.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Not withstanding petty nonsense, the information Trackergd obtained and posted here has been satisfactorily addressed, IMHO. You do not charge 15K to administer a 1K estate. What is missing, IMHO, is the estate planning RG previously put in place and which his daughter, as the court appointed trustee, saw through. IMO, and in LE's opinion, there is no missing money.

I'm afraid that is not accurate. A person grossing over $450,000 over a four year really should have a larger estate. The estate was at least $17,000, as those fees came out of it.

The costs were not necessarily "administrative costs," but attorney's fees, and they can be quite expensive. The attorney was required to file for trusteeship, possibly set up the reward, and file for the declaration of death. I doubt that any attorney would do that out of the goodness of his heart. Those are things that we know about.

As noted, there could be other payments, e.g. life insurance premiums, which could be substantial, depending on the amount, the company, and when RFG purchased them.

Likewise, LG may properly be reimbursed for costs. We do know that she incurred travel expenses; it wasn't like she was popping in from Port Matilda. The cost of the website, while it was up, would come out of that. There is also the possibility that LG did take a fee for administrating the estate; such fee would be legal.

Also, if, as you suggest, this was estate planning, it would be a strong indication that RFG was not planning to be there. The amount necessary to have such a low estate, based on his salary, would indicate that he did virtually no retirement planning. It would strongly point to suicide or walk away.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

IMO, JZ & RB have provided information of possible back door dealings (fraud) of 2M, DPW, CYS, and PSU Trustees for which were at jeopardy of being exposed should Sandusky get busted.

This information is in Kathleen Kane's possession so we will have to wait to see what becomes of it.

On the surface however I think we can agree with such powerful players it may provide a motive to off a hard charging District Attorney of their County with perhaps a further effort providing and elected MM to replace him, who just so happens to have a conflict of interest and needs to kick it to the AG, who then slow rolled the investigation.

Pure speculation on my part to be sure but in my opinion not one to sleep on.

In 1998, perhaps. Not almost seven years later.

There is a question if the investigation was "slow rolled," but it is clear that MTM did not know about the victim when he was running.

Also note that RFG could have decided that his office did not have sufficient resources in 1998 and requested the AG to enter into it (the AG being Mike Fisher). Likewise, RFG could prosecuted the case at any time after that, so the "slow roll" was not Corbett's.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I respectfully reject all of the above, for the reasons previously posted.

You may, but that will not change the fact that attorney's must be paid, if you go into court, that life insurance has to be paid to remain in force, and that there is a difference between retirement planning and estate planning.

I also does not explain why RFG had less than $1300 in interest in 2004, from one source in 2004.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Probated wills are public information in PA. But trusts are not generally public information. If Gricar had conveyed any real estate to a trust, it would appear on the public record. That does not appear to be the case here, as Gricar apparently owned no real estate after he and Emma conveyed their home in 2002.

The interest from them would be, in this case.

The home was conveyed in 2001; it was sold to a third party in 2002.

 

[Saunterer]

Thank you for being thorough Saunterer. I tend to agree that "Three's Company" here and certainly is more information than we learned in the last couple of years and is definitely an avenue of interest and deserves to be explored.

:twocents:

Respectfully, no...three is not comany, it is a crowd! May turn out to be something and may not. But it is intriguing...as in not yet a dead horse...unlike some other unworkable postulations.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully, no...three is not comany, it is a crowd! May turn out to be something and may not. But it is intriguing...as in not yet a dead horse...unlike some other unworkable postulations.

Three stories, but not necessary three people.

Ironically, while ABC's 23 is perhaps the most farfetched, is the one that doesn't have any evidence against it.


Now, why didn't RFG report any interest above $1300 in 2004?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

<modsnip>

RFG in common with all other elected public officials is required to file an annual "Statement of Financial Interest." On that form the public official is required to list all income from a specific source that is in the aggregate of $1300 or more. RFG's 2004 form lists nothing. Neither does his 2005 form signed by LG. Tax exempt income is included.

The law was not amended on this point since 1998, and while the old forms didn't state so specifically, the current form does include interest from joint accounts.

So either RFG didn't have interest from one source, like from a retirement account, above $1300 or he falsified the form. If all the interest came from different accounts, e.g. a bank, the total interest would be included. Now, the penalty for falsifying the form is $1000 or one year, or both.

 

[Saunterer]

<modsnip>

RFG in common with all other elected public officials is required to file an annual "Statement of Financial Interest." On that form the public official is required to list all income from a specific source that is in the aggregate of $1300 or more. RFG's 2004 form lists nothing. Neither does his 2005 form signed by LG. Tax exempt income is included.

The law was not amended on this point since 1998, and while the old forms didn't state so specifically, the current form does include interest from joint accounts.

So either RFG didn't have interest from one source, like from a retirement account, above $1300 or he falsified the form. If all the interest came from different accounts, e.g. a bank, the total interest would be included. Now, the penalty for falsifying the form is $1000 or one year, or both.

Link?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Link?

Pennsylvania Right to Know law. They are filed at the county, but the only ones they still have on file were 2005 and 2006 filings, covering 2004 and 2005.

They are a matter of public record.

I'm sure you can request them. The instructions are here: http://centrecountypa.gov/index.aspx?nid=166

 

[Salem]

No, it is a statement of fact.

RFG in common with all other elected public officials is required to file an annual "Statement of Financial Interest." On that form the public official is required to list all income from a specific source that is in the aggregate of $1300 or more. RFG's 2004 form lists nothing. Neither does his 2005 form signed by LG. Tax exempt income is included.

The law was not amended on this point since 1998, and while the old forms didn't state so specifically, the current form does include interest from joint accounts.

So either RFG didn't have interest from one source, like from a retirement account, above $1300 or he falsified the form. If all the interest came from different accounts, e.g. a bank, the total interest would be included. Now, the penalty for falsifying the form is $1000 or one year, or both.

I concur. I do not know about PA law - but in CA, a public official and ANY public employee in a position of discretionary review MUST file a Statement of Financial Interest. Even if you have nothing to report - you must file the statement.

Salem

ETA: The statement must be filed yearly.

 

[Saunterer]

Pennsylvania Right to Know law. They are filed at the county, but the only ones they still have on file were 2005 and 2006 filings, covering 2004 and 2005.

They are a matter of public record.

I'm sure you can request them. The instructions are here: http://centrecountypa.gov/index.aspx?nid=166

I am sure I would not have to if you have already done so. After all, one might think we are in this together. Not?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I concur. I do not know about PA law - but in CA, a public official and ANY public employee in a position of discretionary review MUST file a Statement of Financial Interest. Even if you have nothing to report - you must file the statement.

Salem

It has been that way since 1979 in PA. Anything from the local school board member (elected in PA) to the Governor is required to file.

A newer copy of the form is here, but the last page says where they must be filed. That requirement hasn't changed since 1983. http://www.phila.gov/ethicsboard/PDF/SEC1 Statement Of Financial Iterests Form Rev 01_131.pdf

 

[Saunterer]

JJ: Please publish your full and complete RTK request and the full and complete response to your request, so that we may appropriately evaluate your assertion of fact. Otherwise, it is just your unfounded opinion...right?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In short, in the three years prior to 12/31/04, RFG had grossed at least $350,000. He said that he earned no interest, even tax exempt interest, in the year 2004. Interest rates were low, but higher than today. He said that there was no source of interest greater than $1,300 during that period.

In 2006, LG of 2005, that, in spite of RFG grossing another $32,250, there was no interest from a single source above $1300.00.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ: Please publish your full and complete RTK request and the full and complete response to your request, so that we may appropriately evaluate your assertion of fact. Otherwise, it is just your opinion...right?

Well, I will get one helleva blog out of it.

I'll consider it, right after the source of the police statement that all the finances were accounted for is made. It is my third asking. My Right to Know request was "for the Statement of Financial Interest forms (State Ethics Committee required) for Ray Gricar that were filed in the years 1998 through 2006 (nine years). These would cover the years 1997 through 2005."

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Since any individual can request this information and it is a matter of public record, people may check for themselves. There is a link to the location where to order the forms. It is very clear that there are such forms. The years that are available are listed.

The only reason not to check is if a poster really doesn't want to know.