Jerry Sandusky’s ‘Victim 1′ a hero just like
the kid who brought down the Catholic Church

by Lou Rom

Some folks within Penn State and elsewhere want to complicate the growing Jerry Sandusky scandal.

It benefits them to do so.

But the scandal can really be reduced to an old-fashioned case of Good versus Evil.

The problem, though, is that too many of the good people were sitting on the outside looking in. And the evil people hid behind their veil of secrecy and failed to take sufficient action to prevent further abuses at the hands of Sandusky.

There are many who should be commended for their effort to break that silence, to raze the façade of truth and good will put forth by the university and reveal the ugly skeleton of an institution hell-bent on preserving its power and money and caring little about victims.

But the real heroes are the victims who have come forward in the name of protecting others, people like “Victim 1,” who blew the Sandusky case wide open.

And, while the horror story that is Jerry Sandusky and the Second Mile serves as a sad reminder of the sex abuse scandal that once rocked the Catholic Church. 

The courage of Victim 1 reminds me of another hero, a young boy named Scott Gastal.

Perhaps no one deserves greater admiration than Scott Gastal, the doe-eyed, sandy-haired 11-year-old boy, who in 1985, told investigators how a disarming Cajun priest named Gilbert Gauthé repeatedly sodomized him and photographed him having sex with other prepubescent boys.

Scott’s willingness to come forward opened the floodgates for countless other victims — those of Gauthé, countless priests from Southwest Louisiana and elsewhere.

It gave them the courage to look past the misplaced guilt and shame that rape victims feel and take a stand against a man who personified evil incarnate yet dared wear a Roman collar. And, ultimately, it gave police and prosecutors enough evidence to put Gauthé in prison.

No more need be said about the unspeakable acts that Gauthé imposed on young Scott.

Today, you need only look in his ice blue eyes, to see his legs and arms constantly shake, to sit through the long silences that come when discussing the impact of his abuse at the hands of Gauthé, to realize that the $1 million a jury awarded him in 1986 could never begin the needed healing.

In 1985, three psychologists examined Scott and described him as irrevocably damaged.

One doctor said Scott felt “guilty” and “unlovable”; that he feared being abandoned by those he loved most. Another observed, “I think he’s going to be wrestling with this throughout his life.”

His mother, Faye Gastal, saw it in his actions.

“He didn’t just run in for no reason and hug and kiss me like he used to … He didn’t sleep at night anymore. He walked the floor. I’d get up all hours of the night and he was up – checking the doors to make sure they were locked, peeping through the windows to see if anyone was driving up or if there was anyone outside,” she told the court.

Scott, then 11, had this to say about the impact of Gauthé’s molestations:

“When (my daddy) hugs me I feel funny.”

Today, it’s evident that Scott continues to wrestle with his demons, most notably Gauthé. He takes several medications to calm his post-traumatic stress disorder, his anxiety disorder and his manic depression. He bounces from job to job – “the stress is just too much,” he says. He has “no friends” and goes days at a time without uttering a single word.

It’s fitting, if not disturbing.

Because words could not describe the horrible acts that Gauthé, gun by his side, forced Scott into. Nor could they describe how it must have felt when a bevy of church lawyers looked into young Scott’s eyes and called him a liar.

Today, Scott wields no weapons. Those eyes, though, are dangerous to those uncomfortable with the truth about sexual abuse.

They speak volumes of the damage absorbed by victims. They speak volumes, too, about the little boy responsible for taking down one of America’s most notorious pedophiles.

Broke, betrayed and beside himself, Scott says he would do it all again if it meant saving one child.

“In a heartbeat,” he says.

No doubt about it, Scott Gastal is every bit a hero.

Lou Rom, an award-winning multimedia journalist is a member of the 2k2 club, having published over 2,000 articles and produced more than 2,000 hours of radio programming. He lives and works in NYC. Contact him at lou@theromreport.com.

A billboard erected by the North Iowa Tea Party that compared President Barack Obama with Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin was replaced this morning after generating a political firestorm and a backlash against the group.The billboard, paid for by local Tea Partiers, was erected last week in Mason City. It lumped the three leaders under the banner of “socialism” and proclaimed, “Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive.”
The founder of the 200-member group, Bob Johnson, said yesterday that the billboard would remain up for a month, the Des Moines Register reports. But last night the billboard company was told to remove the message, which was papered over today with a public-service announcement.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/07/tea-party-billboard-comparing-obama-with-hitler-lenin-removed-in-iowa/1

Louisiana prides itself on being a pro-family state.

But during the 2010 legislative session several laws are being considered that would seriously hurt Louisiana families, single fathers in particular.

I’d like to focus on one of those laws today, SB 236, which is being pushed by Sen. Julie Quinn. This bill requires your immediate attention if you are a single parent.

SB 236 seeks to remove the word “should” from the following sentence and replace it with “may” –  “physical custody of children should be shared equally in a joint custody decree.”

This sentence is the foundation of our court’s approach to joint custody in Louisiana law, and has been for about 20 years. By stating that physical custody should be shared equally, the law recommends that unless dire circumstances exist to suggest otherwise, shared physical custody should be granted.

Changing should to may alters years of precedent in the state and hurts Louisiana families.

Quinn’s argument for the bill is that because should is not in Black’s Law Dictionary, nor in Louisiana law, the use of it in this sentence leaves for broad discrepancies in judges’ interpretation of the law.

I, for one, believe that our judges are perfectly capable of applying the common sense definition of should in the context of this sentence.

And, frankly, if Quinn really wanted to pass a simple “housekeeping” bill to clarify the law — rather than significantly alter the law — then she should have (there’s that word again) introduced a bill to add a legal definition for should to Louisiana’s civil code.

And, by the way, she would not have to look far to find it.

Three states have defined should in their civil code: Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.

• Pennsylvania law states that, “‘should indicates that an action is advisable but not required.”

• Rhode Island law’s definition reads, “should indicates a recommendation, not a requirement.” 

• And, finally, Vermont law dictates that, “should means that an activity is encouraged but not mandated.

 I learned that in a few hours.

I wonder how many hours Sen. Quinn spent drafting legislation masked as housekeeping that clearly changes the intent of the law?

I wonder, also, if Sen. Quinn has ever taken the time to look up the word “devious?”

I’m thinking not, so I’ll define it here and save her some time:

Devious — misleading, oblique, characterized by insincerity or deceit.

 I’ll even use it in a sentence — the Senator’s characterization of the bill was misinformed at best, devious at worst.

These bills aren’t as ridiculous as Rickey Hardy’s bill that bans anyone 70 or over from running for office, or Sharon Broome’s bill that would require anyone seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound done, or, better yet, Walker Hines’ bill that would create a pet offender registry for those convicted of animal cruelty.

But they do tackle some really annoying stuff — yes, I said stuff — that, at the very least, irritates many of us on a regular basis, and, in a worst case scenario, destroys society.  After great debate, and consulting with the team of marketing gurus that gave us the Quarter Pounder, I decided to call these brilliant ideas, Lou’s Bills.

• LB 1 — Requires vending machines to have a phone number posted, at eye level for average people, in a minimum 36-point font, to call when said machine takes your money but screws you out of your goodies. Fine: Four continuous hours playing that impossible “hook the stuffed animal” game.

• LB 2 — Bans kids from teasing a fenced-in dog. Fine: offenders would spend eight hours in an appropriate-sized doggy kennel.

• LB 3 — Requires utility companies to schedule connections in no more than 2-hour windows. Fine — two hours with Joan Rivers, which, inevitably would turn into 10 hours with Joan Rivers.”Am I smiling? I can’t feel my face.” 

• LB 4 — Triples the fine for people who do not use their turn signals. Fine: I don’t know what the fine would be, but by tripling the fine we can use fun terms like, “I triple dog dare you to turn without using your signal.”

• LB 5 — Bans retailers from placing stuff on thin metal sticks hanging at toddler eye level. Fine: Two hours, after midnight, watching the new Chatroulette 3d.

• LB 6 — Requires telephone solicitors to ask for people by their full name, not the typical, “Hey, is Louie home?” Fine: I’ll let you folks suggest that fine.

• LB 7 — Requires cable companies to offer an a la carte menu that allows people to pick and choose their channels creating a “custom” tier. Fine: One million dollars, or an afternoon with Dr. Evil.

• LB 8 — Bans politicians from changing parties less than one year away from an election. Fine: Listening to the Jeff Crouere show for more than 10 minutes.

• LB 9 — Require plumbers to wear suspenders. Fine: I don’t know that any fine, in this matter of national security, could be too harsh.

• LB 10 — Requires newborn girls to have their tubes tied at birth, thus forcing them to spend a few bucks and go under the knife before having a baby. If they can’t rustle up the cash or are afraid of a small incision, they’re not ready to have kids. Fine: An afternoon with any pro-abstinence Joan Crawford clone.

That’s all I got today folks. More serious stuff coming next.

 Gov. Bobby Jindal, in what is expected to be a somewhat grim address, will lay out his priorities for  2010 at the legislative session, which begins at noon today.

Nearly 2,000 bills — running the gamut from thoughtful to much-needed to just plain goofy — have been filed. Among some of the highlights — bills to eliminate red light cameras, that call for a life sentence for twice-convicted child molesters, impose zero tolerance for school bus drivers convicted of a DWI, and nullify the recently-passed federal health care reform.

Because this is an even year, leges cannot address taxation issues, but that does not mean that finances won’t weigh heavily during this session as the house and senate try to cut and paste together a $24.2 billion budget with the state facing a projected $1 billion shortfall.

Acadiana legislators have filed some worthwhile bills, and a few that make some ask, “if this is the circus, then where are my peanuts?”

One of the session’s most talked about bills comes from Sen. A.G. Crowe, R-Slidell. He has filed a bill that seeks to nullify health care reform passed by Congress, claiming it is unconstitutional.

And, though I am doubtful, perhaps this is the year that Rep. Wayne Waddell succeeds at garnering support for his bills that would open the governor’s office to the same Sunshine Laws that Jindal sought for legislators.

At least two bills by Acadiana leges address the safety of children on public school buses. One just happens to throw away that annoying little phrase, “innocent until proven guilty,” while another one actually tackles the problem head on without much fanfare.

The first, HB 104 by Rep. Rickey Hardy, requires any driver who is arrested for a DWI to remain in jail 48 hours after their arrest. Hardy’s bill is a response to the recent DWI arrest of Lafayette Parish school bus driver, Kenny Joseph Mire, who hopped on a bus and drove our children around barely two hours after he was released from jail. Mire has been charged with three DWIs over the last 10 years, but is yet to be convicted.

A more direct bill introduced by Rep. Nancy Landry, HB 1170, would prohibit commercial driver’s license holders from operating school buses after a single DWI conviction. In other words, one and you’re done. Landry told The Rom Report on Saturday that, “when it comes to our kids’ safety … there should be no second chances.”

While Hardy’s DWI bill is somewhat convoluted, many of his bills make so much sense they stand next to no chance of passing (sarcasm intended). Among Hardy’s better efforts:

• HB 988 would end benefits to welfare recipients who do not vote.
• HB 431 would require twice-convicted child molesters to serve a life sentence. 
• HB 101 would, with voter approval on a Constitutional amendment, impose term limits on District Attorneys, Judges and Sheriffs.

But Hardy’s DWI bill is not the only one he’s authored that strikes at our Constitutional rights. In addition to holding those charged with DWI for 48 hours, he also wants to prohibit anyone charged with a felony from being released on their own recognizance — a bill that, interestingly enough, would hurt those not flush with cash, i.e., many of his constituents.

Rep. Joel Robideaux’s agenda is quite modest this year –  he has introduced a handful of bills looking to tweak the State Employees’ Retirement System and limit insurance payouts to some judicial retirees.

Rep. Jeff Arnold of New Orleans is hot on the tail of those behind the proliferation of red light cameras in Louisiana. Arnold, via HB 160 and three other bills, urges fellow leges to turn out the lights on red light cameras and speed van companies like RedFlex.

Of the four bills Arnold proposes, I strongly support HB 159, which would return “due process” to a system that currently forces people to pay their tickets before they can appeal.

Rep. Landry has some other worthwhile, if not earth-shattering bills, on the agenda as well, including:

• HB 315 criminalizes the act of giving false information to law enforcement officers trying to serve a protective order.
• HB 1025 requires school boards to provide written notification to parents one year prior to implementing new or changing existing school dress codes.
• HB 1146 eliminates a ridiculous guarantee to free civil counsel for deadbeat parents engaged in an intra-family adoption squabble.

Other nonsensical bills include:

• A bill filed by state Senate President Pro-tem Sharon Broome, SB 528, is designed to shame women into not having an abortion. The bill would require anyone seeking to have an abortion — do they still provide abortions in Louisiana? — to have an ultrasound prior to terminating the pregnancy. 
• Rep. Walker Hines’ HB 201 would create what I call a new “pet offender registry,” that is, it would require people convicted of animal cruelty to register with law enforcement for 10 years or face jail time. 
• Rep. Hardy’s HB 470 would prohibit anyone over 70 from running for elective office. It’s at least worth a laugh over the next couple of months, and we’ll need a few of those as leges try to pare $1 billion of the budget. 

Now, you will notice that I left out some biggies here — such as Jindal’s effort to eliminate the Lieutenant Governor’s position and the debate over Higher Education funding. Well, I’ll leave that to the so-called big boys to debate for now. I will, in time, tackle those issues when I have more room to afford them.

You ever wake up one morning, look in the mirror and go, “Who the hell is that guy? How did I grow so old so quickly without noticing until now?”

Well, I imagine that’s how the Bill of Rights would feel today, if, indeed, it were the living, breathing document its framers believed it to be.

You see, the Bill of Rights has taken a beating lately. Not just in this monster of a health care bill, but over the last 30 years, and most notably, since that fateful day of September 11th, 2001.

By my account, the Bill of Rights is currently comprised of three amendments, not the famous 10 we wax poetically about. At least, that’s the number that I would say remain unscathed by both Republican and Democrat attacks.

Let’s go down the list …

• The 1st Amendment — Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion 

• I direct you to Exhibit A, otherwise known as federal Hate Crimes Legislation. Need I say more? Now, for Exhibit B. Well, too many to list, but for example, how about the Stafford, Va., reverend who was told he could not hold an outdoor baptism at a public park because some might find it offensive?

• The 2nd Amendment — The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

• How about the Brady Bill, legislation that prevents those with conceal carry permits from carrying a gun on college campuses. The right for responsible citizens to bear arms has been so abridged that a year after Hurricane Katrina one U.S. Senator introduced a bill guaranteeing that police could not take guns from Americans during federal emergencies — just in case people needed reminding about the 2nd Amendment.

• The 3rd Amendment — No Quartering of Troops 

• We are officially one for three now.

• The 4th Amendment  — Protection from unreasonable search and seizure

• So, does the paradoxically-named Patriot Act ring a bell? Let’s see here — unwarranted wire taps? unwarranted searches? bills passed under W that allow the government to eavesdrop on private emails, texts, IMs between an American and someone in another country? And let’s not forget the so-called Sneak-n-Peak warrants, which let authorities search a property without immediately notifying the target of a probe. I could go on here, but you get the picture.

• The 5th Amendment — the right to due process (shall not be deprived of life, liberty, property … without due process)

• How about Red Light cameras and those cute little Redflex vans down the street? or the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, which allows the government to seize your assets because they think they might have been used in the commission of a crime.

•  The 6th Amendment — trial by jury, speedy trial

• I point you to the case of hacker extraordinaire Kevin Mitnick, who was held without an indictment, without bail, without a trial for more than four years. Mitnick, such a threat to society, is now one of the highest-paid security consultants in the country.

• The 7th Amendment — the right of trial by civil jury

• We’re almost hitting .300 now, though some would argue with my take that the protections derived from this amendment remain relatively in tact.

• The 8th Amendment –  prohibition of excessive bail

• While there are countless examples to choose from here, I need only turn to a recent one involving former high school teacher Larry Callier Jr., who faces three child pornography charges. Callier has not been charged with murder or rape, or any act of violence, and is being held without bail because prosecutors told a judge that “based on the technology today … there’s nothing we can do to truly protect children…” from Callier. 

•  The 9th Amendment — The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

• This is kind of a grab bag of Constitutional compromises, but for the sake of brevity I’ll offer  few examples — the right to do as you please with your land, the right to travel where you want when you want (think Cuba), the right to spend or invest your money where you want when you want (trade embargoes, etc.), and, finally, the right to buy whatever health care plan you want.

•  The 10th Amendment — States Rights 

• Where do I begin? Well, I’ll start with something an old political science professor used to tell me about States Rights — Assistance, Encumbrance, Extortion. In English, it means — the federal government offers states money, say, for highways; the federal government then allows the states to come to depend on this money; then, the federal government threatens to take said money away unless states comply with the federal mandates. 

 So, while it’s easy to get carried away with our frustration and anger over Obamacare, the truth is that every day for the last 30 or so years politicians and our courts have been chipping away at the edifice of our Constitution — most notably, the Bill of Rights — until what is left is a broken down rock pile. No one party, nor one president is to blame. We, the citizens, who let it happen, are part and parcel to the assault on our freedoms.

Now, typically, this is where I end the column with something uplifting, thoughtful, or, oh so witty. Well, after writing this sobering piece of journalism, I got nothing folks. Maybe your responses will inspire me.

Lou Rom, an award-winning journalist, with over 2,000 articles published, hosts Lou Rom Live weekdays from 4-6 pm on KVOL1330. Contact him at kvolou@yahoo.com