The student’s attorney, Andrew Shubin, said there are no “contemporaneous reports relative to the alleged criminal conduct” against former Daily Collegian photographer Maxwell C. Kruger. Shubin also contended that police deleted e-mails pertaining to Kruger’s case.

Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira said Shubin is making an assumption that the e-mails have substance to the case. Madeira added police testimony of their observations of that night are evidence of Kruger’s actions.

Kruger, 138 S. Atherton St., was charged with felony riot and misdemeanor failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and criminal mischief after police said he stood on the roof of a car while taking pictures during the Oct. 25 riot. Police estimated damage to the vehicle at about $4,475.

However, police did not document Kruger’s possible actions that night, Shubin said. The charges came after Kruger approached the State College Police Department Oct. 27 to file a complaint against police for using excessive force, he said.

It was after this meeting that Detective Ken Ferron of the State College Police Department obtained a photograph of Kruger and circulated it to other officers, according to the criminal complaint.

Patton Township Police Officer Jeff McElrath recognized Kruger as a man he had seen standing on top of a car, according the complaint.

McElrath testified at Kruger’s preliminary hearing that he yelled at the 21-year-old “five or six different times” to leave before pepper spraying him.

Shubin said this use of force is required to be documented, and said police should have recorded this the night of the riot along with Kruger’s actions. Additionally, e-mails about the case should have been turned over to the defense instead of being deleted, Shubin said.

He’s been asking for the charges to be dismissed since Kruger’s preliminary hearing in December, saying there is no evidence his client did anything other than stand on the car and take pictures.

“Mr. Shubin is doing what a defense attorney is supposed to do,” Madiera said. “He’s spinning the case in a way that favors his client.”

Centre County District Judge Jonathan Grine cited lack of evidence as a reason for dismissing the criminal mischief charges involving tampering with private property against Olivia Guevara (graduate – labor studies and employment).

The university alleged that Guevara and six other students wrote anti-sweatshop messages in chalk on six university buildings Sept. 27. University spokesman Bill Mahon said Sunday that the chalk scratched the doors of the buildings.

After viewing clips from a surveillance tape taken at Old Main that night, Grine said Guevara was only clearly identifiable in one instance. Grine said he recognized Guevara writing on a column in front of the building.

Andrew Shubin, Guevara’s attorney, argued that there was no evidence indicating actual damage to the column and there was no evidence proving that Guevara was involved in chalking of the other buildings.

Roxanne Snider, a Penn State University police officer, said she did not have pictures of the column in question because a janitorial service was washing away the chalk by the time she arrived at Old Main. No video footage or pictures of the students chalking the other buildings was presented.

Shubin also argued that the court was selectively prosecuting Guevara because other groups that had advertised by chalking university property had not been charged. He showed pictures of chalked messages on campus from MTVU and Lionmenus.com.

Snider said she did not pursue the other incidents because they were not reported to the police department.

Guevara, an activist who has in the past petitioned the university to adopt an anti-sweatshop policy, has already been fined $450 by Penn State’s judicial affairs for damage the university said she caused to the doors of Old Main. Guevara said she also received a citation on her academic record.

The decision of judicial affairs would stand regardless of the decision of the court. Guevara has already exhausted her appeals through the university.

Mahon said judicial affairs and criminal court are two separate entities and a discrepancy in rulings is not unheard of.

Eyad Elbattah, of Forty Fort, was involved in an altercation on Aug. 3 with employees of the All American Rathskeller, 108 Pugh St. Elbattah appeared before District Justice Jonathan Grine on Friday to contest the citations against him.

Rathskeller manager Christopher Rosengrant was involved in the altercation and was subpoenaed to testify at Elbattah’s hearing.

At the hearing, Grine advised Rosengrant of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

“Anything you say in these proceedings can be used against you in other proceedings,” Grine told Rosengrant.

After speaking with his attorney over the telephone, Rosengrant decided to assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify.

Rosengrant and his brother Jason Rosengrant are charged with involuntary manslaughter in connection with Penn State student Peter Serrano’s death.

Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar, who is prosecuting Rosengrant in the Serrano case, said he could not comment on whether he would use Elbattah’s case during the Serrano trial to show a pattern of behavior by Rosengrant.

“That’s too speculative at this point,” Gricar said.

Rosengrant’s attorney, Robert Munley, also would not comment on whether Elbattah’s case might affect the Serrano trial.

Serrano died on Oct. 26 after an altercation with several Rathskeller employees. When police arrived, Serrano was being restrained by Rathskeller employees and was unresponsive. He was taken to Mount Nittany Medical Center, where he was later pronounced dead.

During Friday’s hearing, Elbattah testified that Rathskeller employees also forcefully restrained him.

Elbattah, who was a Penn State Hazleton student at the time of the incident, was in State College to attend a wedding.

At about 11 p.m. on Aug. 2, Elbattah said he and several members of the wedding party tried to get into the Rathskeller but were refused entry. After a short verbal confrontation, the party left and went to another bar.

Elbattah said during his testimony that the altercation took place when he was walking down Pugh Street at about 2 a.m. on Aug. 3. He said a Rathskeller employee attacked him from behind. He said a man with a large arm choked him from behind and brought him to the ground. While on the ground, Elbattah said the man continued to choke him while forcing his knee into his back. He said he felt short of breath and slipped in and out of consciousness.

Elbattah was later taken to Centre Community Hospital, now Mount Nittany Medical Center. According to a medical record entered into evidence at the hearing, Elbattah was treated for “acute facial abrasions and acute head contusions.”

At Friday’s hearing, Elbattah could not name the person who he said choked him. However, Elbattah pointed to Rosengrant, who was in the courtroom along with the other Rathskeller employees involved in the altercation, and said he thought it was probably him because he recognized Rosengrant’s large arms.

Rathskeller doorman Joseph Kunkle gave a very different account of the incident.

Kunkle said during his testimony that Elbattah was not simply walking down the street when the altercation began. He said Elbattah approached the entrance of the Rathskeller around 2 a.m. and asked him if anyone from the wedding party was in the bar. Kunkle said he told Elbattah that no one from the party was in the bar, and then Elbattah hit him in the face. Kunkle said he called to other Rathskeller employees for help and asked someone to call the police.

Kunkle said Elbattah began backing away from the bar after hitting him, saying, “Don’t follow me. If you do, someone else is going to get hit.” Kunkle said he and other Rathskeller employees followed Elbattah onto Pugh Street to restrain him until police arrived.

Kunkle said he did not see anyone choke Elbattah. He also said Rosengrant was not involved much in the incident because he had recently undergone hernia surgery.

State College Police Department officer Kris Slabic responded to the call on Aug. 3. At Friday’s hearing, she said when she arrived at the scene, she observed Rathskeller employees restraining Elbattah while he struggled with them. She said she interviewed the employees and then placed Elbattah under arrest. She later cited him for disorderly conduct, public drunkenness and harassment.

On cross-examination, Elbattah’s attorney Andrew Shubin asked Slabic if she actually witnessed the incident. Slabic said she had not and said her information came primarily from Rathskeller employees. Shubin then asked Slabic if she interviewed Elbattah about what happened. She said she did not.

During his testimony, Elbattah said police never talked to him about the incident. He said he called the State College Police Department five or six times in the weeks following the incident, but his calls were never returned.

During his closing statement to the district justice, Shubin said Slabic’s failure to speak to Elbattah about his account of the incident had serious repercussions.

“This officer arrested the wrong person, and if she had done the right job, Peter Serrano might still be alive,” Shubin said.

In her closing statement, Slabic countered this claim.

“[Elbattah] read about Peter Serrano and is jumping on the bandwagon to respond to these citations,” Slabic said.

Elbattah said reading about what happened to Serrano “took my breath away.” Because he felt his situation was similar to what happened to Serrano, he contacted the attorney representing Serrano’s family. He said he told the attorney, “If you need me for anything, I’m here. I’ve been through this.”

Grine said he will make a decision on Elbattah’s citations early this week.

Felletter was bound over for trial on one of five counts of failure to disperse Wednesday morning. His other misdemeanor charge, disorderly conduct, was dismissed in a ruling his defense attorney called “a giant step in the right direction.”

Felletter stands charged with failure to disperse because he “was participating in a riot by taking photographs that would excite the crowd and encourage destructive behavior, and refused to orders [sic] to disperse,” according to the criminal complaint.

Andrew Shubin, Felletter’s attorney, said there is no dispute the photographer was there solely to gather news — and he said police pursued his client because he had a camera.

“My client was targeted, initially, because he was a member of the press,” said Shubin, who is representing Felletter pro bono on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Magisterial District Judge Carmine Prestia said he dismissed the disorderly conduct charge because the crowd’s actions were not Felletter’s fault. The judge dismissed all of the counts of failure to disperse but one, saying a sole charge was sufficient. The press is not above the law, he said.

“The media has no greater right to the scene than the general public,” he said.

Prestia echoed some of Assistant District Attorney Karen Kuebler’s closing arguments. She, too, argued the press does not have more access to events than the public.

“Mr. Felletter cannot hide behind the First Amendment,” she said.

Shubin vehemently disagreed, arguing that if the press is exposed to legal action, reporters and photographers might be reluctant to cover events in the future.

“Without the press, we’re sort of operating in a vacuum,” he said. “Media representatives have a special right to acquire and disseminate news.”

State College Police Officer Nick Argiro testified that during the Oct. 25 riot — a scene of about 4,500 people — he saw Felletter and talked to him three times. Though the officer said he did not conclude the photographer was a member of the media, he said the camera “stood out.”

“There were still people throwing things, cursing at officers,” he said. “Picture this room with another 1,000 people in it. … The disorder was everywhere,” he said.

In their final encounter, the photographer had his head down and was snapping pictures of Argiro, he said.

The officer then stopped the photographer. “I said, ‘You know what? You can’t leave,’ ” Argiro said in court.

He then asked for Felletter’s identification. That very action, Collegian Editor in Chief Terry Casey said, could prevent future photographers from doing their job.

“The next time there is a similar instance, how many photographers would be as willing as Mike was to do the same job — to photograph a potentially dangerous situation?” he said.

During a later interview, Argiro said he told Felletter he might be able to help himself out if he contacted State College Police Capt. Dana Leonard about photographs taken during the riot. The photographer declined.

Argiro told the court people acted more exuberantly and disorderly because the photographer’s camera was on them. When Felletter took photographs of the crowd, they shoved, pushed and swore more than before, Argiro said.

Another officer expressed a different view, however.

Charles Hamilton, of the State College Police Department, said he saw Felletter in the area taking pictures shortly after he arrived.

Hamilton did not order the photographer to disperse, but told him “he was fine where he was.”

The photographer even alerted the officer to people throwing things at him, Hamilton said.

Felletter stepped out of his role as a photographer to help Hamilton, Shubin said, protecting the officer from harm. What’s more, the press needs to be present at events like those of the Oct. 25 riot to document them for the public and police, he argued. Felletter, he said, was performing a vital service.

“The night of the riot, my client was a photographer,” Shubin argued. “My client and other news gatherers weren’t there to throw bottles.”

Varner, who began his career in 1972 as an SCI Huntingdon guard and who became Greene’s superintendent in May 1997, was punished in April with a $6,600-a-year pay cut and transfer to SCI Retreat, a medium-security Luzerne County prison. He declined to discuss his time at SCI Greene.

Varner replaced James Price after Price, another alumni of Huntingdon’s guard ranks, was named superintendent at Pittsburgh after last year’s escape of six inmates there. Price, Greene’s first superintendent, did not respond to requests for an interview.

Former guard Lavia said SCI Greene deteriorated after Price departed and Varner took over: “When Price left, that place went downhill. It was a totally hateful place to work. Once he left, the leash was taken off. Varner’s attitude was that this is the toughest camp in the state. That’s the way it’s going to be. As a guard, you were right in somebody’s face all the time.”

Lavia noted that Varner himself ordered the RHU wall pad. “That’s what I couldn’t believe. I said to myself, he’s just asking for trouble here. He’s admitting he’s doing something wrong. We know we’re banging them against the bricks.”

Varner’s transfer was significant to prison policy observers.

“It’s a pretty extraordinary thing, in my view,” said Andrew Shubin, a State College lawyer who has filed numerous civil rights suits on inmates’ behalf. “The old (department) always promoted problematic employees, but it’s a nice turnaround that Martin Horn has disciplined somebody who has had problems.”

Gregory White, the superintendent Price replaced at Pittsburgh, was demoted and sent to Greene as Varner’s assistant following the escape at the Woods Run prison. White was transferred again in June, to SCI Greensburg.

Philip Johnson, a native of the North Side who began his career as a Pittsburgh prison guard, is trying to put the pieces back together at Greene. He concedes the challenge but plans no wholesale overhaul.

“I was not sent down here to clean house, swing the axes. It was recognized that there was a problem with the management style.” At the same time, “I don’t want to sit back too long and do nothing.”

One of Johnson’s first changes was to revise the “very restrictive” grievance procedure that spurred the Brandon incident last year. The buck had been constantly passed on grievances. When an inmate filed one against an employee, lower-level supervisors passed it up the line to Beerman.

“No one was taking the responsibility,” Johnson said. “Consequently, it was going straight to the superintendent’s assistant.”

Beerman, inundated with grievances, changed the process to require that inmates complete a grievance request slip before getting a grievance form. Inmates say guards often refused their requests for such slips, so they couldn’t file grievances.

When Johnson took over in May, he changed the policy, saying, “the whole system itself did not work.” Grievance forms are available in boxes in the general population blocks and by request in the RHU.

Johnson also expanded the list of items that can be purchased by inmates in administrative custody in the RHU. And he ordered legal material for death row inmates to be stored in their blocks, instead of in another part of the RHU, and let inmates have access to legal material once a week rather than monthly.

RHU guards have been told to temper commands during strip searches and be more patient. Johnson spoke with each guard about department policies, especially regarding use of force.

“I’ve addressed every shift at roll call about what my personal philosophy of the institution is,” he said. “If we go by the (department’s use of force) policy, there won’t be any problems. There aren’t any gray areas about when force can be used.”

Johnson is reluctant to discuss what happened at Greene before he arrived but said he has reviewed some RHU videos. He has no problem with discipline handed out by his bosses in Camp Hill. “My position is to move this institution forward. I can’t continue to second-guess decisions that have already been made.”

Many guards and inmates have known Johnson for years, mainly his 10 1/2 at SCI Pittsburgh. He plans to keep inmates’ respect by dealing with them honestly.

“If you’re honest with the inmates and tell them what you can do and tell them what you can’t do, they’ll respect that. It’s not our job to punish them further than what the courts have already done.”

At an hourlong hearing Monday, District Judge Jonathan Grine dismissed the charge against Olivia Guevara, 23, a leader of United Students Against Sweatshops.

Guevara said the decision “pretty much empowered” the group to continue its campaign at Penn State.

“We’re not going to stop,” she said outside the courtroom. “We’re going to keep on going.”

University police had cited Guevara in connection with messages chalked on Old Main and the chemistry, life sciences, Willard and Thomas buildings.

The messages, urging Penn State to adopt a more aggressive stance against sweatshop labor, appeared Sept. 27.

A citation against Guevara, signed by campus Officer Roxanne Snider, accused the graduate student of writing the messages and causing $408.96 in damage to the buildings.

Campus security cameras recorded a number of people at Old Main at the time of the incident. Snider showed a recording to Grine, Guevara and defense attorney Andrew Shubin on Monday.

Grine said he saw no evidence that would implicate Guevara in the chalking that happened away from Old Main.

And even at Old Main, Grine indicated, the evidence showed only that Guevara apparently wrote on an exterior pillar.

Shubin argued that behavior alone could not amount to criminal mischief. The definition of “criminal mischief” includes intentional damage.

“The purpose of using sidewalk chalk is not to cause damage to person or property,” Shubin told Grine. “My 7-year-old could come in and testify to that fact.”

Shubin also said that Penn State appeared to have used selective prosecution against Guevara — a discriminatory practice. He cited more than a half-dozen other photos of public chalk messages that were apparent on campus in mid-November to mid-December.

None of those resulted in prosecution by university police. According to a posted policy, the university does not allow chalking of sidewalks and buildings, a witness testified.

Grine said that in four years on the bench, he had not seen Penn State try to prosecute anyone but Guevara for chalking.

“Do you have any response to that?” Grine asked Snider.

Snider let go a hesitant chuckle but did not answer. She soon argued that the chalking “endangered” a door at Old Main.

“There’s no evidence about the door,” Shubin shot back.

Later, with reporters, he said: “Isn’t it ironic that the one message that’s critical of Penn State is the one that winds up the target of prosecution?”

Snider, in the courtroom, said that the university may grant exceptions to the anti-chalk rule for groups that seek permission.

Under critical questioning from Grine, Snider conceded she was unsure of the policy specifics.

Guevara thinks Penn State targeted her as part of an intimidation plan against the anti-sweatshop movement, she has said.

Asked about those allegations Monday, university spokesman Bill Mahon said: “This is a vandalism case. We target vandals.”

Judicial Affairs, the university’s internal student judiciary, will list an offense on Guevara’s Penn State record for seven years, she said. She said her appeal of the Judicial Affairs decision failed.

Mahon said the Judicial Affairs matter involves alleged violations of the Student Code of Conduct — not criminal court matters.

“It’s not unheard of for a student to be involved in a case in which they’re found innocent at Judicial Affairs and guilty in a court, or vice-versa,” Mahon said.

He said Penn State thinks Guevara was involved in vandalism that included damage to the Old Main doors. In an e-mail exchange last month, Mahon wrote that “no chalking violation was investigated here or brought before Judicial Affairs.

“This is a case about the $500 damage to the door,” he wrote then.

Court and Judicial Affairs documents obtained by the Centre Daily Times do not mention specific damage to those doors. Snider said Monday that the chalking in September had included messages on the doors.

The security recording reviewed by Grine did not demonstrate precisely who wrote those particular messages, the judge noted.

Shubin said he did not charge for his services.

Introduced last May by state Sen. Joe Conti (R-Bucks), the legislation would enable courts to prosecute underage drinkers without requiring law enforcement officers to prove where the consumption or possession of the alcohol occurred.

Bucks County law enforcement officials asked Conti to introduce the legislation, said Chad Davis, Conti’s press secretary.

Sgt. Scott Ohs of the State College Police Department said the legislation addresses something that was not a major problem in State College.

“At times it is a problem,” he said. “There are those under-21 nights when kids come in from out of town. I wouldn’t call it a major obstacle, but it was a loophole. You used to have to prove the crime was committed in jurisdiction, but now you don’t have to show that proof.”

Under the new legislation an officer would be able to cite an underage drinker who shows the obvious and common signs of underage drinking even if he does not have any alcohol with him, Ohs said.

Utilization of the existing loophole occurs a lot in the area state Sen. Jake Corman (R-Centre) represents, including Centre, Clinton, Mifflin counties and part of Juniata County, Don Houser, Corman’s executive assistant, said.

For example, a minor might consume alcohol in College Township, Houser said, but get cited for underage drinking in State College if he crosses township lines.

“Just because you crossed a township line doesn’t mean you’re not guilty,” he said. “It’s not a valid excuse anymore.”

Pennsylvania educates its attorneys well, Houser said, adding the new legislation closes the loophole that attorneys used to keep offenders from prosecution in the past.

But State College attorney Andrew Shubin said he disagrees with the new legislation.

Underage drinking might only be a summary violation but has a lot of impact on the defendant if convicted, Shubin said.

“Jurisdiction is an important protection,” he said. “It’s not supposed to be easy to take liberties away.”

Shubin said Pennsylvania police are well-funded and should have to go by the book, adding it is the state’s burden to prove jurisdiction.

“I would think there might be constitutional implications,” he said.

Davis, on the other hand, said it is the power of the legislature to make the kind of decision the state government made.

Ridge is expected to sign the legislation, Houser said.

Over the past five months, Guevara, a graduate student in the department of labor, has repeatedly challenged Penn State’s decision to prosecute her for vandalism and accused the university of singling her out to squelch her anti-sweatshop activism.

The battle has grown to involve 48 professors, labor departments from other universities, labor unions, concerned students from across the country and a local attorney who said Guevara’s First Amendment rights were at risk.

The charges stem from an incident on Sept. 27, when Guevara and several other activists chalked anti-sweatshop messages on several university build-

ings, including Old Main. Criminal charges against Guevara were dismissed because of a lack of evidence. However, Judicial Affairs asked for damage fees and issued a seven-year citation on her academic record.

Penn State officials have maintained that Guevara’s Judicial Affairs hearing was fair and that her prosecution was solely a matter of vandalism.

The university was also steadfast in its determination of Guevara’s damage fees to repair a door of Old Main until last week when it reduced them from $408.96 to $136.32, citing an incorrect initial estimation of the damages.

Contrary to past statements by administrators, Guevara has maintained that she never admitted to specifically scratching the doors of Old Main, which is what she must pay the damage fee for. She also said that scratches were never discussed at her hearing.

Penn State has said it had “more than adequate evidence” to prosecute Guevara.

However, neither the police report nor the criminal citation on the incident indicates any scratches on the Old Main doors.

OPP employees have refused to comment on the cleanup or the damages to the door, directing all inquiries to Penn State spokesman Bill Mahon.

Mahon refused to comment on the work order, saying that the university had nothing more to say about “this minor case of vandalism.”

Guevara said this is an example of the university’s ambiguous treatment of the case.

“I’m glad someone finally did their job and made the correction,” Guevara said. “But given the evidence and how things turned out I still question why the university acted the way they did. They haven’t been clear on many things since the very beginning.”

Guevara also said she still thinks she was unfairly prosecuted by the university because her views were hostile to Penn State.

“I can say this confidently because to my knowledge no other student organization has ever been tried for chalking,” Guevara said.

While chalking is a violation of the student code of conduct, administrators have said in the past that chalking isn’t the problem, but the scratches and damages the Old Main door is.

Although Guevara said she is still frustrated with the result, she is also relieved that the Judicial Affairs case is over.

“It’s been a rollercoaster,” she said.

The Chalking Incident and Subsequent Trials

Guevara’s rollercoaster ride began on the night of Sept. 27 when “Adopt the DSP” and “Make Penn State Sweatshop Free” were written in chalk on several university buildings. A surveillance video from Old Main that night shows six or seven activists writing on the buildings.

United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) and The Student Labor Action Project (SLAP) have been asking Penn State to sign the Designated Suppliers Program (DSP), a plan that ensures licensed apparel for universities is not made in sweatshops. While Guevara is a member of both groups, neither group was identified by Judicial Affairs as the organizer behind the chalking incident.

Penn State University police used The Daily Collegian archives and Facebook to identify Guevara as one of the people in the surveillance video.

Guevara received notice to appear before Centre County District Judge Jonathan Grine to be charged with criminal mischief involving tampering with private property. She was also summoned by Judicial Affairs for a disciplinary hearing.

Judicial Affairs only prosecutes students for violating the student code of conduct, while the court can try students for criminal activity.

During her first meeting with Judicial Affairs, Guevara was given the option to name the other students of the group who were shown in the videotape to lessen her sanctions, but she refused. She also refused to identify the student groups involved in the chalking.

Guevara appealed the ruling but her sanctions were upheld.

After being informed of Guevara’s case by members of USAS, concerned individuals from labor unions and university labor departments wrote letters to Penn State President Graham Spanier asking him to lessen or drop Guevara’s charges and encouraging compliance with the DSP.

Guevara said multiple letters were sent to Spanier from organizations such as the Cornell Organization for Labor Action and USAS International.

She also said that students at other universities, such as Cornell and Georgetown, wrote to Spanier on her behalf.

Two weeks ago, 48 Penn State professors got involved in the battle when they delivered a letter to Spanier asking him to drop the sanctions against Guevara and to adopt the DSP.

In a response letter, Spanier said the charges would remain.

Before appearing in criminal court, Guevara contacted attorney Andrew Shubin to discuss her charges. Shubin told Guevara he was concerned that her first amendment rights were being violated and that he would handle her case for free.

In trial, Shubin argued that the court was selectively prosecuting Guevara because of the content of her messages. He said other groups that had advertised by chalking university property had never been charged. He showed pictures of chalked messages on campus from mtvU and Lionmenus.com.

Shubin also argued that although the surveillance video shows Guevara chalking a column of Old Main, she could not be clearly identified chalking other parts of the building.

After viewing the videotapes Grine dropped Guevara’s charges because of a lack of evidence.

Despite the dismissal of her criminal charges and the requests of concerned professors, university administrators repeatedly said all of Guevara’s sanctions would remain.

Last week, almost three months after first charging Guevara for damages, the university adjusted the fee.

The Damage Controversy

On Friday, the university admitted that its calculation of damages was wrong.

At the beginning of the criminal hearing on Feb. 5, Penn State police officer Roxanne Snider informed the judge that she was reducing the restitution costs from $408.96 to $381.92 because she did not have sufficient evidence to identify Guevara chalking the doors.

Despite Snider’s reduction of the fees in criminal court, Judicial Affairs kept Guevara’s fee the same.

When Guevara asked Director of Judicial Affairs Joe Puzycki to adjust the fees to $381.82 on Feb. 23, she was told that OPP confirmed the original repair costs.

According to the police report received by Judicial Affairs on Nov. 28, Office of the Physical Plant Supervisor Connie Brumgard determined that there was a $408.96 “cleanup cost” for the chalked messages.

Guevara’s citation for criminal mischief also mentions the $408.96 restitution fee. However, the criminal citation reads “12 hours labor for cleanup” under the restitution fee. Neither report cites damage to the doors or asks for a restoration cost for the scratches.

Brumgard would not comment on the damage and directed all inquiries to other OPP supervisors who said they did not know the details of the chalking incident.

Guevara said she asked both OPP and Puzycki for a copy of the work order, which included the fee to clean the doors, but never received it. When asked for a copy of the OPP fee confirmation letter by the Collegian on Feb. 28, Puzycki did not include it in his e-mail response.

Guevara received e-mail notification from Puzycki the next day saying that her restitution fees had been reduced to $108.32 for labor and $28.00 for equipment.

Judicial Affairs ignored another request by The Collegian for a copy of the newly reviewed work order.

An Admission of Guilt

Guevara’s request for a reconsideration of the damage fee has also raised questions about her alleged admission of damaging the door and the validity of the Judicial Affairs accusations.

Judicial Affairs says that Guevara admitted to damaging the doors in her disciplinary hearing on Dec. 14.

Guevara said that although she admitted to chalking in general, a specific door was never discussed and that the first time she heard of scratches was when a reporter inquired about them in mid-January.

In an e-mail message sent to Puzycki on Feb. 23, Guevara wrote “The description of the charges and our discussion of the sanctions indicated that the monetary restitution associated with the charges was only related to the cleanup of the chalk from the general surfaces mentioned in the police report.”

In Puzycki’s response sent on the same day, he said his “recollection is very clear” that Guevara accepted responsibility.

“The charge that you accepted responsibility for was the University Code 14.08: Damage/Cleanup. These charges were derived from the police report and from the original discussion we had in your Discipline Conference where you admitted to me that you were involved in defacing and responsible for damage to the Old Main doors (along with others that you would not name),” Puzycki wrote.

The e-mail message also explained that Judicial Affairs narrowed the charge to door damage because of video footage that placed Guevara at the Old Main location the night in question, in addition to her disciplinary conference testimony.

“I stand by my word that the Judicial Affairs officer is lying because I never admitted to damaging any door,” Guevara said in a subsequent phone interview with The Collegian.

The Sweatshop Battle Continues

Although Guevara still disagrees with the rulings, she said she paid the fees to avoid disrupting her academic endeavors. The money she is using to pay for the fees is a collection of donations from 48 professors and other student and community leaders.

Guevara said she thinks the case made USAS, SLAP and the anti-sweatshop movement even stronger.

The groups are continuing to put pressure on Penn State to adopt the DSP.

On Friday banners saying “Adopt the DSP” were hanging from Willard and Sackett Buildings, while members of USAS handed out fliers in front of the building.

USAS member Doug Baldwin said an anonymous student sent him an e-mail message informing him that there would be an anti-sweatshop demonstration in front of the buildings around noon and asked the group to hand out fliers.

Penn State has refused to sign the DSP, saying that it raises anti-trust issues and has structural problems. University officials have also said that although it will not adopt the plan, it is committed to combating sweatshop labor.

Eyad Elbattah, of Forty Fort, was involved in an altercation on Aug. 3 with employees of the All American Rathskeller, 108 Pugh St. Elbattah appeared before District Justice Jonathan Grine on Friday to contest the citations against him.

Rathskeller manager Christopher Rosengrant was involved in the altercation and was subpoenaed to testify at Elbattah’s hearing.

At the hearing, Grine advised Rosengrant of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

“Anything you say in these proceedings can be used against you in other proceedings,” Grine told Rosengrant.

After speaking with his attorney over the telephone, Rosengrant decided to assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify.

Rosengrant and his brother Jason Rosengrant are charged with involuntary manslaughter in connection with Penn State student Peter Serrano’s death.

Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar, who is prosecuting Rosengrant in the Serrano case, said he could not comment on whether he would use Elbattah’s case during the Serrano trial to show a pattern of behavior by Rosengrant.

“That’s too speculative at this point,” Gricar said.

Rosengrant’s attorney, Robert Munley, also would not comment on whether Elbattah’s case might affect the Serrano trial.

Serrano died on Oct. 26 after an altercation with several Rathskeller employees. When police arrived, Serrano was being restrained by Rathskeller employees and was unresponsive. He was taken to Mount Nittany Medical Center, where he was later pronounced dead.

During Friday’s hearing, Elbattah testified that Rathskeller employees also forcefully restrained him.

Elbattah, who was a Penn State Hazleton student at the time of the incident, was in State College to attend a wedding.

At about 11 p.m. on Aug. 2, Elbattah said he and several members of the wedding party tried to get into the Rathskeller but were refused entry. After a short verbal confrontation, the party left and went to another bar.

Elbattah said during his testimony that the altercation took place when he was walking down Pugh Street at about 2 a.m. on Aug. 3. He said a Rathskeller employee attacked him from behind. He said a man with a large arm choked him from behind and brought him to the ground. While on the ground, Elbattah said the man continued to choke him while forcing his knee into his back. He said he felt short of breath and slipped in and out of consciousness.

Elbattah was later taken to Centre Community Hospital, now Mount Nittany Medical Center. According to a medical record entered into evidence at the hearing, Elbattah was treated for “acute facial abrasions and acute head contusions.”

At Friday’s hearing, Elbattah could not name the person who he said choked him. However, Elbattah pointed to Rosengrant, who was in the courtroom along with the other Rathskeller employees involved in the altercation, and said he thought it was probably him because he recognized Rosengrant’s large arms.

Rathskeller doorman Joseph Kunkle gave a very different account of the incident.

Kunkle said during his testimony that Elbattah was not simply walking down the street when the altercation began. He said Elbattah approached the entrance of the Rathskeller around 2 a.m. and asked him if anyone from the wedding party was in the bar. Kunkle said he told Elbattah that no one from the party was in the bar, and then Elbattah hit him in the face. Kunkle said he called to other Rathskeller employees for help and asked someone to call the police.

Kunkle said Elbattah began backing away from the bar after hitting him, saying, “Don’t follow me. If you do, someone else is going to get hit.” Kunkle said he and other Rathskeller employees followed Elbattah onto Pugh Street to restrain him until police arrived.

Kunkle said he did not see anyone choke Elbattah. He also said Rosengrant was not involved much in the incident because he had recently undergone hernia surgery.

State College Police Department officer Kris Slabic responded to the call on Aug. 3. At Friday’s hearing, she said when she arrived at the scene, she observed Rathskeller employees restraining Elbattah while he struggled with them. She said she interviewed the employees and then placed Elbattah under arrest. She later cited him for disorderly conduct, public drunkenness and harassment.

On cross-examination, Elbattah’s attorney Andrew Shubin asked Slabic if she actually witnessed the incident. Slabic said she had not and said her information came primarily from Rathskeller employees. Shubin then asked Slabic if she interviewed Elbattah about what happened. She said she did not.

During his testimony, Elbattah said police never talked to him about the incident. He said he called the State College Police Department five or six times in the weeks following the incident, but his calls were never returned.

During his closing statement to the district justice, Shubin said Slabic’s failure to speak to Elbattah about his account of the incident had serious repercussions.

“This officer arrested the wrong person, and if she had done the right job, Peter Serrano might still be alive,” Shubin said.

In her closing statement, Slabic countered this claim.

“[Elbattah] read about Peter Serrano and is jumping on the bandwagon to respond to these citations,” Slabic said.

Elbattah said reading about what happened to Serrano “took my breath away.” Because he felt his situation was similar to what happened to Serrano, he contacted the attorney representing Serrano’s family. He said he told the attorney, “If you need me for anything, I’m here. I’ve been through this.”

Grine said he will make a decision on Elbattah’s citations early this week.

In court documents, financial figures kept strictly confidential in the settlement announced last week became public, including claims that the Rathskeller agreed to the $2.5 million settlement to avoid a potential $10 million jury verdict. “The claimed economic losses (of the Rathskeller) alone exceeded $5 million dollars in the federal claim,” Rathskeller attorney Gavin P. Lentz, of Philadelphia, and Andrew Shubin, of State College, argue in court documents filed in Centre County Court. “The Rathskeller also paid other significant funds out of pocket to resolve the federal claim,” the suit states. Central Insurance Group Inc., of 1369 N. Atherton St., State College, would not comment Tuesday. The Rathskeller is alleging Central Insurance Group was professionally negligent be providing less-than-adequate coverage — resulting in that $2.5 million settlement, court documents state. The nightclub also alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by not having sufficient coverage, having secured a policy “with only $500,000″ worth of coverage. The club also is suing their individual agent with Central Insurance Group, alleging he was improperly trained and supervised. Lentz said Central Insurance Group knew what kind of business the Rathskeller is and the risks involved, but did not properly insure the business. “It’s like someone selling homeowner’s insurance and you’re covered for everything but fire,” Lentz said. In a notice filed last week in U.S. Middle District Court, Serrano’s mother, Grace Jimenez, of Lower Paxton Township, agreed to settle wrongful death claims against All-American Rathskeller and six of its employees in the death of her 21-year-old son. But the terms were kept quiet, until the latest lawsuit. Jimenez could not be reached for comment Tuesday. She previously reached a $100,000 wrongful-death settlement with Gentzel Corp., the property owner, and Associated Property Management, which manages the property used as a parking lot for the Rathskeller.

Serrano choked to death on his own vomit while being pinned to the ground by Rathskeller staff members Christopher and Jason Rosengrant three years ago. The incident began when one of Serrano’s friends stopped to urinate in a parking lot behind the Rathskeller. The group was told to leave by Rathskeller staff, but a physical altercation ensued.

Serrano was thrown to the ground by the Rosengrant brothers during the scuffle on Calder Way and pinned down, according to previous reports. When police got there, Serrano was unresponsive. He later died at Mount Nittany Medical Center. The Rathskeller is demanding a jury trial against their insurance carrier.