Mark Emmert 2014

NCAA President Mark Emmert answers a question at a news conference Sunday, April 6, 2014, in Arlington, Texas. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)

The Paterno family and its co-plaintiffs in a continuing lawsuit against the NCAA claimed in paperwork filed Wednesday that the governing entity is attempting to make proverbial mountains out of molehills, all the while “pointing a gun directly in Penn State’s direction.”

The family of the late Penn State coach Joe Paterno -- along with a number of trustees, former players and coaches, and members of the faculty -- responded Wednesday to the NCAA’s contentions in the case, which also names Penn State as a defendant. One of its arguments was that the NCAA continues to threaten Penn State with further sanctions if it doesn't comply with the ones it was handed.

In its last filing in mid-March, the NCAA had objections to every one of the Paterno family's complaints against the entity -- which includes breach of contract, commercial disparagement, and conspiracy, among others. Lawyers for the NCAA wrote at the time that the Paterno side hadn't adequately filed correct notices, that Joe Paterno wasn't an "involved individual" in the unprecedented sanctions levied against the football program, and that two former coaches were not adversely affected by the NCAA's Consent Decree signed by Penn State.

The lawsuit centers around sanctions levied against the Penn State football program in wake of the explosive Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. After the damning Freeh Report alleged university officials knew about sexual abuse at the hands of Sandusky and covered it up, the NCAA shortly thereafter levied massive penalties, including a fine, a bowl ban, a scholarship reduction and a vacation of more than 100 of Paterno’s wins.

The Paterno family, as well as the trustees and others who have spoken out against the NCAA, have claimed all along that the NCAA didn’t follow its own rules by taking the Freeh Report as gospel, and continued to “defame” third parties by accepting the report, rather than conducting its own investigation.

Lawyers for the Paterno estate wrote in the most recently filed paperwork, that the NCAA is attempting to grasp at straws by asserting the estate hasn’t properly taken small, procedural steps throughout the process of the lawsuit.

But perhaps the most fiery responses to the NCAA’s objections were with regard to Penn State’s involvement in the case as a nominal defendant, when it said that the NCAA continues to threaten Penn State with the death penalty if it doesn’t cooperate with the heavy penalties. This, lawyers claimed, has led Penn State to “appease” the NCAA.

“The NCAA defendants have taken every opportunity to emphasize that they are still pointing a gun directly in Penn State’s direction,” lawyers wrote, “continuing their unlawful conduct by threatening to impose ‘harsher sanctions’ and even the ‘death penalty’ if Penn State does not cooperate, even though the NCAA defendants have no authority to impose sanctions in this matter.”

The lawyers went on to describe the threat of the death penalty and what it, if instituted, would have meant for the Penn State community. It used this argument to show that the Consent Decree -- which spelled out the sanctions on Penn State -- should be void on the grounds that it was secured through unlawful threats.

“Anyone familiar with the celebrated traditions of Penn State football would understand that an empty stadium would cause far more than mere economic harm,” lawyers wrote. “It would deeply impact the lives of plaintiffs and many student-athletes, coaches, employees and others in the community.”

The NCAA has made it clear that it doesn’t believe the Consent Decree was imposed upon Penn State at all, but rather it was opinions that were agreed upon by high-up Penn State officials.

“The allegations at most suggest that the University was facing some unpalatable choices in the midst of the Sandusky tragedy,” the NCAA wrote in March, “but certainly not in the form of ‘extreme’ duress that is necessary to find a contract void.”

The Paterno estate also used a recent court opinion in a separate case involving Penn State and the NCAA to its advantage. Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court -- in a somewhat surprise opinion last week -- left the door open to the further examination of the validity of the NCAA's sanctions. The Paterno estate is asking the judge in its case to further consider conspiracy claims against the NCAA based on the opinion.

Lawyers for the Paterno estate wrote in Wednesday’s filing that the Commonwealth Court explained the rippling effect the sanctions had on the Penn State community, and to claim that “it should not now be heard to say that those members of the community have no recourse against it.”

Among other issues argued include the role of former coaches Jay Paterno and Bill Kenney, whom the NCAA continuously argues that it does not owe relief. The former coaches claim they couldn’t get jobs they were well qualified for after the sanctions were handed down.

The NCAA says the Freeh Report and a firestorm of negative media coverage tainted their names. However, the Paterno estate and other plaintiffs say the NCAA’s acceptance of the Freeh Report and its allegations that coaches allowed abuse to continue for more than a decade have made it difficult for the two to obtain jobs.

Jay Paterno noted he was not granted an interview by any of four schools he applied for head coaching jobs with (Boston College, the University of Connecticut, Colorado and James Madison) and didn’t land a position with ESPN, CBS Sports or Fox Sports.

Kenney, a former offensive line and tight ends coach at Penn State who wasn’t retained after the 2011 season, has since been hired to a position at Western Michigan. But he says that he wasn’t considered for better jobs because of the Consent Decree.

The estate argued today that the Freeh Report reflects the conclusions of a private party, whereas the Consent Decree constituted the NCAA’s “official pronouncement that the scandal was linked to Penn State football and covered up by its coaches, who should therefore be punished.”

“NCAA defendants caused prospective employers to consider plaintiffs to be tainted by the scandal,” lawyers wrote. “And none of those employers wanted to be tarred with the same brush that the NCAA took to plaintiffs.”