You've got to be kidding me. You can't possibly believe what you just said, can you?
OT: More JZ - latest column on today's events - including staged, fake victim info...
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
You've got to be kidding me. You can't possibly believe what you just said, can you?
I'm gonna just throw this out here. I've wondered for quite some time now if a certain influential trustee and his pal, a high profile lawyer haven't mutually benefitted from Penn State's money - and used it to gain influence at another institution in the Philadelphia area.
Yep. And if what JZ says is true - we now we start a very high stakes game of chicken.
This planted "victim" (and possibly John as an extension) are most certainly guilty of fraud. Let's face it - if what JZ says is true, those two conspired to commit fraud, and that will have criminal implications.
Of course - who would prosecute them? The PA OAG?? No way - THEN they'd also have to go after Ira Lubert and friends for their fiduciary failures. And a whole BOATLOAD of people with a lot invested in this false narrative would really be in deep $hit. Prosecuting the plant and JZ for fraud would certainly highlight just how EASY it was TO commit said fraud. In short - prosecuting them for fraud would open up a whole other can of worms.
So - we both see who blinks first.
You had me at "Penn State's money" - and let's face it, we know who this "certain influential trustee" is. His fingerprints are EVERYWHERE and that's no coincidence.
Again, JZ had nothing to do with the orchestration of this. He is only in receipt of the recordings and the details.
Thanks, the case referenced was filed in 2011, that's why I was a bit puzzled. Should make for some interesting reading when the plant's story comes out.
I'm sure the guy that outed a "victim", pretended there was a "cyber attack" that prevented him from removing said name, and later went on to blame Jim Clemente for the whole thing blowing up in his face is above reproach.
Who said anyone got paid? All the "victim" would need would be an OFFER of a settlement, correct? Then he could turn it down and go along with his life.
Yes. I agree that is my fault....due to the fact that I post and then do not go back very often....any more. I have to stop doing that at all. You will get no argument from me on that point. I do need to stop pointing out how wrong all y'all are all the time. Pointing that out really is.....pointless..
JZ burnt you once already this week on a story....no matter how much you want to believe that story. Snopes, when all else fails.
I suspect the fellow will continue to abuse your trust. Carry on.
Don't know if he is right about the fake victim (sounds fishy to me) but I believe he is right that Matt Sandusky is the one who lied about Kevin O'Dea
I don't think he got paid. I don't think he's an official "victim".
Everyone, John Doe A is Travis Weaver & not Zig's plant. They even accidentally forgot to redact Weaver's last name on one of the pages. Sorry to disappoint you.
Correctamundo. From 14-15 hours ago when I noticed it and posted it. Adlee and I were on the same pages at the same time and talked about this and a couple other little tidbits.
Also, John Doe A is the only publicly available copy of a settlement agreement which is why everyone uses it as an example. The rest all say the same things except the fill in the bank specifics, a name and amount.
The other funny thing I saw was they redacted Jeff Anderson's name under the victim fund payout name when the other two times that document has been in the public domain his name was not redacted. But they left the claimant's name in.
TW went on TV with his story during the trial. Has anyone compared that version with the one in his claim? Pretty sure Ray has.
Another reason the fake victim cannot be John Doe A. His attys were Marci Hamilton and Jeff Anderson, the Catholic Church settlement duo. They would never use a plant to expose corruption, they have made all their money off these types of cases!
Last edited:
JZ brings up yet another great point - MS's book doesn't mention Kevin O'Dea. Why would that be? How could that possibly not make it into the book? Because he never imagined the depositions would be made public, and he's never told the truth. That's why.
Last edited:
Kevin Slaten is both a lawyer, a media personality who is tight with Costas & someone who is friendly with JZ. Who knows?
So when does the staged bogus victim story become public? What good does it do to remain under wraps? Is it something shared with Paterno and C/S/S lawyers to be surfaced at an advantageous time during court proceedings (f those ever happen!)?If Public Knew How Wrong These ‘Joe Paterno Knew’ Headlines Are There Would Be Riots
by John Ziegler | 3:50 pm, July 12th, 2016
Back in May when stories first surfaced about Joe Paterno supposedly being told about, and ignoring, horrendous allegations against Jerry Sandusky all the way back in the 1970s, I wrote for LawNewz that those headlines were outrageous on every level. Today, as the news media once again picks through the carcass of completely absurd and unsubstantiated claims against a dead man, which were rewarded with huge financial settlements with no scrutiny, I am surer than ever that I was right.
And anyone who cares about the truth and media ethics should be enraged about what is happening today.
To review, once Penn State fired Joe Paterno, a star prosecution witness against Sandusky, before any of the actual facts of this case (including even the year of the primary episode) were known, Penn State University made it clear, way before there was ever a trial, that they would be paying out up to $100 million dollars to Sandusky’s accusers.
As a result, 32 accusers have been paid an average of $3 million each for their stories of abuse. This was done without any sort of trial, investigation, or even cross-examination. If the accuser had been part of Sandusky’s Second Mile charity, was under 30 years old (the statute of limitations in Pennsylvania for such claims), and the accusation involved Penn State in any way, they were paid with almost literally no questions asked. The agreements with the claimants (see below) make it very clear that Penn State was not verifying the accuracy of their accusations and Penn State’s president has recently, against his self-interest, admitted that the university did not adequately vet these accusations.
As part of the process for Penn State to get reimbursed for these massive settlements by their insurance company, a judge very briefly mentioned some of the accusations indicate that Penn State either knew, or could have known, about the Sandusky allegations all the way back in the 1970s. This is all it took for the news media to prematurely take a molehill of “evidence” and turn it a mountain of damning headlines against the late Joe Paterno, all for easy ratings and to substantiate their prior rush to judgement, which likely facilitated his death.
The media, sensing the chance to replenish their poisonous feast, petitioned to have these settlement documents unsealed (which were never intended to be made public, thus the reason for the settlements in the first place). That request was granted, however the identities of the accusers have been redacted, which of course makes it very difficult to evaluate their credibility (if you don’t even know who the person is making the claim, how do you even know if they were living in the area at the time of the allegation?).
Today those documents are the source of numerous very declarative headlines, from allegedly reputable news sources, that Joe Paterno, as well as some of his assistants, “knew” about Sandusky and chose to do nothing about it in the name of protecting their football program. At the center of these stories is the allegation that in 1976, after being abused at a Penn State football camp, the accuser told Paterno about it and the Hall of Fame coach with a sterling reputation told him to go away.
This accusation (where Sandusky abuses a kid at a camp he doesn’t even run and then Paterno not only keeps him on staff but helps him start a major kid’s charity the very next year?!) is simply not remotely plausible in any way and is far from proven.
You know who agrees with me? That very accuser’s own lawyer, Michael Boni!
Back in May, Boni (who was not yet known as the 1976 accuser’s attorney because it was not clear then that the documents would be unsealed) said:
“The headlines of these stories is Paterno knew of Sandusky’s molestation in the ’70s, ’76 or ’77. I’m unaware of direct, irrefutable evidence that that’s the case. Believe me, I’m the last person to defend the guy, but I am the first person to believe in our justice system. And I think you need more than anecdotal evidence or speculative evidence.”
Those are the words of the accuser’s own attorney! And yet not one media outlet has even bothered to mention this remarkable statement or abide by his rather obvious implicit admonition that there at least be some caution in reporting anonymous allegations about a dead man from 40 years ago when millions of dollars are being paid out for story.
Paterno isn’t the only dead man being implicated unfairly in this fiasco. One accuser’s story involved former Penn State strength coach Kevin O’Dea witnessing abuse in 1988. Not only is O’Dea now conveniently no longer with us, but he didn’t even come to Penn State until at least 1990. In 1988 he was at the University of Virginia. And yet the news media will almost certainly ignore this factoid which should instead make them question this entire nonsensical narrative.
No other former Penn State assistant has remotely substantiated the claims they were supposedly involved in and I am told very credibly that current UCLA assistant Tom Bradley will be strongly denying the allegations alleged to have involved him.
What is most outrageous about how the media is once again gleefully and blindly rushing to a judgment which fits their agenda is that there is a very simple and obvious explanation for what REALLY happened here.
There is a very good reason for why these settlements have produced allegations against Penn State employees which suddenly stop at the end of the 1980s. It is just basic math.
As I previously stated, the statute of limitations for suing for allegations of child sex abuse in Pennsylvania is 30 years old. The accepted “limit” for being a Sandusky accuser (thanks to the trial accusations) is 15 years old. This means that anyone who came forward after Paterno’s firing to make a claim against Penn State realistically had to have been abused before the mid-90s. Otherwise, they and their lawyer had a big problem.
This was not a challenge which could not be overcome, however. If you had a claim which gave Penn State an extra incentive to make your story go away, they were willing to pay those allegations outside of the statute of limitations. For instance, Matt Sandusky, Jerry’s adopted son, was one of those who, despite not having a legally legitimate claim, was paid because of his “celebrity” status and ability to get huge media coverage for his story.
For accusers without that option, they needed a Penn State “hook” for them to be eligible for the money. And for the really old accusers (who claim they were abused before Sandusky’s charity started in 1977 and therefore had “two strikes” against them in the settlement process) there was no more powerful weapon than to claim that you told Joe Paterno. This is why to the two oldest (and after an even cursory examination, least credible) claims which were paid, directly involve him.
In short, these stories may be fairytales specifically crafted to get free money, which they got.
I am sure that many people are very skeptical that what I am saying here is anything more than a theory I have to try to discredit what appears, to the untrained eye, to be a tsunami of evidence that I am wrong about this case. I can assure you that this is not remotely the truth.
For the first time publicly, I can reveal that my knowledge of the bogus Penn State settlement process is both extensive and definitive. There is a man who has gone through the settlement process as a purposely fake accuser because he did not believe that the Sandusky allegations were true or that Penn State’s settlement process was remotely credible. He wanted to prove that was the case. During that process it became clear that anything he said would be both believed and manipulated into conforming to what Penn State needed to pay out a claim under the “rules” which I have outlined here.
This is all on tape and with documentation. Hopefully, someday this story can be fully revealed so as to prove what an outrageous farce this entire situation has become.
I have seen a ton of “Media Malpractice” in my career, but there is nothing I have endured which compares to what we are witnessing today with the further destruction of a revered dead man with horrendous allegations which are not only not remotely proven, they simply are not true.
Victim Settlement Agreement by Mediaite on Scribd
—
John Ziegler is a nationally-syndicated radio talk show host and documentary filmmaker. You can follow him on Twitter at @ZigManFreud.
I hope you're not expecting a straight answer to your question.
But it's a good question.
Lubert: Pulls strings regarding settlements with PSU money. All settlements take away right to sue Second Mile.
Lubert: board chair of TSM
TSM: Packs up and goes away without question.
Follow the money. There's your smoking gun. And this isn't a plan to keep from losing money, but rather an attempt to remain unexposed of being a sexual predator, which would then derail the money train.
Ira: Very prominent in Harrisburg with gaming commission, etc...
PA State Gov: Sits by idly and does nothing, not one thing, in 5 years, while its flagship institution is repeatedly raked over the coals.
Where's the F'ng governor? Is Kane still the attorney general or was she paid to go away or threatened to keep her mouth shut (well while being charged, that keeps your mouth shut; see C/S/S- notice that part of the pattern)?
Anyone that is some sort of opponent to the cause has been silenced. Show goes on for Ira and Friends, LLC.
I'm sure it was Matt Sandusky who implicated O'Dea but the accuser who implicated Sarra is an entirely different person, someone who said he was 13 in 1987. MS was born in December of 1978.
He won't get any answer. I don't believe any of these cryptic posts anymore. Some take delight in leading vulnerable people on. Not saying I buy the current narrative in any way. Just that any post on this board about inside knowledge is best taken with an entire container of salt. I've concluded it's all BS.
Way to miss the point. He outed a victim, pretended it was a mistake even though the name went up when he had planned, claims there was a cyber attack that conveniently started when he wanted to correct his mistake, and then blamed Clemente for damn near everything when people didn't buy his story.
And lets not forget Ziegler is so desperate for content, and utterly delusional, he posted an email exchange with Clemente that clearly shows how off base he is.
Do you really think yesterday would be the first time he mentioned it if he had seen this concrete proof? He can't help himself. Ziegler will post anything that might garner a little bit of attention.
As for him being right, Ray doesn't think so. The State doesn't think so. Both have valid arguments as to why.
Ziegler himself goes on and on about how AM was noticeably older than MM's description. Yet another argument that on it's face is flawed to say the least.
On a personal note, what he did with AM name was a pathetic attention grab. It wasn't about the truth. AM name came out in court like everyone knew it would. There was no need to do it outside of making himself feel important.
He hasn't cracked some code or corrected "the basic math". John Ziegler is mentally ill and makes poorly constructed arguments that only the truly desperate buy into.
I'd love to hear those arguments. If this is correct (which it isn't - according to his own attorney), then PSU better have another $3mm put aside for when V2 comes out of his coma.
In the depo, McQueary claims the victim was 11 or 12, give or take a year. AM was 13 which fits.
IIRC it was originally 10 on the low end, and Ziegler says he was close to 14 at the time.
The whole point to bringing it up is that Ziegler makes incredibly myopic arguments. He's an absolute mess that people around here don't question.
Because there's no other possible reason that a single Sandusky victim wouldn't come forward?
Quit listening to a mentally ill fool that dismisses psychology and reason.
Are you on record as saying AM isn't V2? I just want to make sure what you're saying here.
Similar threads
