ADVERTISEMENT

Update on Ziegler’s fake accuser

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,960
4,805
1
Starting at the 40:15 mark, John Ziegler explains that he received a 18 minute clip from his purposely fake accuser. He states that lawyer Andrew Shubin who represented 9 accusers in their civil cases against Penn State and that he embraced, manipulated, and then sent the false accuser to a therapist all the while the false accuser recording everything. In the 18 minute clip, Ziegler claims that Shubin admitted that initially all of the accusers initially wanted nothing to do with the case, that they didn’t go to the police but rather the police found them and convinced them to cooperate and then the police fed the accusers to Shubin.

Ziegler also states that Shubin went into great detail of how he fought with prosecutors because the prosecutors were upset that the accusers couldn’t keep their stories straight. He said that all of the accusers stories would initially only say that Sandusky put his hand on their knees when driving and then started adding things to their stories. Shubin allegedly states to the fake accuser that he knew Sandusky was guilty because no adult spends that much time with kids.

At around the 45:30 mark, Ziegler states that Glenn Beck has agreed to have Ziegler come to Dallas in March to be on his TV and radio shows to talk about the Penn State/Jerry Sandusky fiasco and the timing is scheduled to coincide with the start of the March 20 trial of Spanier, Curley, and Schultz.

 
  • Like
Reactions: dshumbero
he embraced, manipulated, and then sent the false accuser to a therapist all the while the false accuser recording everything
Franco, I believe in Pennsylvania, it is not legal to record conversations unless the person recorded gives permission. Maybe that only applies to telephone conversations.
link:
http://wnep.com/2013/09/24/plea-entered-by-former-county-official/
The county controller was accused of illegally recording three conversations without consent just days before the May primaries.
 
Last edited:
Franco, I believe in Pennsylvania, it is not legal to record conversations unless the person recorded gives permission. Maybe that only applies to telephone conversations.

It is most definitely illegal unless there is permission from all parties or done in a situation where there was no expectation of privacy (like on a city street).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stufftodo
Franco, I believe in Pennsylvania, it is not legal to record conversations unless the person recorded gives permission. Maybe that only applies to telephone conversations.

I am not sure, but I believe you may be correct. This may be the reason that the tapes or transcripts of the tapes have not been released. That being said, if Sandusky's legal team could get access to the information on the tapes; it seems very likely that would be a boon for their PCRA appeal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TenerHallTerror
Starting at the 40:15 mark, John Ziegler explains that he received a 18 minute clip from his purposely fake accuser. He states that lawyer Andrew Shubin who represented 9 accusers in their civil cases against Penn State and that he embraced, manipulated, and then sent the false accuser to a therapist all the while the false accuser recording everything. In the 18 minute clip, Ziegler claims that Shubin admitted that initially all of the accusers initially wanted nothing to do with the case, that they didn’t go to the police but rather the police found them and convinced them to cooperate and then the police fed the accusers to Shubin.

Ziegler also states that Shubin went into great detail of how he fought with prosecutors because the prosecutors were upset that the accusers couldn’t keep their stories straight. He said that all of the accusers stories would initially only say that Sandusky put his hand on their knees when driving and then started adding things to their stories. Shubin allegedly states to the fake accuser that he knew Sandusky was guilty because no adult spends that much time with kids.

At around the 45:30 mark, Ziegler states that Glenn Beck has agreed to have Ziegler come to Dallas in March to be on his TV and radio shows to talk about the Penn State/Jerry Sandusky fiasco and the timing is scheduled to coincide with the start of the March 20 trial of Spanier, Curley, and Schultz.


To be sure, this whole story of the false accuser has at least two major flaws which make it irrelevant to the "Jerry is Innocent" narrative that you like so much.

1) It was illegal to make the recordings, therefore, unless the false accuser is willing to risk real jail time, they can't be used.

1A & 1B) The recordings were done between the "accuser" and a therapist and between the "accuser" and his attorney, hired (albeit under false pretense) under contingency. That is an ideal setup for a false narrative, because these people are ethically & legally bound not to speak about it (confidentiality laws).

2) The fake accuser did not actually go so far as to take a settlement against PSU/Sandusky nor testify in a trial. Therefore this is "cute" but has no bearing on Jerry's situation (or PSU's).

This was a cute stunt by someone. But on the podcast, Ziegler acknowledges for the first time, that he knew about this beforehand, during, and possesses evidence of fraud. Against Shubin (who cares) and PSU, who - Ziegler admits, paid for many hours of therapy with this false accuser.

So now Ziegler is on the record as aiding and abetting a fraud against Penn State.

Felony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stufftodo
I am not sure, but I believe you may be correct. This may be the reason that the tapes or transcripts of the tapes have not been released. That being said, if Sandusky's legal team could get access to the information on the tapes; it seems very likely that would be a boon for their PCRA appeal.

I'm not sure this will help Jerry. I do think that PSU now has evidence of a fraud case against Ziegler and his accuser. Civil and Criminal.
 
Franco, I believe in Pennsylvania, it is not legal to record conversations unless the person recorded gives permission. Maybe that only applies to telephone conversations.
link:
http://wnep.com/2013/09/24/plea-entered-by-former-county-official/
The county controller was accused of illegally recording three conversations without consent just days before the May primaries.

It depends - which always seems to be the case :) :

PA is one of the few states that requires "consent" vav the recording of telephone calls and what not

A person-to-person conversation though, is more nebulous
If the folks having the conversation were at say, a coffee shop, then no - wouldn't need consent
If multiple parties were present during the conversation, then probably no consent is needed (though the exact relationship of the parties may come into play)


Of course, even if the conversation was one that may have fallen under the "consent" guidelines - - - folks like LaJolla are going to have a Jihad about how none of that matters, and that:

"Shubin and the "victims" must all be frauds, because that's what the recording says"

Even if the evidence were acquired "unethically". :)
 
Now I'm wondering how this recorded conversation legality thing works. Is it only government agencies that get to do this without informing people they're being recorded? Must they obtain warrants to do so? How do stings work then?

What about businesses? We're always told when we make a call that we're on a recorded line for something like training and monitoring purposes. Does the fact that I call a business' customer service line mean I give implied consent to be recorded? Even if it's because of some screw up that's the business' fault?

What about undercover videos taken by TV stations, activist groups, etc.? Are they legal or not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TenerHallTerror
Starting at the 40:15 mark, John Ziegler explains that he received a 18 minute clip from his purposely fake accuser. He states that lawyer Andrew Shubin who represented 9 accusers in their civil cases against Penn State and that he embraced, manipulated, and then sent the false accuser to a therapist all the while the false accuser recording everything. In the 18 minute clip, Ziegler claims that Shubin admitted that initially all of the accusers initially wanted nothing to do with the case, that they didn’t go to the police but rather the police found them and convinced them to cooperate and then the police fed the accusers to Shubin.

Ziegler also states that Shubin went into great detail of how he fought with prosecutors because the prosecutors were upset that the accusers couldn’t keep their stories straight. He said that all of the accusers stories would initially only say that Sandusky put his hand on their knees when driving and then started adding things to their stories. Shubin allegedly states to the fake accuser that he knew Sandusky was guilty because no adult spends that much time with kids.

At around the 45:30 mark, Ziegler states that Glenn Beck has agreed to have Ziegler come to Dallas in March to be on his TV and radio shows to talk about the Penn State/Jerry Sandusky fiasco and the timing is scheduled to coincide with the start of the March 20 trial of Spanier, Curley, and Schultz.

People can love JZ or hate him - - - and certainly just because he claims to have this info doesn't necessarily mean it exists, and that it says what he claims


But - - - if what he claims is even a little bit close to accurate - - - it certainly is game-changing......... Even if it has ZERO impact wrt Jerry Sandusky's freedom or incarceration
Wouldn't the evidence (even if it is only partially true) wrt the behaviors of Shubin, the Police, the Prosecutors, and PSU be absolutely Earth-shaking? More so than anything that might be found in the "Freeh Files"?


Of course it would.


Wouldn't it be nice to - AT LEAST - get some of these folks on a stand, or under deposition, and at least have them answer the relevant questions (even if they might lie like rugs about them)

But no one (not many folks anyway - and certainly none of the principal players) even hints at maybe wanting that to happen

Why not?
(I think that is largely a rhetorical question, FWIW :) )
 
It depends - which always seems to be the case :) :

PA is one of the few states that requires "consent" vav the recording of telephone calls and what not
:)
Thank you,
pencilthumbsuprgb_pw.png
 
It depends - which always seems to be the case :) :

PA is one of the few states that requires "consent" vav the recording of telephone calls and what not

A person-to-person conversation though, is more nebulous
If the folks having the conversation were at say, a coffee shop, then no - wouldn't need consent
If multiple parties were present during the conversation, then probably no consent is needed (though the exact relationship of the parties may come into play)


Of course, even if the conversation was one that may have fallen under the "consent" guidelines - - - folks like LaJolla are going to have a Jihad about how none of that matters, and that:

"Shubin and the "victims" must all be frauds, because that's what the recording says"

Even if the evidence were acquired "unethically". :)

Ummmm you called? Little ole me...oh so sweet.

So the media attention whore who went so far as to go on dating shows just to get on TV is the pillar of honesty, truth, and integrity? How about someone legitimately debunks a victim or one victim steps up and claims it was all a sham. Why not start there with just one and actual proof instead of he's a bad egg.

Now a JZ plant if this really does exist is somehow the beacon of truth and integrity? My god does he play people like a fiddle....carry on. No tape has been produced just another JZ story currently. He has been Lucy holding the football for years now but maybe this is the time Charlie Brown gets to kick the ball, maybe.

200.webp
 
Last edited:
I'll have to dig back a few months, but I do know that wensilver gave Zig's contact info to Amy Torcoletti (Josh Shapiro's admin director) in regards to these fake accuser allegations and tapes.

Wonder what has happened with that . . . LINK
 
Last edited:
Thank you,
pencilthumbsuprgb_pw.png
FWIW - and I hesitate to even get into it, since it is only tangential - at best - to the more important points:


The PA SupCt ruled in a 2014 case - - - and effectively shot down the "2 party consent" issue wrt telephone calls ....and there has been precedent set already that "text messages" do not fall under the "2 party consent" law

FWIW, more recently the Courts threw out an attempt to convene charges in a case of an individual using a recorded conversation WITHOUT the party's consent (a case that - if you read up on it - was 1,000 times more likely to be covered under "2 party consent" than would be the "fake accuser" case)


https://beavercountian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/benyo-ruling.pdf

I think it is safe to say the "2 party consent" law is essentially dead in PA

I certainly - in a case like the one involving JZ's "accuser"....... Which involved a face-to-face conversation....... Wouldn't even hesitate to make that information public

If there has been a single successful prosecution - since the 2014 SC ruling, and maybe for quite a while before that - for "unauthorized recording" similar to the parameters that were outlined in the "fake accuser" story - I am not aware of it

But that's not my ox to gore
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69
I'll have to dig back a few months, but I do know that wensilver gave Zig's contact info to Amy Torcoletti (Josh Shapiro's admin director) in regards to these fake accuser allegations and tapes.

Wonder what has happened with that . . . LINK

Then that person needs to also follow up with providing the link and timestamp for this latest, in which Zig admits to prior, during and current knowledge and access to the fraud.
 
Then that person needs to also follow up with providing the link and timestamp for this latest, in which Zig admits to prior, during and current knowledge and access to the fraud.
Except current PA case law would indicate that - unless the "fake victim" was "wearing a wire", or some device designed for the specific purpose of covert recording of conversations - there appears to be just about ZERO chance that what transpired would be considered a crime in PA

But keep in on diggin'!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Accept that current PA case law would indicate that - unless the "fake victim" was "wearing a wire", or some device designed for the specific purpose of covert recording of conversations - there appears to be just about ZERO chance that what transpired would be considered a crime in PA

But keep in on diggin'!!!!!

Of course the accuser was using a surreptitious device. You think he brought a boom mike & sound system into Shubin's office?
 
Then that person needs to also follow up with providing the link and timestamp for this latest, in which Zig admits to prior, during and current knowledge and access to the fraud.
I say go for it. Then they can subpoena everyone involved with these settlements, with this therapy, and find out exactly where all the money went to. It would be great to see roxine, Shubin, Lubert, and the other castaways on the stand to testify to their part in how the money of the taxpayers of Pennsylvania was spent.

You know that will never happen, so neither will the suit you're hoping for.
 
I'm giving francofan the benefit of the doubt in that his recap of this recording is accurate. I no longer listen to JZ's 3 hour ramblings with no clear train of thought or facts.

That said, all I see in this recap is JZ says this... JZ says that... Again, nothing but claims from JZ about things without sharing factual information, corroboration, or the evidence he claims to have. So until that happens, forgive me if I dismiss this as nothing more than JZ's unsupported opinions, many of which are nothing more than hot air.
 
I'm giving francofan the benefit of the doubt in that his recap of this recording is accurate. I no longer listen to JZ's 3 hour ramblings with no clear train of thought or facts.

That said, all I see in this recap is JZ says this... JZ says that... Again, nothing but claims from JZ about things without sharing factual information, corroboration, or the evidence he claims to have. So until that happens, forgive me if I dismiss this as nothing more than JZ's unsupported opinions, many of which are nothing more than hot air.
I believe JZ's interview with Josh Fravel (Dawn's neighbor) is much, much more than just JZ's "unsupported opinions"...but that's just me I guess.
 
This is like Whimpy telling you that he would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. Do you really think that you would get paid?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaJolla Lion
I believe JZ's interview with Josh Fravel (Dawn's neighbor) is much, much more than just JZ's "unsupported opinions"...but that's just me I guess.

It was ...

A) Nothing new (pretty much anything damaging to the case against Sandusky was actually presented at trial)

B) Not unusual at all. We all know people that have been wronged by a company, person, organization, or whatever. They mouth off, vent, etc. They brag that they'll sue. They claim that they have a slam dunk case & they'll own that company, person's house, organization's cash, or whatever.

My gosh, if you want to see how Ziegler changes his views on things like this take a look at how he glad-handled the Goldman family in the OJ case. They also said loudly that they'd take all OJ's money, and they did. The brag wasn't held against them. I'm also sure they have spent at least some of that money on nice cars, but I won't sneak around their house to prove it like JZ did to AF & Dawn Fisher.
 
Nope. Isn't that enough to raise the flag of fiduciary responsibility? I expect Lubrano to be shouting from rooftops on this soon.

Fiduciary duty. Now that's a good one.

Let me tell you another one...

Last year I met with the Centre County DA ostensibly to discuss a possible fraud that involved a Sandusky claimant. The DA wanted to have the girlfriend of this claimant wear a wire because the DA believed this claimant perpetrated a fraud on PSU when he took a settlement from them in the Sandusky matter.

The DA approached Penn State about this situation but PSU would not cooperate.

The matter was not further pursued.

John Ziegler is many things but he is not a fraud.
 
It was ...

A) Nothing new (pretty much anything damaging to the case against Sandusky was actually presented at trial)

B) Not unusual at all. We all know people that have been wronged by a company, person, organization, or whatever. They mouth off, vent, etc. They brag that they'll sue. They claim that they have a slam dunk case & they'll own that company, person's house, organization's cash, or whatever.

My gosh, if you want to see how Ziegler changes his views on things like this take a look at how he glad-handled the Goldman family in the OJ case. They also said loudly that they'd take all OJ's money, and they did. The brag wasn't held against them. I'm also sure they have spent at least some of that money on nice cars, but I won't sneak around their house to prove it like JZ did to AF & Dawn Fisher.
What does the fact that Dawn is lifelong welfare queen and a congenital liar have to do w/ OJ?
 
Okay - I'm confused.

Why doesn't this "fake accuser" provide this information a la Christopher Houser / Howard Stern and just shoot an email to DA Stacy Parks Miller? spmiller@centreda.org or call the office 814-355-6735 and maybe speak with Assistant DA Mark Smith.

Or contact the Office of Attorney General in State College and speak with Laura Bair 814-863-0684

Or contact the OAG in Harrisburg and speak with Michelle Henry 717-787-3391

Someone's got to explain to me why one would go to all the trouble to plan, execute and document this scheme to expose this fraud by Shubin - and then not do anything with it. What am I not getting?
 
Fiduciary duty. Now that's a good one.

Let me tell you another one...

Last year I met with the Centre County DA ostensibly to discuss a possible fraud that involved a Sandusky claimant. The DA wanted to have the girlfriend of this claimant wear a wire because the DA believed this claimant perpetrated a fraud on PSU when he took a settlement from them in the Sandusky matter.

The DA approached Penn State about this situation but PSU would not cooperate.

The matter was not further pursued.

John Ziegler is many things but he is not a fraud.

Please take this opportunity to remember that Joe Paterno perpetrated a cover-up.

It's amazing that there are people who still believe that horseshit.
 
Okay - I'm confused.

Why doesn't this "fake accuser" provide this information a la Christopher Houser / Howard Stern and just shoot an email to DA Stacy Parks Miller? spmiller@centreda.org or call the office 814-355-6735 and maybe speak with Assistant DA Mark Smith.

Or contact the Office of Attorney General in State College and speak with Laura Bair 814-863-0684

Or contact the OAG in Harrisburg and speak with Michelle Henry 717-787-3391

Someone's got to explain to me why one would go to all the trouble to plan, execute and document this scheme to expose this fraud by Shubin - and then not do anything with it. What am I not getting?
That is a VERY good question

I can't imagine any scenario under which I - personally - if I had that information, wouldn't be going as "public" as possible with it

If JZ's accounting of this story is anywhere near factual, about the only options I could come up with vav this "fake accuser":

1 - He - or his attorney - is concerned vav the "2 party consent" stuff. I wouldn't be concerned - and recent precedent in PA courts would indicate that he need not be concerned - - - but that is obviously an individual case-by-case situation

2 - Someone involved feels that there might be a "better time" - one that would have more impact - to publicize this information in the future

I have no idea what the folks involved might be pondering - I couldn't without talking to them

And I also - as I think most would feel - can't be anywhere near 100% convinced that things are essentially as JZ described them

I most certainly wouldn't disregard what he's saying - because a lot of it is congruent to some of the things we DO know - but I also wouldn't use it as the foundation for a house - - - not unless and until clear confirmation is illustrated
 
That is a VERY good question

I can't imagine any scenario under which I - personally - if I had that information, wouldn't be going as "public" as possible with it

If JZ's accounting of this story is anywhere near factual, about the only options I could come up with vav this "fake accuser":

1 - He - or his attorney - is concerned vav the "2 party consent" stuff. I wouldn't be concerned - and recent precedent in PA courts would indicate that he need not be concerned - - - but that is obviously an individual case-by-case situation

2 - Someone involved feels that there might be a "better time" - one that would have more impact - to publicize this information in the future

I have no idea what the folks involved might be pondering - I couldn't without talking to them

And I also - as I think most would feel - can't be anywhere near 100% convinced that things are essentially as JZ described them

I most certainly wouldn't disregard what he's saying - because a lot of it is congruent to some of the things we DO know - but I also wouldn't use it as the foundation for a house - - - not unless and until clear confirmation is illustrated
Pretty sad when AL tells us the DA had questions about one of the "victims" taking a settlement from PSU and we can't determine which one because frankly, it could be almost any of them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bjf1991
Fiduciary duty. Now that's a good one.

Let me tell you another one...

Last year I met with the Centre County DA ostensibly to discuss a possible fraud that involved a Sandusky claimant. The DA wanted to have the girlfriend of this claimant wear a wire because the DA believed this claimant perpetrated a fraud on PSU when he took a settlement from them in the Sandusky matter.

The DA approached Penn State about this situation but PSU would not cooperate.

The matter was not further pursued.

John Ziegler is many things but he is not a fraud.
If what you say be true (and I have no reason to believe it is not):

All of the parameters are clearly in play vav Criminal Fraud - - - - which does not require the cooperation (or even the knowledge of) the party who was "de-frauded" (PSU)

ie - there is NO REASON that the DA would need PSU's permission or assistance to pursue the case - it would be irrelevant
(in fact - many Criminal Fraud cases do not have a "victim", and the actual "fraud" need not have reached the stage where the fraud was consummated)

I can only assume the DA in question during this time range would have likely been SPM (though that is certainly not an absolute given)

While the scenario as ALub described it is CLEARLY a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the PSU BOT (at the least)........ They are not the only ones at fault

Whomever was in the DA seat - if the info related by ALub is accurate - it was the DA who negligently, willfully, (and ridiculously) dropped the ball
And when one considers that NO ONE with any awareness at all would ever in a million years think "PSU" would cooperate - any "offer", or expressed intent, to pursue fraud charges contingent upon "PSU"'s cooperation - - - is nothing but a leg-pissing contest
 
Last edited:
Okay - here's a thought. Put it out there anonymously. Broadcast the damned stuff - I dunno - from an anonymous Twitter account over the Tor Network. Put the recording on some old fashioned cassette tapes, place them in a manila envelope and stuff it inside the storm door a la the OAG.

Maybe ask Frank Fina to leak the damned stuff - we know he's great at that and he could probably use a few bucks.

That is a VERY good question

I can't imagine any scenario under which I - personally - if I had that information, wouldn't be going as "public" as possible with it

If JZ's accounting of this story is anywhere near factual, about the only options I could come up with vav this "fake accuser":

1 - He - or his attorney - is concerned vav the "2 party consent" stuff. I wouldn't be concerned - and recent precedent in PA courts would indicate that he need not be concerned - - - but that is obviously an individual case-by-case situation

2 - Someone involved feels that there might be a "better time" - one that would have more impact - to publicize this information in the future

I have no idea what the folks involved might be pondering - I couldn't without talking to them

And I also - as I think most would feel - can't be anywhere near 100% convinced that things are essentially as JZ described them

I most certainly wouldn't disregard what he's saying - because a lot of it is congruent to some of the things we DO know - but I also wouldn't use it as the foundation for a house - - - not unless and until clear confirmation is illustrated
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT