HUGE ANNIVERSARY RELEASE: Exclusive Clips From "Happy Valley" Movie, Sandusky Family Statement & Ziegler Commentary

Three years ago this week, the so-called "Penn State Scandal" exploded nationally with the arrest of Jerry Sandusky and, just days later, the firings of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier.

In a couple of weeks, the "documentary" "Happy Valley," which pretends to chronicle the events which led to and came out of that fateful week, will be officially released publicly (the publicity for it has already begun). Here is an article I wrote about the film when it debuted at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year.

Recently, I was sent the film (legally, though not authorized by the producers) and I immediately created two video commentaries using clips from the movie. They are at the end of this posting and they are a "must watch/share." I also sent the film to Jerry's wife Dottie to get her reaction to it.

Here is the official Sandusky family response to the film, which includes a challenge to the film's "star," Matt Sandusky.

As indicated by the family statement, Dottie is willing to appear on an appropriate media outlet with Matt for a substantive discussion of his allegations.

Meanwhile, I am also making Matt an offer. I will write a check for $1,000 to his foundation for every 10 minutes he gives me to be interviewed on camera about his claims (with a $10,000 limit). When Matt fails to respond to either offer, I hope that people will interpret that reality properly.

Here is an editorial which Dottie wrote about "Happy Valley" in this week's' Patriot News newspaper (which, ironically, is the paper which broke the story and for which Sara Ganim won her now discredited Pulitzer Prize). Incredibly (and yet somehow not surprisingly) the Patriot News broke their written promise NOT to edit the piece and prefaced it with a laughable "disclaimer" which may go further in explaining how the media allowed this whole injustice to occur than anything else I have seen.

Here is what Dottie originally submitted, which I was told by the editorial editor would not be edited. Here are the key facts (none of which are remotely in question) which were edited out:


"Matt went to court against his ex-wife so that his children could see Jerry at home after he was arrested.

Matt (as well as his lawyer Andrew Shubin) has been paid millions of dollars by Penn State even though the university had no knowledge of his allegations, his claim was never adjudicated in court, and the statute of limitations had already passed.

None of our other five children believes Matt and none of them, or any of our many foster children, has taken the golden opportunity to pursue a financial claim in this case.

Matt was cited to the police (after being seen on television standing behind Jerry well after his arrest), by the person to whom Matt first sold one of Jerry’s stolen national championship rings."


Here is the email I got from the editorial editor telling me the piece would not be edited (the timing of the piece changed, inexplicably, because of "breaking news"):


-----Original Message-----
From: Micek, John <[email protected]>
To: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Oct 28, 2014 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: Sandusky


Read it. It’ll run Friday online and Sunday in print. Don’t see a need to make any edits.
From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 1:06 PM
To: "John L. Micek" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Sandusky
Based on passed experience in this story, I am starting to presume I need to move on to pursue other options



Keep in mind, this is the very same paper which recently ran an op-ed piece from Matt Sandusky which had no disclaimer, allowed him to libel an alleged abuser he had no knowledge of without even the word "alleged," and let him promote the website for his foundation. Not only did the online version of Dottie's piece censor any comments questioning the accusers, they even censored supportive comments of Dottie but allowed all negative comments about her to stand. Gee, I wonder if any of this is consistent with an atmosphere which could have led to an unjust legal result?!

Here is a hilarious email exchange I had with the editor after publication in which I asked why the part about Matt going to court to to have his kids see Jerry was edited out when I have the legal documentation to prove it. Judging from his absurd response, I am quite sure he never even bothered to read it.


-----Original Message-----
From: Micek, John <[email protected]>
To: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Nov 3, 2014 11:26 am
Subject: Re: Proof on Matt Sandusky edit


Sorry. When it comes to you versus the libel lawyer, the lawyer wins. Just because you say it’s true doesn’t make it so. The piece ran. Mrs. Sandusky had her say. We’re done.
From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, November 3, 2014 at 3:07 PM
To: "John L. Micek" <[email protected]>
Subject: Proof on Matt Sandusky edit
Of the many edits you made after lying to me that none were needed, the one about Matt going to court to have his kids see Jerry is BEYOND hilariously absurd (especially since you ran a piece from Matt convicting an an accused abuser he has no knowledge of without even the word "alleged"!).
If you had needed documentation, I would have gladly given it to you. Here it is:
If you have a shred of journalistic decency you will fix this.
John Ziegler
[email protected]

As if the hilariously bad media coverage could get any worse, the Centre Daily Times (who earlier this year gladly took my money to run a full page ad questioning the case against Sandusky), actually had the audacity to run an editorial bashing the Patriot News for even running the partially censored portion of Dottie's editorial! They even bragged about passing on the op-ed when I offered it to them, but they never mentioned that they asked to see it AFTER I told them them about it, or that they had run a front page story about the op-ed!

Forgetting about the "media malpractice" of all of this, is this not all the ultimate proof that the media environment which would have to exist for an injustice of this proportion to occur, clearly did (and still does)?!

As for the movie itself....

Here is a video commentary I did using clips from the movie focusing on Matt Sandusky and his attorney, who importantly also represented the "victim" from the Mike McQueary episode:

Here is the document (alluded to in the video) which proves that Matt took his children to see Jerry (his alleged abuser) after his arrest and fought his ex wife in court for them to be able to do so:

Here is another video commentary I did using clips from the movie focusing on the McQueary episode itself and the role Scott Paterno likely played in how it spiraled out of control:

Here is the transcript of my final phone call (though hardly my last communication) with Scott Paterno. It is really quite unbelievable (but yet 100% true), and think it adds important context and understand to what is really driving Scott in all of this:

I plan to release much more extensive clips of the movie before it is out publicly. People who care about the truth need to know just how awful and deceitful this movie really is and how the shameful media coverage of it is actually further proof of what really happened here.

Update:  Here is a radio interview I did in State College about this release:

Update:  Here is another remarkable post I wrote about the makers of the movie going on the attack on me. This should really give you a good idea of how the horrendous media coverage here has allowed the truth of this case to be totally lost.

Update: Here, after I won my appeal with YouTube after they took down my version of the actual "Happy Valley" movie, is the first half of the film, unedited, but with my commentary (if viewed on a laptop and not a smart phone).

Here is the cease and desist letter i had gotten from the law firm representing "Happy Valley" informing me that YouTube had taken my version of the film down and threatening me not to appeal that ruling..


Here is the email I got from YouTube informing me that I had won my appeal and the video had been restored.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: New YouTube Copyright Counter Notification
To: [email protected]



In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we've completed processing your counter-notification regarding these video(s):

This content has been restored unless you have deleted the video(s). Your account will not be penalized.


The YouTube Legal Support Team


Update: Here is Part 2 of "Happy Valley" with even MORE aggressive commentary from me in the annotations (not seen on a phone):