By Frank Parlato
John Ziegler, a self-described journalist, announced on Facebook that he may renege on our written contract.
Rather than addressing the matter in court, he went public—stating he might break the agreement and unilaterally publish a filmed interview with a Jerry Sandusky accuser, which I arranged.
To be clear: we have a signed, written contract.
The terms are:
ZIEGLER RISKS SANDUSKY’S CHANCES AT JUSTICE
John Ziegler and I signed the contract—knowingly, voluntarily, and without ambiguity—on June 5th.
Here is the Contract
Purpose: The Parties agree to jointly conduct and film an interview of (redacted), regarding his experiences with Jerry Sandusky and matters related to the Sandusky case.
- Ownership and Rights: The resulting filmed interview (the “Work”), in its entirety and in any form, shall be jointly and equally owned—50% by Ziegler and 50% by Parlato.
- Consent Required for Distribution: The Work may not be published, distributed, disseminated, broadcast, licensed, edited, or otherwise made public without the prior written consent of both Parties. Either Party shall have full veto power over any such use.
- Profits: Any and all proceeds, revenues, or profits derived from the Work shall be divided equally—50% to Ziegler, 50% to Parlato—regardless of the manner of exploitation.
- Edited or Truncated Versions: Any shortened, edited, excerpted, or modified versions of the Work shall likewise require the mutual written consent of both Parties.
- Access and Copies: Both Ziegler and Parlato shall receive a full, unedited copy of the filmed interview and shall have equal access to all raw footage.
- Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties and may only be modified in writing, signed by both Parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.
THE ISSUE
The interview was filmed on June 9. Since then, Ziegler has refused to provide me a copy of the video. That is a direct violation of Clause 5.
But withholding the footage is just the surface issue. The real issue is what he now threatens to do: unilaterally publish a video we both legally own, in defiance of a contract that gives each of us full veto power.
That’s not just a breach. That’s sabotage. And it may jeopardize a man’s right to a fair post-conviction review.
THE DANGER OF SELF-DECLARED “BAD FAITH”
Ziegler says he can go ahead and publish the interview.
He unilaterally declares that I acted in “bad faith,” which he thinks gives him the right to publish the video—we both own equally.
That’s like saying one partner can steal the partnership’s assets by merely declaring that the other is acting in bad faith. The law does not allow that.
Now, see how dangerous that concept is – a party to a contract can merely say the other party acted in bad faith – just his say so– just him being the judge -and he can break a contract.
If that were contract law, there would be no contracts.
MUTUAL VETO POWER IGNORED
The contract gives both Ziegler and me full veto power over publication.
That means the video cannot be released without both our written approvals.
But Ziegler hasn’t even delivered a copy to me. And now he wants to publish our jointly owned video—without my consent.
THE INTERVIEW WAS FOR JUSTICE, NOT PUBLICITY
That interview wasn’t for show. It was for Jerry Sandusky. That’s why we had the agreement—to protect it, keep it intact, until it could be used to help.
None of this would matter other than his actions may hurt Jerry Sandusky.
I have asked him to wait until Jerry’s lawyers review and weigh in on it.
This is an evolving story. I have done a subsequent interview. There is new information that should supplement the interview and be taken in context with the first interview.
I have a better, more complete interview. And I have not undermined the possibility of a future hearing or new trial.
I consented to include Ziegler in the interview to help free Jerry Sandusky, who I believe is innocent. And not publication for its own sake.
But Ziegler came in seeking credit.
I thought we were helping a man. He thought he was helping his résumé. He came for applause—credit hunter.
You’re looking at a disagreement over a video. But the real story? A man’s freedom is on the line.
WARNINGS ABOUT ZIEGLER IGNORED
Now granted, people warned me about Zeigler. No principles. Self-sabotaging. Can’t shut up long enough to get real answers.
They said he was unstable. A man utterly without principles whose anger issues have ruined his life and caused him to be ineffective in helping Jerry Sandusky get free.
WITNESS OFFERS A CHANCE FOR JUSTICE
Still, I thought, he could be helpful with the subject of the interview, an accuser of Jerry Sandusky, whom I have befriended. I believe the accuser is a good man, an intelligent man who grew up underprivileged and needs some guidance.
Prosecutors manipulated him during the trial of Sandusky.
I believe he will have much more to say that could pave the way for a new trial for Sandusky.
A CONTRACTUAL PROMISE BETRAYED
To secure the interview with Ziegler, I promised this man that it would not be published without my consent.
That’s not just ethics. That’s the contract.
I did not know Ziegler was a man who regarded his word as optional.
A FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-CONSENT
And if the feckless Ziegler chooses to publish it and if it should harm Sandusky, it may result in a remedy at law targeting him, one designed to punish people who violate contracts.
- Breach of Contract – Clause 5 already breached: no unedited copy delivered. Any unilateral release would violate Clauses 2 and 4.
- Irreparable Third-Party Harm – Premature publication could prejudice Jerry Sandusky’s post-conviction strategy. Money damages are inadequate.
- Equitable Estoppel / Detrimental Reliance – I secured the interview on a promise that the interview would not be released prematurely. The subject relied on that promise.
Ziegler’s behavior tells a story. And it ends with me saying this, for the record: I do not consent to publishing that interview. Not yet. Not like this.
But this is not a dispute about ego or ownership. It is about protecting a man’s constitutional rights, honoring a witness’s trust, and upholding a written promise.
This is not a revenue dispute; it is about safeguarding a defendant’s chance at justice and enforcing a clear mutual-consent clause.
And if none of that means anything, then how about this: A man – even John Ziegler – should keep his word.
