Hypocrisy Alert: SNAP’s Clohessy Says to Church, ‘Honor a Subpoena’

SNAP National Director David Clohessy

SNAP National Director David Clohessy

For several months, David Clohessy, the National Director of the anti-Catholic advocacy group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) has steadfastly refused to comply with a Missouri court order to answer questions at a deposition and turn over requested documents for an important civil case alleging abuse by a Catholic priest.

Despite losing several appeals – even one to the Missouri Supreme Court – Clohessy has aggressively sought to avoid what a judge has lawfully ordered him to do.

Yet when a Philadelphia reporter recently asked Clohessy about a judge's order for a Church official to testify at the criminal abuse case in Philadelphia, the SNAP leader actually had the gall to say:

"We're still disappointed that it's taking a judge's order to get Catholic officials to do their simple, civic duty – honor a subpoena. The church hierarchy claims it cooperates with law enforcement. But as this case shows, often they only cooperate when a judge insists that they do so."

Thus for Clohessy to now beseech Church officials to "honor a subpoena" and "cooperate with law enforcement" is hypocrisy at an epic level.

Although a West Virginia monsignor, who once served in Philadelphia, did initially contest a subpoena to travel to Pennsylvania to testify at the trial, the cleric will now comply with the judge's order and appear for the case.

This is unlike Clohessy, whose legal team is indicating it may challenge a judge's second order to appear at a deposition and hand over requested documents.

File under: "Do what I say, not as I do."


  1. Jansen says:

    Thanks for pointing out the rank hypocrisy of SNAP once again. 
    They should send Clohessy off to jail so he learns to do what the judge orders him.

  2. I represent the plaintiff in the case in which SNAP has been subpoenaed.  I'm sorry, but you have your facts wrong.  Upon issuance of the subpoena — which is unprecedented in its scope; far broader than merely testify to what you know about this case — SNAP and my client filed motions to quash because of its breadth.  The judge refused to quash to the subpoena, stating that privilege and other objections should be made at the deposition.  They were.  This week, the judge heard argument on the privilege objections to document production but not to questions asked.  She made an order regarding the documents that must be produced on Monday.  Monday is not months ago and the time for production has not yet run.  Neither SNAP nor the plaintiff have been in violation of any order.  I know lay people do not understand how the system works, but it is slowly going through the paces in the way it is supposed to on this.  There has been no defiance whatsoever of any order or subpoena, merely assertion of privilege for the judge to make rulings as is proper.

    • TheMediaReport.com says:

      We do not have our facts wrong, Ms. Randles.

      The post does not say that SNAP or the plaintiff are “in violation of any order.”

      Or post does say that Clohessy has vigorously fought the subpoena in an effort to not answer questions and turn over documents. That is a fact.

      Indeed, at the January deposition, which we first posted (right, Rebecca?), Clohessy steadfastly refused to answer many of the questions asked of him. This is a fact as well.

      By the way, if we can ask you a couple questions, Rebecca:
      Since you do not represent Clohessy, why are you so concerned about him and SNAP?
      Why did you raise objections to questions of Clohessy during the deposition if your client had no contact with SNAP, as you claim?


  3. Jansen says:

    Except that Clohessy didn't merely refuse to answer on grounds of privilege but he refused to answer just about everything but his name.  It was unreal.  And while you say the subpoena was overbroad, the judge(s) apparently didn't see it your way.
    The  party seeking the deposition could have filed a rule to show cause for his outrageous behavior at the depostion but they chose not to do so filing another motion to compel instead.  I would not have been so generous. Thus because of Clohessy's clear contempt for the judicial  process–which he lectures the Catholic church on to pliantly obey–there will now have to be a second deposition, at least, running up the fees and costs for everyone.
    Where's the compliance and transparency in that? 

  4. Dan says:

    It is very clear that SNAPs intent is to destroy the Church while advancing the leftist radical agenda and the LGBT viewpoint. The Catholic Church one of two or three institutions which stand in the way of complete control by the forces of deceit. God help us all if Catholics everywhere don't circle the wagons and fight!