KNOCKOUT! Falsely accused St. Louis priest Rev. Joseph Jiang fights SNAP – and wins!
In a monumental victory for truth and justice in the Catholic Church abuse story, a federal judge has ruled that the lawyer-funded group SNAP indeed defamed St. Louis priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang and conspired to falsely claim the priest of child sex abuse.
In her ruling, the judge sanctioned SNAP, its national director David Clohessy, and its "outreach director" Barbara Dorris and ordered them to pay for Fr. Jiang's attorney fees and expenses.
[**Court docs: Click to read the federal judge's ruling against SNAP (pdf)**]
SNAP national director
David Clohessy
The abuse claims were outlandish from the beginning. The accuser "had made previous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse" and already had a reputation of being "a serial exaggerator to the point of being 'delusional.'"
Meanwhile, one of the accuser's parents had a "history of making unfounded claims against the Catholic Church for monetary gain" and had a long record in the civil court system, with at least 2 liens and 16 judgments against him.
SNAP's willful contempt
Throughout the legal process, SNAP repeatedly and willfully defied a federal judge's orders to hand over important documentary evidence in the case. Then, as we reported just a few weeks ago, the group proceeded to orchestrate a fraudulent media campaign about the case.
So when U.S. District Court Judge Carol E. Jackson issued her ruling this week, she really let SNAP have it, concluding:
- "SNAP defendants' refusal to comply with the Court's discovery orders has been willful and in bad faith";
- "SNAP defendants conspired with one another and others to obtain plaintiff's conviction on sexual abuse charges and that they entered into this conspiracy due to discriminatory animus against plaintiff based on his religion, religious vocation, race and national origin";
- "SNAP defendants' public statements about plaintiff (Fr. Jiang) were false and they did not conduct any inquiry into the truth or falsity of these public statements, but instead made these statements negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth."
To punish SNAP for its recklessness, Jackson ordered that SNAP "pay the reasonable expenses, including plaintiff's attorney's fees, caused by their failure to comply with the Court's orders."
Kudos to Fr. Jiang for his victory for truth and justice.
Well, just as I told you they would, SNAP has done it again. No real lawyer sponsored group would ever make the ludicrous legal "errors" and make the false accusations SNAP's made here. Anyone who know lawyers knows that lawyers put the A in Anal when it comes to covering their asses. Yet TMR pretends SNAP's the lawyers front for victims. Unbelievable. All their mistakes have been legal ones. Ones that SNAP never had to enact; but chose to. Just like the false flagged bullshitters I and other victims have always, at least since we figured the scam out, claimed them to be.
My instincts tell me this is punch one of a one-two combination. Philly still hasn't been revealed in its entirety. SNAP needs to fold its tent and scarper lest it brings, even more harm to victims. But it's "job", created by the church, isn't over till it's inflicted maximum damage on victims while covering its true affiliation and its true owners The Catholic church itself..
So you contend that SNAP is run by the Catholic Church? Utterly ridiculous. Just a way to avoid admitting that just maybe there is a bias out there against Catholicism. SNAP is made up of arrogant bigots who hate the Church, that's why they make these mistakes.
Shouldn't the first sentence read – "In a monumental victory for truth and justice in [ONE] Catholic Church abuse story" – And then again repeated in the last sentence of your article, "Kudos to Fr. Jiang for his victory for truth and justice." Would have been good if I was granted an ounce of 'truth and justice' from the catholic liars and accusers who have come against me (yes, that would include you publyin'). Even much more important would be 'truth and justice' granted to the victims of the perpetrators of horrific crimes committed by your priests and bishops. Why is this too much to ask of God's One 'True' Church?
Plenty of 'truth and justice' has been meted out to the victims, but that doesn't give anyone the right to falsely accuse just because the iron's hot, and it is presumed that secular justice and public opinion is in your favor. Nor to persecute one organization out of personal animus and contempt when a blind eye is turned towards other "churches", religious organizations, Boy Scouts, secular youth groups, the public school system, etc. where the rate of abuse is just as high – and in the nation's public schools twice as high as that claimed within the Catholic Church. The scourge of abuse is a problem in society, and is not exclusive to the Catholic Church, although that institution is apparently held to different and higher standard. One thing the one, true Church will not do, however, is go away, although I think that this is the end goal. And what you claim to have suffered on this forum is hardly the equivalent of being accused falsely of criminal sexual abuse.
Really? Mr. Chris Browne. "Plenty of 'truth and justice' has been meted out to the victims". Is this fact based on your assumptions or does this represent the prevailing misconceptions of your cult. I didn't have any 'personal animus and contempt' towards your cult until many falsely accused and wrongly persecuted me. And hear this straight – I hate the pedophilia and sexual abuse of any minor in any and all institutions. Problem is that churches claiming to be 'true' or 'just' and doing God's work, when they are far from it, should be held to a higher standard than any secular organizations. How can we compare any facts or numbers when cases from your church were secretly settled and participants were held to that secrecy. Keep thinking that other organizations are just as bad or worse and your leaders have done enough, and there will never be truth or transparency from your cult. Finally, in regards to what I have suffered from the lies on this forum, they are less than 1 percent of the false accusations I've fielded from your cult members. And I have been falsely accused of saying obscene and dirty things to children, from members of your cult, and served seven days for contempt, because I refused to admit to something that never happened. Secular justice can be as bad as catholic justice. You may want to think, before you assume and point the finger at someone else.
Reasonable expenses and attorney fees does not seem seem like enough for what they did to this innocent priest. If you read SNAP's response to the judge's sanctions, they're still unbowed. They can't see their way out of the pit they dug for themselves or admit they might have made a mistake.
Joanne, on the 25th, may echo the thoughts of many when she says the penalty, against SNAP, is inadequate. Well I am not a lawyer, but my take on this is that the court ruling and penalty is only about sanctioning SNAP for non-compliance of discovery orders. In other words this is just removing an obstacle that SNAP threw in to derail the plaintiffs case. So the basic case, defaming the priest and atttacking his civil rights, will continue. Damages for loss of reputation, ect., would only come if he wins the original case against SNAP. which is basically a defamation lawsuit. This legal tug-of-war may not be over, but that's just my layman's understanding.
I have heard that the dollars of we the faithful that have now been paid out by archbishops, bishops and cardinals to pay for abuse and for their negligence and complicity in shuttling abusers all over North America is up above $4,000,000,000. The ultimate irony will be when Plaintiffs attorneys figure out that both under Canon Law and Civil Law our money was gotten from us fraudulently and paid for things for which we did not donate it. Then imagine court judgments that bishops etc must reimburse us ie the church out of their own personal fortunes. More irony: the same attorneys who ended up with 40% to 45% of the $4,000,000,000 will get a double dip of that amount. I do not recall and I don't know of any faithful Ctholic who was consulted prior to their donated dollars being used to pay off perderasts and pedophiles, including abuseve bishops themselves, and for actions of bishops in protecting sames. Most ironical: for some reason the bishops always insist that the court records be sealed after a payment "to protect the victims" – seems like the real victims are the faithful. Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas
And most ironic to many of us, especially if you believe that you donors are the 'real victims', is how any catholics still remain faithful to their church. You might want to figure out that it would be more beneficial for you to become faithful to God and Jesus Christ, and no longer be deceived by your false church.
Lawyers funding groups to get business is a conflict of interests. It is like CPA and accounting firms wanting congress to keep the tax laws complicated to keep in business or generate more business.
You got it, Guy.
Once you’ve stitched together a whackjob story, you may well have to add further whackeries whenever actual events tend to stretch it beyond any rational limits and shape; as the poorly-baked layer cake starts to break apart on the display plate, you have to lard on more of your cheap frosting to try to hold it together.
Thus JR on the 25th at 848PM: this St. Louis case doesn’t make JR’s theory (i.e. that SNAP – and, of course, the tort lawyers too – were and always have been mere tools of the Church and this case was somehow also a show masterminded by the Church) look very good, so now he’s got to lard on more frosting.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 848PM:
Thus we get his bit here that obviously SNAP can’t be a front for the tort lawyers since no lawyers would ever have brought such a flawed case to court.
Alas, the case wasn’t brought by the SNAP attorneys; the case was brought to them by the priest whom SNAP had consistently and publicly maligned. SNAP’s defense attorneys – who, it escapes JR’s legal chops, would probably not have been SNAP’s classic tort attorneys but instead actual defense counsel – were playing defense here, not to put too fine a point on it.
And they didn’t have much to work with, given that SNAP tried to run a play that used to work well enough in the bad old salad days of the Stampede, when you could pretty much get away with making any accusation you wanted against a priest and/or the Church and be considered a hero for doing so.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 848PM:
But on the basis of that lard-y bit of frosting, JR thus can assign himself a victory lap and claim that “Yet TMR pretends SNAP’s lawyers front for victims”. SNAP’s torties used SNAP as a front to trawl for ‘victims’; but the lawyers defending SNAP here had the task of defending SNAP in a civil suit, so JR’s entire point is misdirected and thus fails.
And the victory lap continues in the second paragraph where we are treated to a recitation as to what JR’s “instincts” do “tell” him. Readers may judge whether JR’s “instincts” are a reliable source of guidance in anything.
Further larded, then, by other bits to the effect that i) we still haven’t seen the final results of the Lynn case in Philadelphia and ii) any exposure of SNAP’s assorted skullduggeries is – we are to accept – merely further successful efforts by Church-controlled SNAP to make ‘victims’ look bad.
On the 25th at 1010PM ‘Dan’ – faced with the same core problem as JR – will try to run this play: this St. Louis case is merely “[one]” case (scream caps omitted).
Thus, our takeaway from this bit of ‘Dan’s is supposed to be that it’s only one case and so what?
To which I would respond: the case a) demonstrates dynamics that have been long-proposed and lengthily-examined as actual dynamics and tactics of the Stampede and b) suggests – especially when taken in conjunction with recent articles in comments that reveal classic tort-strategies and then the recent decision of the state Supreme Court in the Lynn case – that the Stampede i) is starting to lose its mojo and ii) has from the get-go greatly relied on assorted derangements of constitutional legal procedure and jurispraxis, amplified by an eager media.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1010PM:
And then – marvelously – ‘Dan’ tries to shoehorn in his own claimed victimizations (“lies” and “slander” and so forth) as supportive of his vision here (i.e. that he is merely a specially-appointed divine messenger of “beautiful prophecy”, especially as delivered to stranger children in a schoolyard, and his many arrests and court-ordered psychiatric observation stays, abetted by “hundreds” of lying Catholics and so forth, are all mere demonstrations of unholy mockery of “God” and rejection of His (meaning God’s and/or ‘Dan’s) Word and Will).
But – as I have said before – it is certainly “too much to ask” of ‘Dan’ that he come to terms with his own issues. The gaggle of divinities resident in his bathroom mirror forbid ‘Dan’ from doing any such thing and ‘Dan’ is nothing if not a reely reely good “servant” (or “Servant”) of ‘God’ (and/or of ‘Dan’).
"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies [and liars]." John 8:44
"He is the great promoter of falsehood of every kind. He is a liar, all his temptations are carried on by his calling evil good, and good evil, and promising freedom in sin. He is the author of all lies; whom liars resemble and obey, with whom all liars shall have their portion forever." Matthew Henry's commentary on John 8:44 Did he not know all about you, publiar?
It behoves me to inform you, that though many catholics lied to get me in trouble, very few added 'mockery of God' to the equation. And no one but you has been so insistent in mocking the things of God as yourself. And I would bet you're proud of that, good catholic, mocking hypocrite.
And on the 26th at 1124AM ‘Dan’ will repeat his immediately previous performance with a few variations in the script.
Especially this now-familiar variation: ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – is actually against “pedophilia and sexual abuse of any minor in any and all institutions” … but actually kinda sorta especially in the Church (which institution exists as a rival to ‘Dan’s own specially-appointed divine authority as spokesman for … the divinities resident in his bathroom mirror) and thus ‘Dan’s preference for delivering his “beautiful prophecy” to stranger children in a schoolyard is merely the glorious working-out of ‘God’s wondrous plan to have ‘Dan’ be His specially-appointed Mouth.
Oh, and it is therefore nothing but “mockery” of those resident divinities to question any of ‘Dan’s stuff. Doubt that and ‘Dan’ will start to pray-against you, which no doubt will resemble his buckling down to something in the hex line.
Have we not heard enough of your repetitive ignorance and stupidity, Son of Satan.
The point by commenter ‘McClung’ (the 26th at 1024AM) – i.e. that Catholics have had their donations used to “pay for abuse and for their negligence and complicity in shuttling abusers all over” – requires a couple of further points.
First, unless specific monies can be identified as having been donated for a specific purpose and then used for settlement of allegations, then there isn’t a basis for his ‘misdirection of donations’.
Second, we really don’t know how many actual and genuine cases of “abuse” and “negligence” there have been. Thanks to a) the tort-attorneys’ deployment of their long-established stratagems designed to force deep-pockets corporations to settle rather than face civil trials of large, complex and many-plaintiffed lawsuits, with b) the media often amplifying it all with presumptions that any allegation is per se a ‘veracious report’, then trying to find a genuine instance is akin to identifying the tracks of a specific animal in the sand on the shore of a busy savannah waterhole.
Best listen up McClung, what Publion is saying comes directly from the heart of the church. He knows it all. The man has more excuses for pedophile priests than Trump has for White supremacists.
Continuing with my comment on the McClung comment of the 26th at 1024AM:
And I would say that there has been far far too much ‘imagining’ done in this whole Catholic Abuse Matter, and far far too little actual investigation, analysis, and justifiable drawing of conclusions. Less of “imagine” and more of ‘question’ and ‘examine’ is what I would recommend.
Lastly – and this is a point covered quite a while ago – Federal judge Schiltz, who had presided over a number of Catholic Abuse settlements, opined that in at least half or more of those cases it was the plaintiff attorneys who demanded the secrecy provision.
That can hardly be surprising. If tort attorneys in the Catholic Abuse Matter let it become public knowledge just how much money was being paid for just how small an allegation (having a hand thrust down one’s pants in high school garnering a million dollars, for example) then they would have run the risk of turning public opinion against their entire – and hugely lucrative – extraction (not to say extortion) project.
"Extortion" did Cindy Sunshine just call reparations for damages done due to our sexual abuse as children by our own clerics "extortion"?
It was my hand that was forced down the front of my perp's pants. you dear, funny little fellow. I find your warmth and kindess amazing and I do enjoy your show so. So clever with that hint of bitterness coming through. You are wonderful!
Continuing with my comment on the McClung comment of the 26th at 1024AM:
As I have said before on this site, I think the American Bishops made the mistake over 30 years ago of not realizing that the culture of the country was changing in such a way that the long-established tort-attorney strategies designed to force huge sums from corporate defendants while simultaneously avoiding public trial of the lawsuits might ever be deployed against the Church.
SNAP was a “false flag” operation from the get go. Conceived and dedicated by the church to infiltrate survivor/victim support and advocacy groups for victims of childhood sexual abuse by Roman Catholic Priests. After gaining the confidence of a large base of survivors, SNAP was pushed in the media by ALL FRONTS as the pre-eminent survivor group, and thus inhibiting legitimate, significant survivor groups to vigorously oppose the church.
What a ridiculous load of crap that the percentage of abusers in the priesthood is the same as other professions.
What a ridiculous assertion that empathy, transparency, and justice extends from the church to the victims.
What a horrid misconception that SNAP is in this for the victims. SNAP has been a working arm of the church from day one.
A greater day of judgement awaits the pervert priests, and cover up enablers than any court or internet forum. Catholics remaining in the pews; continuing to support criminal priests… will be held accountable by God Almighty just as if they had pulled down the Altar Boy’s pants themselves.
Claiming to be a Christian, and hence “following the teaching of Christ,” then ignoring it… well… it won’t be so funny when Kharma DOES NOT turn the other cheek.
Jesus, reportedly being omnipotent, could have chose to hang around a gaggle of over-priced lawyers. Apparently he chose not to.
The story here is not that SNAP has flopped intentionally on every sensible legal maneuver in the last 20 years. The story here is that any fool actually believes SNAP was founded to help victims in the 1st place. SNAP is a covert arm and tool of the church; founded specifically to co-opt the survivor/victim advocacy gravitas… and this ongoing scam of the church… SNAP… continues to work perfectly in it’s unholy role of subterfuge and mis-management of survivor on behalf of its Vatican Masters.
Mike Carter, I was told as far back as the early '90's about Jeff Anderson, His name came to me through a former religious I met at a party. I thought it odd that in a nation full of lawyers Jeff Anderson was the only one mentioned by any one I broached the subject of my abuse with. Mainly because Anderson was out of Minnesota. Not exactly the center of the Universe when it comes to lawyers in my mind. And then when the scandal broke in 2002 there was Jeff Anderson leading the charge handing over to a lawyer he picked, the names of over 300 victims . Who managed also only to find Anderson to represent them. Odd! In Los Angeles, it was Anderson and Bouchet (the lawyer Anderson picked) handed us SNAP. we thought it was connected to our lawyers on some level else why were we handed over to them? We were placed in a machine, the SNAP machine. Working away to tell us what our issues were in the public eye and always speaking for us on their talking points. Not about our abuse. We were only there to authenticate SNAP (and our presence did just that.) No, we talked about SNAP's issues instead. about protecting those not abused, the Catholic children now. So that the church could trot out it's ,then new, "Protect the Children" policies. End of conversation. And SNAP hasn't changed that closed loop for 25 years. Doesn't sound very lawyerly to me not mentioning your own victims' damages but in passing, and instead, changing the topic to the unharmed now. Why? I thought it was about our abuse not about people who hadn't been abused ???? Really we victims were playing the straight comic for the church's punch line. Thanks to SNAP. And that political line of SNAP's remains the same to this day for 25 YEARS?!?! . And that's their only political line for victims. Also SNAP was saying completely different things than what our lawyers would say to the media. Our lawyers spoke about our abuse. Yet SNAP, their supposed front, only spoke about protecting the unabused. As if that was our, the hurt's, biggest issue. We victims were fooled. We were being repped in every way possible by Catholic church chosen lawyers. The lead lawyer was always the lawyer with the most clients. And Jeff was the client whisperer. Clients in large numbers, came to Jeff first. He, then, connected them to his chosen lawyer in California. And SNAP, in turn, was also the holding pen for clients because if you hadn't heard about Jeff Anderson you could have heard about SNAP since SNAP was on all the talk shows and was speaking to the media, daily. They were the only victims' group extant. The only gathering place and so highly recommended by our own lawyers. Seems pretty complicated to create such a system as a lawyers' front group; Only to have SNAP keep screwing up legally again and again and again. Screwups that always make victims look unfair, even criminal, cuz SNAP represents victims don't you know.
This is the big and only picture of this machine, this contraption that victims fall into. It wasn't till I'd read about Fr. Tom Doyle O.P.'s "Project" that I realized who built, ran, and paid for that machine to function as it does. TMR is just another soldier in Tom Doyles war against compensating victims.
Enter the smoke blowers to fight the Reformation and get off this topic. Yawn!
I wish peace to you and yours, and happiness.
Could someone translate Sacerdotes full name from the Latin for me, please? I think his name blames the scandal on Gay priests? Apologies already if I'm wrong.
Something about "priests not sodomites" is it?
Sacer… There were no other groups for victims. SNAP was on the runway; funded and connected to the media from the jump. It was All SNAP and only SNAP.
There is another falsely accused priest Fr. Gordon McRae who has been behind the stone walls of the New Hampshire State Prison for Men Concord for 22 years. He has a phenomenal blog These Stone Walls.com.On September 23, 1994, Father Gordon MacRae, a priest of the Diocese of Manchester, NH, was confined to a prison cell to begin a sentence of sixty seven years in the New Hampshire State Prison. At this writing, he is 64 years old. The crimes for which he is imprisoned for life were alleged to have occurred when he was between 25 and 30 years old. Brought with no evidence or corroboration whatsoever, the claims were accompanied by monetary demands which his diocese settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars despite evidence of fraud.
In my opinion, Catholic officials are desperate to protect their corrupt institution. Once again with its money and power, church officials are using every bully tactic it can find to hide their over all cover-ups. Ironically, the court confirmed that. It is no secret that Catholic church officials have historically been catered to by the legal justice system. Not much has changed, except courageous survivors are still speaking up despite that injustice. Have a nice day.
On the 26th at 930PM JR will try to push – yet again – his bit about my merely making “excuses for pedophile priests”.
First, the term “pedophile” is a clinical characterization and not many priests qualify for that diagnosis. Surely the action JR describes in his own ‘story’ and allegation is insufficient to ground such a diagnosis for the priest JR made his money by accusing.
Second, we see – as always – the Abusenik scam of tossing around terms merely for their scare and shock value rather than for any accuracy such terms might convey. Which has been a significant enabling element in the Stampede from the get-go.
Let's see P, you get my abuse wrong and now you're inventing a priest molesting me when it was a Marianist brother. I wish you had the respect to get my facts straight. But you don't. Looks like Sacer'skicking your fake little intellect's ass. Have a good day.
On the 26th at 922PM JR will try to spin the monies paid as “reparations”. But for that to be accurate we would have to have established the genuineness and veracity of the claims, which has never been done – thanks to the tortie legal strategy of forcing a settlement rather than subjecting the claims to trial.
He also claims that actually it was not the priest’s hand down JR’s pants, but rather that JR was forced to put his hand down the priest’s pants. Which is as may be. The key point remains: would the (alleged) forcing of his hand down a priest’s pants result in the extensive and long-sustained derangement we see in JR, now going on more than half a century?
Or: was there a great deal of characterological damage there to begin with?
Which, if there were, would also open the hardly-inconceivable possibility (not to say probability) that the characterological issues actually caused the allegation, and not vice-versa.
These are questions that would have been raised in a trial. They would have been rather difficult to dispose of by JR’s attorneys. Which demonstrates the shrewdness of the tortie Stampede strategy: gather all these questionable allegations into a big big bunch such that the lawsuits and allegations could not each be subjected to analysis at trial and thus you avoid the dangers posed (to the plaintiffs) by having these allegations examined.
Now I'm "deranged"? Well, thank you for the kindness. I'm sure you must have had a hard day.
On the 26th at 419PM the commenter ‘Sacerdotes’ pretty much repeats JR’s theory that “SNAP was a ‘false flag’ operation from the get-go … conceived and dedicated by the church to infiltrate” various survivor groups and so forth.
This theory has been taken apart a number of times in comments on this site, and on recent threads as well as ones farther back. As Michael D’Amato – no friend of the Church – reveals in his book ‘Mortal Sins’, SNAP was going nowhere until in the late 1980s (only a few years after SNAP’s inception) tort attorney Jeff Anderson made Barbara Blaine an offer she chose not to refuse, and SNAP indentured itself to the torties as a front to trawl for allegants. Few such allegants, now remunerated through the shrewd tortie multiple-plaintiff lawsuit strategy, have ever come forward to complain about their success under that plan.
The rest of the ‘Sacerdotes’ comment is merely epithetical characterization unsupported by any demonstration.
And – yet again – I point out that the key point is not that SNAP (certainly since the Anderson-Blaine alliance) is not primarily interested in the well-being of ‘victims’, but rather the key point is that SNAP is a front for the torties and not for the Church.
That's the cover. SNAP and Anderson just helped each other assail the poor put-upon church. That's P's "theory"(Lie). No insurance companies protecting their butts but willingly handing over half the settlements costs to liars and thieves. Like that would ever happen.
That's what you're supposed to think about SNAP. That SNAP was a front for our lawyers. That's what we thought about SNAP when we were told to go to SNAP meetings and press conference to support other victims. It turns out both our lawyers (not all of them) and SNAP were fronts chosen and created by the church.
I'd love to know how Sacer figured these truths out but am grateful she/he did.
I don't know who Sacer is but they've got P on the ropes.
But this then opens up an opportunity for JR (the 26th at 443PM) to – yet again – unload his favorite assorted 3x5s about his adventures in discovering … whatever this time around he claims to have discovered. We can take JR’s word and powers of logical connection for all of it, of course. And readers may judge as they will.
He is addressing a ‘Mike Carter’ who does not otherwise appear here.
All of his bits here have been dealt-with in prior comments and none of them should be unfamiliar to regular readers here.
And after rehashing his favorite adventure story – second, perhaps, only to his abuse allegation itself – JR then tries to shut off analysis of it by declaiming and pronouncing that “this is the big and only picture of this machine”. And then – in a rather heavy-handed effort – he also tries to stifle further examination by claiming to that it is all boring and induces in him nothing but a “Yawn!” – and surely by now that would be many readers’ response to JR’s 3×5 epic.
And he heads for the wings with the Wig of Wishing All Peace and Happiness.
I'm just trying to show you how a real follower of Jesus would behave. You need a role model. You have no morals. But i still wish you joy.
On the 27th at 1233AM ‘Kris’ opines that the court’s decision in this St. Louis case has somehow “confirmed” that the “legal justice system” has always “catered to” the Church.
Just how that assertion is demonstrated by the court’s decision here is unclear and ‘Kris’ doesn’t explain it.
Although the further remark about “courageous survivors” seems to indicate that ‘Kris’ is basically just working off a preconceived script to the effect that “courageous victims” struggle against all-powerful Church and its indentured courts and legal system. Which, given how the Stampede has managed to garner billions from the Church, doesn’t make sense at all.
Nice of ‘Kris’, though, to wish everybody “a nice day”.
Publion:
There is no reason to explain. The overwhelming facts and the evidence of Catholic church officials' horrific current and past history of crimes speaks for its own corrupt institution. Have another nice day…if you can.
Epithetical Characterization. LOL!
You know, my presumably righteous friend in Jesus, the Almighty, & spiritus Sanctus et al… obviously your extreme intelligence ascribes complex figurative-speech powers to a man living with much simpler constructs. The Gospels are very straightforward and have little equivocation regarding the fate of those who drive little children away from Christ.
What substantiation would you like… something like scribens (scribbles) in astra (stars)? I make it a fact the objective (by definition) of ANY conspiracy or cover-up; is to HIDE ANY EVIDENCE THEREOF. What can David Clohessy & Barbara Blaine do… wear a scarlet letter or have a check-mark and the word CONSPIRATOR smeared on their heads each Ash Wednesday? They… ah… are fettered by slave-like chains to their rotten-evil Master in Supplicance & Depravity… the Mother Church herself. Do you expect them to shout how much of dispicable traitors they are from the top of the mountain?
I was not there when the unholy alliance and FALSE FLAG industries were connived by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, the USCCB, and SNAP conspired to hijack the survivor/victim/advocacy movement. I was not there either, the very first time any sentient sea-faring man or woman realized the Earth was not flat, but perhaps round… and that there was “literally” no way to sail off the edge of it!
You are a literal fellow, it seems. Logic trumps emotions on good days. On bad days it just bounces off the cerebrum for whatever reason, and emotions have it’s day. The Catholic Church used to jail proponents of heliocentrism, in spite of the preponderance of cutting edge thinking indicating otherwise at the time. Men were actually tortured into abjuring the facts. Such intellectual bullying did not stop the planets from revolving around the sun one iota. You see, the winners (as you know) WRITE HISTORY. So in most cases, clear interpretation or investigation by the losers is IMPOSSIBLE. So unless the SNAP conspirators and the church conspirators took a group photo with a selfie-stick… there may not be any “pictures at eleven.”
The evidence therefore may be a mystery… like the Transconfiguration of Supernatural Blessings on Holy Water-n-such by a group of mis-guided “wannabe” followers of Jesus… power drunk with undue moral gravitas NOT ASCRIBED by Jesus in the evident Gospels. Faith in what’s good is glorious. Faith in what is immoral and indefensible “sin-wise” is a waste of so-called intelligent life.
Ya know… when Jesus is quoted rebuking the Pharisees and tossing money-changer tables and such, he appears most-directly to be laying out the Moral Gauntlet with Epithetical lack of regard for undue pretenses of homage for the wicked.
So thanks, I guess. By the way, in closing, if you truly in your heart feel that Jesus in ANY REMOTE SENSE WHATSOEVER is going to be on the side of the perpetrators, obstructionists, & conspirators instead of the victims.. all that stuff in the Bible about the “M-E-E-K” inheriting the Earth or whatever must be stone-cold hooey!!!
Sacer's telling the truth.
But from where did Sacer come?
Did Sacer like Athena and SNAP spring fully formed from the mind of their creator?
Where've you been Sacer? How do you come to be here? How did you reach your conclusions about SNAP?
This ruling, by Judge Carol Jackson, would have been like a breath of fresh air to Fr. 'Joseph' Jiang. The weight of injustice would have been suffocatng for this poor man. The wording of her ruling is worth focusing on….. "SNAP defendants conspired with each other and others to obtain plaintiff's conviction on sex abuse charges and they entered into this conspiracy due to discriminatory animus based on religion, religious vocation, race and national origin." These words are a stunning condemnation of SNAP'S leadership, because they point to an inherent strategy of…..'the end justifies the means'. The end objective being extracting money from the Church, and the means to achieve this is well …'anything goes'. Even being prepared to go as far as seeing an innocent man falsely accused and sent to prison. SNAP might well be on the ropes after these revelations, my considered advice is to hammer them until they drop…..because they have degenerated into rapacious opportunists.
On the 27th at 808PM, JR – lacking any way of dealing with the key point of the issue I pointed out in my comment of the 27th at at 1042AM – tries to get some leverage out of the fact that a) it was JR’s hand that was forced down the pants and b) it was a Marianist Brother and not a priest.
Leaving untouched – as it were – the key point, which – again – is: which is more likely to have happened: i) a large-futured and high-functioning 16 year-old so profoundly and apparently permanently deranged by (allegedly) having to stick his hand down the Brother’s pants or ii) an already deeply characterologically deranged personality that punished a teacher for being denied an acceptable grade by claiming sexual abuse … ?
The key “facts” are what have been finally gotten “straight”: no child rape, despite years of claiming otherwise.
Everyone is deranged except you, as your truly deranged mind makes assumptions and false accusations in order to to destroy an opponent's character. Maybe the Brother would have given him an "acceptable grade", if Jim let him rape him. You are truly one nasty, despicable creep.
On then to JR’s of the 27th at 821PM:
Here, JR claims that “that’s the cover” – without explaining exactly what that “that” actually is.
Is he claiming that not only Anderson and Blaine but also D’Amato are all part of a Church-run conspiracy? Or is he claiming that Anderson’s (rather shrewd) plan to have Blaine and SNAP do the front-work and trawling that the torties could not do themselves was simply … what? A cover for the Church to look like the target?
And in what way has JR demonstrated in any way at all that my theory – explicated at length in many comments on this site – is a “Lie”?
Then JR’s train of thought wanders off into the “insurance companies” bit, making no discernible sense at all.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 27th at 821PM:
Nor does his second paragraph help his case: if “that’s what we thought” indicates that allegants had already figured out that SNAP “was a front for our lawyers” then … what?
And again, JR’s asserted conclusion that SNAP and the attorneys (all the tort attorneys who have ever taken part in a Stampede lawsuit? … really?) were “fronts chosen and created by the church” a) is based on nothing he has demonstrated and b) requires the presumption that the Church controlled all the many torties in this country who have ever filed a lawsuit in a Stampede case.
Readers may consider all of it as they will.
On then to the comment of ‘Sacerdotes’-Something-Else-This-Time (hereinafter: SSETT) of the 27th at 523PM:
After establishing his ‘cool’ cred with the “LOL!”, SSETT tosses in some sorta-Latin bits and then goes for a familiar old point: the Gospels – doncha see? – are reely reely “very straightforward and have little equivocation regarding the fate of those who drive little children away from Christ”.
That point, raised a while back in comments by ‘Dan’, has been dealt-with at length on those prior threads.
Leaving the theological and Scriptural points, then, as they are in the record here, I will simply make the legal point that before applying the punishment we have to establish the guilt of this or that accused individual. And that task cannot be accomplished by mere assumptions or presumptions.
And might I add that Matthew 18:6, though "dealt-with at length", was not dealt-with well at all, and publyin' prefers to avoid subjects that he has no valid excuses for. That's why we consider him a coward.
Continuing with my comment on SSETT’s of the 27th at 523PM:
Thus “simpler constructs” doesn’t really capture the problem here; it is simplistic mentation, not “simpler constructs”, that are the problem undermining SSETT’s point here.
Then, in the third paragraph, doing his best to imitate competent and complex thought and grammar, SSETT gets grammatically confused, but apparently tries to make the point that since the whole point of a “conspiracy” is to “hide any evidence thereof” (scream-caps omitted) then – tah dahhhhhhh! – there is … what? By amazing and convenient coincidence, there is no evidence that can rationally be expected.
And suddenly we find ourselves thus regressed to the Victimist Playbook: a) no evidence is itself evidence and b) on that basis one can convict on the basis of no evidence.
Continuing with my comment on SSETT’s of the 27th at 523PM:
But suddenly, and with utterly no preparatory or subsequent demonstration, SSETT leaps onward to the scheduled conclusion: there is no evidence, but that itself is not only evidence, but also is evidence of the Church having controlled the whole thing.
Any logically-inclined readers having trouble following SSETT’s bouncing ball here are rightly troubled.
Why would no evidence not be evidence of a conspiracy between SNAP and the tort lawyers? Or does SSETT also subscribe to the JR bit that all the tort lawyers ever involved in Stampede lawsuits must – along with SNAP – be mere tools of the Church?
And the rest of the paragraph riffs on with some oddly familiar eructations about the Church and so on.
Not all our lawyers were working consciously for the church. Anderson himself may not realize how he was placed in the position he is in. But I remember in L.A. He ran a case that was crushed in court within one month of the Calif. settlements. I always thought that odd that the final note played in California for victims was a sour one and played so loudly by Jeff Anderson and co. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. And again, so like SNAP, without necessity.
Continuing with my comment on SSETT’s of the 27th at 523PM:
On then to the next paragraph where SSETT gracefully admits not being present when “the unholy alliance and false flag industries were connived” … so far so good.
But then – nonetheless – SSETT proceeds immediately – once again – to the scheduled conclusion (mere presumption, actually) that the conniving was done “by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy” and so forth. And SSETT knows this … how?
SSETT then slyly tries to distract-from and defuse his huge and unsubstantiated presumptive leap here by tossing in that SSETT also wasn’t around when whoever it was who first figured it out realized that the earth was spherical. Golly, so SSETT wasn’t around to know Parmenides and Hesiod and Pythagoras and Eratosthenes of Cyrene … that’s a revelation. But hardly relevant here.
Continuing with my comment on SSETT’s of the 27th at 523PM:
In the next paragraph, SSETT opines that I seem “a literal fellow” – whatever that might mean. To SSETT it apparently means that on good days logic trumps emotion, and on bad days it just bounces off – prepare yourself – “the cerebrum”. And it does this “for whatever reason” and that leads to the point where “emotions have it’s day” (sic). Readers so inclined may wish to try and suss out SSETT’s meaning here, and the point of the whole bit as well.
Apparently, though, the whole bit was simply to platform a distracting riff on the Church and heliocentrism. (And it would surely seem that SSETT is now merely riffing and ranting on some of SSETT’s favorite topics.)
And with more than a few scream-caps, as well.
Continuing with my comment on SSETT’s of the 27th at 523PM:
Perhaps we will have better luck in the next paragraph.
Nope. Just more riffing and ranting, based on the still-undemonstrated presumption that it is the Church who controls … take your pick: SNAP, Jeff Anderson, all tort lawyers who have ever lodged a Stampede lawsuit, and/or whoever else.
So … if “the evidence may be a mystery” … then how is SSETT so rantingly sure that the Church is behind it all?
Presuming to speak for Sacer,
He calls you a "literal guy" meaning you accept SNAP at face value as not being the church.(When it is) As a lawyers front group , which it is in part, and a victims organization, which it also is in a very small part. All those facades you accept as real but real victims explanations of what happened to them/ us. You never believe. That's pretty odd.
You are "literal" about everything but the victims. Of course, we self-identified as such. Otherwise, how would you know we existed; if we hadn't spoken up about what happened to us? The perps and the church weren't going to out themselves, were they? They never have.
Continuing with my comment on SSETT’s of the 27th at 523PM:
Perhaps we will have better luck in the next paragraph.
Nope. Here SSETT tries to dispose of my point about his reliance on mere epithetical bits by asserting that Jesus, in rebuking the Pharisees, was kinda “Epithetical” Himself.
Yes, Jesus could certainly allow Himself some very candid assessments from time to time. So do I. But Jesus explained Himself, as do I. SSETT – among others – simply lards on the epithetical and expects to be agreed-with.
In 2 sentences you have twice compared yourself to Jesus.
This must have been the only time that error has ever been made about you. And Narcissistically, no surprise there, you are the person doing the comparing.
I've heard the saying: "you are what you eat" but you partaking in the sacrament a billion times could never get you in the same universe as Jesus.
Where do you find your happiness, P?
Tell me that I just didn't hear you compare yourself to Christ. "Yes, Jesus could certainly allow Himself some very candid assessments from time to time. So do I. But Jesus explained Himself, as I do." Please show me in Scrpiture where Jesus made lying assessments and accusations in order to deceive others, 'as [you] do'. One minute you're mocking Jesus, next minute you think you are Jesus. Could it be that you're the Vicar of Christ on earth? Hypocrite, mocking, Son of Satan servant
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. their end will correspond to their actions." 2 Cor 11:14-15 And this applies to all the hypocrite, 'Vicar of Christs', to have ever existed, including priests and bishops. There has only been one Jesus Christ on earth, and none of your substitute phonies will ever come close to fit that bill, let alone you, you mocking blasphemer of all that is righteous and good. – God-gram by 'Dan'-verse
Continuing with my comment on SSETT’s of the 27th at 523PM:
Perhaps we will have better luck in the last paragraph.
Nope. Just more occasion for riff and rant and un-explicated epitheticals.
So far, SSETT has demonstrated him/herself to be just another riffy, rant-y, epithetical-addicted Abusenik who is content to toss it all up with no serious, coherent, or logical grounding whatsoever.
But what the hey? It worked for the Stampede.
You do so much good, kind work here P. I'm sure everyone who knows you, loves you in real life.
Will Sacer respond to me? I'd love to know how he/she reached their insights about the SNAP-church fraud. Or is this just part of the bizarre cover up. A drive by that never connects people for action. Again.
I just think of all the victims who have been reperpetrated by seeing some victims receiving reparations for our damages while they are ignored. Thanks to SNAP of course but also thanks to those of us who know about SNAP's fraud but don't organize to help the injured and unaided. I think that makes us co-conspirators ,through apathy, to the abuse of all these unhelped people.
P, Don't you get the church and its insurers don't part with money without a reason?
Come on! don't waste your beautiful Sunday trying to fool people.
We got $3 billion, according to you, on "lies" but your fabrications haven't earned your owners a dime. In fact, it costs them to pay you for what you do here. So, so far, you are a loss leader on their books.
The narrative of the pedophile priest is being used to justify unreasonable charges against those who supervise men who may have been charged with sexual assault. The Attorney General Kathleen Kane cites the Lynn case as a precedent in order to charge the administrators in the Penn State case since their case is crumbling. Attorney Kathleen Kane also had a grand jury investigation of a Catholic Church in order to look back 60 years to find wrongdoing by priests who were mostly dead already. She was quoted as saying that she knew there could be no charges but she wanted to advance a law extending the statute of limitations in PA. In other words the investigation was done for political purposes. So far as I'm concerned when law enforcement officials use public money to attack a specific church that is persecution. I don't see that happening to other religious organizations, only Catholics. It appears from the comments that the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants are continuing in this new way, under the guise of a crusade against pedophile priests. This is against the viewpoint of the American Constitution that religious tolerance is the law of the land. Shame on SNAP.
And another excuser enters the arena. Oh! Our poor church suffers persecution. 1) Your church is far from poor as they claim, and is in the practice of trying to add more dumb sheep to their cult, to pay the bills for their malfeasance. 2) your poor cult suffers persecution* – false – they deserve more punishment than they have ever received, because of their corruption, deceiving attorneys and bishops talents at weaseling their way out of their crimes.** 3) Dead priests don't mean innocent priests, but that's a very convenient excuse and I'm sure God is fine with that reason. NOT! 4) No king, leader or country wields more power than that of your pope, one of the biggest political, bully pulpits on earth. Look how all your brainwashed sheep fawn over the phony wherever he goes. They even hand over their babies to the head of the biggest group of perverts and pedophiles around. 5) These are not 'religious wars'. This is God exposing the things that go on in the darkness of these last days. Read the Bible and get yourself an education, so you can stop blaming non-existent factors. ***
*1 Peter 3:17 "For it is better, if it is God's will to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
**1 Peter 4:14-16 Your church suffers for it's wickedness and evil, not because of persecution.
*** Ephesians 5:11 "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them."
P.S. Lest I forget. Welcome to our forum and have a nice day.
Dan thank you.
Well, let’s to it.
On the 28th at 159PM ‘Dan’ tries to dispose of the ‘derangement’ problem by hyper-inflating it: I claim, he would have it, that “everyone is deranged except [me]”. Not at all. But I think a very sufficient case has been made for the elements of derangement demonstrated by ‘Dan’ and by JR too. Readers may judge as they will.
Nor is it my conclusion about derangement that works toward ‘destroying’ an opponent’s character”. The material proffered by such as JR and ‘Dan’ has done that – revealed that – all on its own.
What is of far more interest – and of relevance to the derangement issue – is that such as ‘Dan’ and JR apparently view their own submissions here with satisfaction and not a bit of concern as to what those submissions reveal about themselves.
And then ‘Dan’ tries to imagine a spin to JR’s original scenario that would make it amenable to ‘Dan’s particular point of view. But since JR was having trouble with more than one set of grades, then ‘Dan’s speculation fails.
But he has provided himself a platform to toss up that curiously self-revelatory epithet at me, no doubt satisfied with himself.
‘Dan (the 28th at 134PM) then tries to re-start the discussion regarding Matthew 18:6, claiming that the extended discussions back then did not deal well with the pericope’s meaning at all (meaning, in the ‘Dan’-verse, that ‘Dan’s attempt to shoehorn the pericope to fit into his favorite point of view was revealed to be grossly insufficient).
First, verse 6 is a continuation of the prior verses, 1 through 5. And in those verses Jesus has contrasted the disciples-leaders with the “little ones”-faithful, addressing the question as to who was greatest in the Kingdom o f Heaven (v. 1). At that point Jesus notices a “little child” and calls the child over (v.2), telling the disciples that all believers must become like children or else they will not enter the Kingdom.
“Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven” (v.4).
Continuing my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 134PM:
And thus when Jesus delivers his Woe about causing one of these “little ones” who believe in me “to sin”(v.6), He is continuing with the imagery He introduced in the prior verses. All believers are – or should be – like “little ones” or like children. And the near-by child is neatly incorporated as a visual teaching aid to more vividly exemplify the teaching.
Thus, the pericope is not some sort of Divine prophecy about child abuse or sexual abuse – as ‘Dan’ very much wants it to be, for his own purposes – but rather a discourse on the proper attitude one must have: the dependency of a child; the Christian believer must depend on God as if the believer were a child (and God a parent).
Continuing my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 134PM:
Thus – as I said back then in comments when all this was originally discussed – we see an example here of the attempt by certain mindsets to ‘weaponize’ Scripture in order to further their own purposes and points of view.
Jesus was not talking about ‘abuse’ and the pericope (vv. 1-6) is not some sort of clear prophecy about ‘abuse’ of any sort.
And in any case, and as always, one would first have to establish the genuineness of an instance of abuse before one began head-bashing one particular priest – let alone all priests – with the pericope as if it were a (convenient) battle-axe.
Readers so inclined can also consult Mark 9:33-7 and Luke 9:46-8 and Matthew 20:20-8 where Jesus also develops His theme as to the nature of leadership and belief in the Kingdom.
On then to JR’s of the 28th at 1251PM.
Here JR will try to extricate himself from the clearly ludicrous conclusion to which his ‘tort attorneys were also tools of the Church’ bit must ineluctably lead him: actually – doncha see? – “not all our lawyers were working consciously for the church” and, come to think of it, “Anderson himself may not realize how he was placed in the position he is in”.
It’s grammatical English. But does it actually describe any sort of credible situation?
Were all those shrewd and practiced torties somehow ‘unconsciously’ working for the Church when they brought the lawsuits? Or when they accepted referrals from SNAP? Did all those practiced and competent torties not realize what SNAP was doing for them – especially if and when they wrote ‘contribution’ checks to SNAP … ?
And how was the notably astute and shrewd Anderson “placed in the position he is in”? Who “placed” him thus? How was he “placed” thus? It was he – D’Amato has revealed – who went to Blaine with the offer that Blaine chose not to refuse. That was an active strategic move. How can the assertion be considered credible that Anderson was “placed” into making that move?
Continuing with my comment of JR’s on the 28th at 1251PM:
And the comment trails off into irrelevance with a (rather convenient) memory of JR’s – we can take his word for it – about a case Anderson lost in court shortly after the rather successful 500-plus plaintiff case that garnered that million for JR’s allegation.
And might we have a case reference to that lost court case of Anderson’s? I’m guessing not.
On the 28th at 1242PM JR will speak for SSETT, opining that when SSETT described me as “literal” it was meant to describe my taking SNAP ‘literally’ as not being a Church-run organization, when – if we buy JR’s bits – SNAP is actually a tool of the Church.
I don’t take SNAP ‘literally’. Over the course of time here I have gone to great length to explicate why it doesn’t add up at all if one presumes SNAP is a tool of the Church. And – rather – that it adds up rather well if one presumes SNAP indentured itself as a front for the torties after Anderson made that offer to Blaine.
My theory explains the known facts and dynamics. JR’s bit requires ever-more presumptions to stretch over the complications arising from his core presumption, reaching the point now where the torties were apparently tools of the Church but only unconsciously so, as was Anderson.