Rezendes Unhinged: ‘Spotlight’ Reporter Now Claims the Church Still ‘Has No Policies’ for Dealing With Abuse By Priests

Michael Rezendes : Boston Globe

Professional anti-Catholic bigot: The Boston Globe's Michael Rezendes

There comes a point when an individual shows such contempt for the truth that one can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt and must conclude that he is an unabashed bigot.

Such is the case with Michael Rezendes, the crack reporter from The Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team, who has recently been repeatedly making the claim in media appearances in recent weeks that the Catholic Church has somehow "not dealt with" the decades-old issue of clergy sex abuse.

Oh, the tangled webs we weave

Thomas J. Nash

Shining the light of truth:
Writer Thomas J. Nash

Rezendes has appeared on various outlets over the past couple months promoting his latest "Spotlight" item in the Boston Globe claiming that Catholic priests have fathered numerous children and that the Church "has never set rules" as to how to deal with this.

Enter writer Thomas J. Nash, who read Rezendes' piece and also saw an interview appearance by Rezendes on CBS This Morning discussing his work.

In a must-see article in Catholic World Report, Nash notes that Rezendes is "seriously mistaken in claiming that the Vatican has failed to establish polices" regarding priests fathering children.

"[W]hat Rezendes asserts is simply not true and not befitting a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist. The Code of Canon Law, issued in 1983, and which continues longstanding Church policy, specifically addresses clerical sins regarding the Sixth Commandment, i.e., regarding sexual sins that encompass fathering a child, and conveys such a priest should be suspended from clerical ministry (CIC, canon 1395; cf. canon 277.3)."

But, most troubling, Rezendes, in his interview with CBS, claimed that that "after all these years of having to confront the problem, the Vatican has still not come up with a set of policies for dealing with the problem of clergy sexual abuse."

However, nothing could be further from the truth! As Nash noted, the Vatican has long had protocols in place to deal with abuse by priests, including those embedded in Canon law.

And, as we have discussed numerous times over years, the Catholic Church was tackling the issue within its ranks even before 1985 – over 30 years ago, when cases of clergy sex abuse first began receiving national attention.

"As early as 1982, we saw policies and procedures coming to the attention of the USCCB (the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) regarding specific child molestation cases," Teresa Kettelkamp, executive director of the Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection for the USCCB, has reported. "By 1983, 157 dioceses had policies in place."

These policies formulated the bishops' "Five Principles" in dealing with allegations of abuse. Bishops first articulated them in 1987 and then publicly pronounced them in 1992.

And since 2002, the USCCB has been conducting and publishing annual audits to ensure that dioceses have complied with safeguarding and reporting policies.

In the end, even though abuse has soiled every organization that works with children, no other organization on the planet even comes close in its efforts to rectify its past and prevent future abuse. Nash concludes (emphasis added):

"Rezendes is guilty of libel, and as a journalist I don't use the term lightly. The U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision in NY Times vs. Sullivan, issued in 1964, established the modern standard for libel of public figures: 'knowing falsity' or 'reckless disregard of the truth.' While Church leaders in Rome presumably won't bring a lawsuit against Rezendes and the Globe, a case could be made …

"[I]t is at least reckless for Rezendes not to know about and report on canon 1395, given the extensive reporting he has also done on priests' fathering children. For an accomplished investigative reporter, there's simply no excuse for the statements Rezendes made to CBS."

Rezendes' bigotry

Indeed, if there were any question as to whether Rezendes' falsehoods were intentional, a recent appearance should put the matter to rest. On a June 29, 2017, appearance on local Boston TV show "Greater Boston," Rezendes recklessly asserted, "The Church has not dealt with this problem, and until the Church deals with the problem head on, we're going to see scandal after scandal after scandal … The Church can't come to grips with this … This is a systemic problem within the Church."

Without a doubt, Rezendes is not only completely unhinged but a professional anti-Catholic bigot if ever there were one.

[See also: "Five Fast Facts About the Media's Catholic Church Sex Abuse Narrative"]

[And: "'This has quietly turned into a MAJOR CRISIS': Turmoil and major production problems at the Boston Globe persist"]


  1. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 4th at 405PM:

    Again borrowing from his pea-pod mate ‘Dan’, JR will – following the opening scatological epithet – run the old I’m Not/You Are bit: he doesn’t “have pearls”, I do and myah myah myah. Such repartee.

    I “lied about [his] abuse”? In what way? One of his stories said ‘once’, a later version was multiple times over a long period. Both versions are in the record here from back when all this was considered at length.

    Does he want to go with ‘multiple times over a two-week period’ now? I say Sure, why not? And  thus the questions raised by the ‘two-week’ timeframe remain to be considered.

    So who – really – has “lied” about JR’s claimed abuse?

    He said he was “raped”; it was eventually revealed – by JR himself – that he was just (allegedly) crotch-grabbed.  He didn’t – to use his term here – thereby ‘out’ himself in that regard?

  2. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 405PM:

    But JR is – like his pod-mate – well-practiced in sly manipulation: his ‘lie’ bit has a larger purpose here: since I “lied” about his abuse – doncha see? – then I also lied about his theory as to who created SNAP.

    JR – doncha see? – just like his pod-mate ‘Dan’ has been bethumped by the unhappy fate of being surrounded by so many liars in his life; the poor things have just been lied about and lied about and for no good reason at all, since they are just innocent and heroic and truthy truth-tellers, ‘Dan’ in regard to (his version of) God’s truth and JR in regard to his own.

  3. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 405PM:

    “The money that SNAP required came from somewhere”. Logical enough but it hardly proves anything. SNAP wasn’t doing well (not much money coming in) / then Blaine met Anderson / and suddenly SNAP is flush with cash. An attorney familiar with the operation says the money came in great part from a kickback deal with the torties; JR says it was the Church – somehow. Readers may consider as they will.

    “Jeff Anderson couldn’t afford to keep SNAP afloat all by himself”. He didn’t need to: once the scheme was set up, other torties also sent monies (the Complaint, if I correctly recall, mentions several who made large payments).

    JR has to then somehow neutralize that possibility – i.e. of the torties sending along nice chunks of cash – by saying that SNAP didn’t do enough for the torties to have laid out that much money. Really? SNAP was the front-funneling organization that could hoover up the allegants that the torties were barred from soliciting on their own. Three billion dollars in settlements, and the usual tortie fee for such services being a third of the settlement (plus expenses). So a billion collected in fees by the torties. And “$18 million” was too much, says JR. I think not.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Lawyers can advertise. You dumb fuck.

      And yes you do think not.

      "Better Call Saul"? Lawyers advertise all the time for clients. SNAP just presented victims to the public through the media with lawyers already attached We were told by "our" lawyers to go to SNAP meetings and demo with SNAP. SNAP never gave me my lawyer. I found her on my own.


  4. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 405PM:

    And JR mentions Bishop-Accountability: would even another “$18 million” really be too much for the torties, considering how helpful B-A made itself to them, compiling a handy online reference base for aspiring allegants? 36 million – let’s say for the heck of it – out of a billion-plus? Too much? Throw in “Fr. Tom Doyle’s expenses” for – what? – another 5 or 10 million … ? Let’s even say all-told 50 million out of a billion-plus. Too much?

    Yes, it’s a lot of money. But so was the three-billion or more that the torties managed to snag. “Who else but the church had that amount readily available?”. Answer: the torties as they raked in the fees and expenses from 3 billion in settlements.

    “SNAP came from nowhere.” And it was going nowhere … until Blaine and Anderson had that meeting, a meeting that now even SNAP doesn’t really want anyone to talk about (thus claiming on its website that it was founded in 1989, to completely evade the 1988 Blaine-Anderson meeting).

    • Jim Robertson says:

      More lies. Being paid beause of damages done aint snagging shit. Next time you are in a car accident see how much you have to "snag" from your insurors.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Why wouldn't  the church want to know all the claims against it? B.A. was a reference point not only for victims but for the church. So it could know the numbers of victims and the number of defendents. It didn't help any victim to sue where they couldn't sue (and that was pretty much everywhere in the states.) 1989 and the scandal really broke in Boston in 2001 and there sat SNAP ready to rise, to pounce, to rule the victims who came forward. If the masses of victims couldn't sue. Why would the layers need to fund a SNAP? To gather victims who can't sue? Cui bono baby?


  5. Publion says:

    On then to JR”s of the 3rd at 903PM:

    I have never claimed to be “right”, unlike ‘Dan’ who claims that he is channeling God’s truth and JR who has just claimed that he is the only guy here who “tells the whole truth”.

    I’ve asked questions, proposed answers, and brought to bear such information and knowledge as I have that seems to be relevant. I leave the ‘being-right’ declamations and declarations to the ones who are always braying those claims out to everyone else.

  6. Publion says:

    JR (the 4th at 915PM) treats us to another popcorn-friendly claim: he doesn’t “speculate”, especially about “a conspiracy”.

    First, it might be proposed that he doth ‘insinuate’ more than he doth “speculate”.

    But then second, it might also be said that he doesn’t submit ‘speculations’ in their proper grammatical form; instead he simply tosses up his speculations as if they were incontrovertible and undeniable and crystal-clear, evidentiary-quality facts (and if you can’t see them as such then you must be an “idiot” and so on).

    And it’s yet another demonstration of JR’s sly evasiveness that when he – yet again – mentions what is apparently the 1985 Doyle Report/(Proposal) to the US Bishops he now sidesteps the non-existent term “secret” … but then thus leaves himself, ludicrously, with merely the word “committees” as the smoking-gun that will prove the validity (or at least the rationality and legitimacy) of his speculations-proffered-as-facts.

    Sly, he certainly is; smart … not so much.

  7. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 915PM:

    But wait. There’s more.

    In his sly effort to try to downplay the Stampede, JR proffers the point that we haven’t heard from one of those big classic Stampede settlements in a decade, so – he would have us conclude – there isn’t much of a Stampede and I’ve been exaggerating all along (meaning that there was never and has never been a Stampede at all in the first place).

    But reality – as reflected in his verb tenses – betrays him, alas. I have been saying for quite some time that the Stampede’s best days are behind it, referring, for example, to the “salad days” of the Stampede back in the past.

    But when the Stampede was in its “salad days”, then we most surely did see those classic big-bucks settlements (precisely what the long-established tortie stratagems were going for), and one of the largest was that 500-plus plaintiff case in LA a decade or more ago that JR mentions here (in which, readers may recall, JR snagged his bit).

  8. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 915PM:

    There was indeed a Stampede; its best days are behind it now and the current lawsuit against SNAP may reveal much more about its dynamics, but its basic template remains active in the media and the public mind, and the old tortie stratagem – which long predates the Stampede – remains in the legal playbooks.

    As for Australia: as I noted on the immediately prior thread, suddenly we have heard nothing since the prosecutors said they’d be sending along their charges and the supporting evidence to the defense very soon, which was back in the middle of the summer.

  9. Publion says:

    What to note about ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 723PM?

    He starts – as so very often – with an epithet, just to manipulate readers before they get to any actual content in his comment.

    Which might be considered a sly bit of foresight, since his content is merely a re-hash of his old bit to the effect that if you mock ‘Dan’ then you are “mocking … God and His servant”. No, I am mocking ‘Dan’s material; at no place do I mock God and we certainly haven’t established by any measure that ‘Dan’ is “His servant” in any but the most generic sense of the term (i.e. that all of God’s human creatures are ultimately His servants by virtue of their being created by Him).

    • Dan says:

      "But they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against His people and there was no remedy."  2 Chron. 36:16

    • Dan says:

      Sorry publyin', you're not "God's servant" if you're a lying hypocrite who follows and does the deceiving work of your father, Satan. Good try anyway, Mr. Mocking Deceiver. servant of God

  10. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 723PM:

    He then slyly tries to downplay the “ego” element in that claim of being “servant” with some wordplay: “servant” is a term which by its very nature is not “a word of pride or ego”. Really? The way ‘Dan’ uses it and what ‘Dan’ tries to do with it?

    ‘Dan’s limited imagination would have us think of a butler or a chauffeur; but the older usage of the term “servant” could apply to the Grand Vizier or even all those who styled themselves at the beginning of the 20th century as ‘servants of the Revolution’, upon the authority of which ‘servant-hood’ they claimed to justify everything they did while ‘serving’ it.

    And we can’t forget that ‘Dan’ is a very very speshull “servant”, since a) he has special secret knowledge and b) cannot be judged by anybody according to any principles of rationality nor c) need he participate in any religion whatsoever (except his own ‘Dan’-made one) because of the special and direct and intimate nature of his relationship. A simple butler or chauffeur ‘Dan’ most surely is not.

  11. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 723PM:

    One might also think of Tolkien’s dark emissary who comes to confront Aragorn’s forces at the Morannon, the Dark Gate of Mordor: the emissary identifies himself by declaring that he is merely “the Mouth of Sauron”. Thus that he has no mind or personality of his own but rather is merely an animate thing that will accurately convey nothing but the Mind, Word and Will of the still-incorporeal Sauron.

    Given ‘Dan’s own personality and mind and the many issues operative there, it is hardly surprising to see him attempting to extricate himself from himself by claiming here merely to be the accurate and specially-appointed thing that will do nothing but mouth God’s Mind, Word and Will … which, by the by, must be obeyed … or else.

    This is what a nice tight delusional system will get you.

    • Dan says:

      Your mind and thinking is a fake and fictitious as the fiction and cartoons you prefer to compare others to. Wake up to the reality that you're nothing but a lying fraud, spewing your ignorance as if it's the truth. Hypocrite.  servant

  12. Jim Robertson says:

    Sorry Dan now we're pod mates. The atheist and the evangelist. Only in P's mind. Also he invented the concept here of "pearl clutching". Then has the balls to credit me with creating it here. Gee I wonder if it's because I'm gay?

    If Dan and I are always wrong, according to P for brains, what does that make P, himself? neutral? always right in his head?  We are never right in anything we say according to him.He's the one telling us both how wrong we are. He invented the pod of wrongness he sticks the atheist and the evangelist in. Quite the same "peas" in that insane pod. I'm now placed with a religious fanatic as an identical twin. I told everyone here they were trying to hook me up with Dan. And color me with Dan's POV. And it's all P's idea; certainly not mine.

    What a useless waste of life you are P. If only your parents had had an abortion. Oh wait! they did.

    Step right up ladies and gents and meet P the abortion who's always right (right wing).

    Please don't bother to read anything I have to say here folks. P says I'm wrong and hooks me up with a guy who calls the Catholic church a cult. I've never called you that. Delusional yes cult no.

    Most Catholics don't have the time to be in a cult.

    P you never ask questions of me. That would make me an equal. You just lie. Like saying you ask questions. You don't. You ask questions of the readership but not of me. You're guaranteed never to believe anything I say. No questioning necessary. Why would you bother? All my answers are wrong according to you. The only question marks I see in your posts are rhetorical ones posed to the audience not to the person you're lying about.

    I ask the readership. look at the question marks in P's posts. They aren't questions asked of me. They are questions asked of you. What have you got to do with this? What do you know about the subject? P's here to control you not me.

    In answer to the amount of money SNAP was given by lawyers. Whose lawyers? If SNAP picked the major lawyers they weren't working for us. They were working for SNAP

    The lawyers had no need to give SNAP money. SNAP was rolling full tilt boogie from the get go. One does not travel nation wide staying at good hotels eating on credit cards without credit.

    Jeffy Anderson didn't have the cash to do that. And why would he want to? And why was SNAP even needed in all this other than to control us victims and what we said we wanted to the press and public. (Evidently we wanted to protect the unraped Catholic children and not to seek compensation for our own damages; because that's all SNAP talked about: Protect the Children. How is that a ploy by lawyers to get us, victims, (and therefor themselves)  maximum compensation?) It isn't.

    Look at what has really happened in all this. Only one state in only one nation got fair settlements. Why would lawyers spend $18 million if it didn't get them more money? Where were the SNAP victories for victims? A state senator passed a bill that allowed us to sue in California. SNAP had Barbra testify before a state senate hearing. That's worth $18 million over 25 years ? 

    Once we could sue here the lawyers and victims were guaranteed some settlements. But where's the rest of the pay off that paying for SNAP would give "our" lawyers? It's not there.

    We in California got  i/5th of the 3 billion P yammers about. Why would the lawyers throw out more money to SNAP with no paydays nor hope of pay come?

    The money SNAP lived on never came in to the people, you claim paid, for SNAP, our lawyers.  No. the money that the church should have been paying all it's victims was protected by a "survivors group" that never bothered to ask for damages for the people they pretended to represent.

    The truth about SNAP lies in the money that came to SNAP, and where it came from for 25 years.

    If Jeff Anderson wrote the checks for SNAP and BA why? What did SNAP bring in to Jeff to justify such support for so long? Certainly not the new settlements of any mass after California.  There were none.

    Follow the money. Doyle in his paper to the Bishops was very definite about who would be writing the checks for the "committees" he wanted the Bishops to form in his "heroic" paper to them about us. Follow the money SNAP lived on and who not only could afford to pay it but why any lawyer would pay it for no pay off. Why would real victims settle for 3 billion if they were owed more?


    • Dan says:

      Jim, I questioned google if the catholic church was a cult and this is the website that came up, Cult of Roman Catholicism.

      I think catholics should take a look at this, before accusing me of making claims that are untrue. It is a terrible cult and fits the definition.

      And Jim, I realize when labeling me a fanatic you mean it in such a loving way. If you only would listen to the Lord's Word, you would know your sarcasm to be quite the compliment.

      "I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other. So because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of My mouth!  Rev 3:15-16

      So what the Lord was asking was that you either have to be a fanatic (hot) towards Him or not know Him at all (cold). If you're a halfway catholic or so-called Christian, then the Lord wants no part of you, and you ain't worth spit. Those who are only titled Christian, but fall far short in deed or belief in Christ, and would rather bow to false gods and goddesses (Mary). Pedophiles and compulsive pub-liars, their enablers and excusers being perfect examples of these types of deceiving hypocrites, only suitable for the dung pile.  servant of truth

    • Dan says:

      I want to be clear that I do not agree with the websites politics, nor do I have any political affiliation. I believe all politics are corrupt and not worth wasting my time or energy. Also, I do not agree with tithing to any church or donating for that matter. Find the poor and needy in your neighborhood and cut out the greedy wicked middle-man. TV evangelists and catholic EWTN are perfect examples of the false gospels of prosperity, always looking at bilking money from their brainwashed sheep. Look for the best things in life that are free, like reading and living the Word. God will never disappoint you.

  13. Dan says:

    I get your little sarcastic insinuation that I'm "channeling God's truth". You creeps are the ones that think they channel and have visions of their sinless Mary, "Q (i.e. Lourdes and Fatima). And she informs them to say the rosary and repeat their prayers, babbling like pagans and disobeying Bible Truth (Matthew 6:7).

    You don't have to claim to be "right". Your self-righteous attitude, snobby vocabulary and correcting to critcize opponents grammar speaks volumns. I haven't referred to you as Mr. Know-It-All based on your humility or respect of others. You're such a pompous deceiver.

    You've asked stupid questions, proposed lying answers, and brought to bear misleading information and Scripturally lacking knowledge, as you seem to think is relevant. You oink lies and ignorance, thinking you're "right" and have longwinded rude stupid answers for everything. This is how your comment should read.  servant of the Truth


  14. Dan says:

    "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of LIARS whose consciences are seared, who FORBID MARRIAGE and REQUIRE ABSTINENCE from FOODS that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." 1 Tim 4:1-3

    Now you're going to claim, as the compulsive catholic liar of this forum, that this quote does not prophetically describe your church, plaqued with false teachings and deceit. And you think you can label myself as delusional? You're deceit has no end, offspring of Satan.  servant

    P.S. Also check out 1 Tim 1:3-7, describing you in fine detail.

    • Jim Robertson says:


    • Dan says:

      Jim, Maybe if you got more sleep you'd be able to open your eyes to realize that I'm not just blowing smoke. If I truly didn't care about the souls of others, do you think I'd even be wasting my time in this forum. Apparently my work here isn't gaining me any friends. If the Lord sends a True Christian to do a job and he refuses, then God holds that person responsible for not carrying out the task. If I warn the lost to change their ways, but they refuse, well then I'm innocent because I've done my job. It's not based on whether my work is accepted or not. Sorry if God doesn't fit into your lifestyle or thinking. I do find it strange that you have no belief in Him, yet have no problem using His name or Jesus when you're angry. Why not say, "Oh my Dawkins, Hawking or Hitchens." Just doesn't have the same clout, now does it?

  15. Jim Robertson says:

    Something else i want to add. Look at how few lawyers have been involved in this stampede. Very few.20/30 tops if that and I'm being generous.

    Who's moving us cattle along P? To a corral where we can't sue? And laying out 18 million to do it? Not bloody likely!

  16. Publion says:

    I’ll dispense with ‘Dan’s most recent bunch quickly: nothing but a hash of the old lies-lies-lies bit, puffed with more pericopes going for the idea that since the prophets were questioned, and ‘Dan’ is being questioned, then ‘Dan’ is a prophet.

    Readers can judge the quality of that manipulative logic as they will.

    • Dan says:

      "Mock[ing] the messengers of God" and "scoffing at His prophets", does not equate to deceptive questioning backed with wicked "lies". Keep on justifying your ignorance, peewee.

  17. Publion says:

    On then to the JR bunch.

    On the 5th at 809PM JR tosses up an unusually long comment; he’s mixed up quite a batch.

    I don’t recall ever attributing the creation of the term or practice of “pearl-clutching” to JR and if he has a quote that demonstrates otherwise he’s welcome to put it up here. But there’s a method to his madness here: he was trying to work in some angle where he might somehow come out as a victim … of something. Of anything.

    As I had said (the 5th at 630AM), I am not in the right-or-wrong business; I just ask questions. This isn’t something either JR or ‘Dan’ can handle so now JR tries – yet again – to make himself a victim by claiming that I have said that he and ‘Dan’ are “always wrong”.  Thus the second paragraph of the comment, having failed through gross inaccuracy, riffs on further into far left field.

    But they are both peas of the same pod in terms of their cartoon approach to real issues, their whacky ‘logic’, their efforts to manipulate readers or else browbeat them with epithets, and their insistence – for different reasons – that they are right and their stuff must be accepted.

    There follows a one-liner paragraph with yet more epithetical snark – which, as I have said, reveals the unripe adolescent world that JR, though almost 70, still inhabits and has never grown beyond.

    Ditto the next paragraph, a one-liner riff on the previous one.

  18. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    Then the next paragraph is a riff on the originally inaccurate bit about my saying JR is “wrong”. Also, marvelously, JR expresses his distaste at being in any way considered similar to ‘Dan’, although his material has already established that actuality regardless of whether JR likes to think about it or have it pointed out.

    Then more sly efforts at getting his blocks to form just the shape he wants: since I “don’t ask questions of” JR, then that “would make [him] an equal”. Naturally the ‘logic’ of this assertion escapes a rational mind but JR isn’t really going for a logical presentation here. He’s simply trying some form of word-game (so very similar to ‘Dan’).

    But then if JR is my “equal” and I “just lie” then – the transitive property applies here – JR doth “just lie”. But again, JR isn’t going for logical presentation here – and actual logical presentation may be both beyond his capacities and also repugnant to his basic shtick.

  19. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    I question material. I allow readers to consider the questions and the material questioned and allow them to make their own judgments. This is precisely not the JR/’Dan’ method, where they have their shtick, and you’d better believe their shtick and their stuff or else they will call you names and threaten you either with bodily harm (JR) or God (‘Dan’). They have to control readers’ assessment of their stuff.

    JR then tries to bolster that bit with something to the effect that readers don’t “know about the subject”. That’s perhaps what they are counting on. But readers can recognize logical points and they can recognize illogical assertions and claims and judge the probabilities one way or the other. Again the JR/’Dan’ method necessarily requires that readers don’t do that much thinking about the stuff JR and ‘Dan’ put up.

  20. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    Then JR will get down to proffering some specific points in regard to his own ‘theory’ and the questions I have raised about that theory.

    He claims that “SNAP picked the major lawyers”. Actually, Anderson picked SNAP because torties couldn’t be seen to go chasing allegants; it violates professional conduct standards. SNAP, once indentured to the Anderson strategy, simply opened itself to whatever local torties stepped up to play.

    And ultimately, it was the responsibility of each allegant to sign the agreement for representation with this or that tortie.

    Thus to the claim that “the lawyers had no need to give SNAP money”. D’Antonio clearly states that SNAP had been going for several years before Anderson came along (which is what JR said too, claiming that SNAP started off as a small outfit in donated quarters before 1988) but SNAP was not doing well, which changed greatly once Blaine and Anderson met in early 1988.

    Under no circumstances – if D’Antonio rather than JR is to be believed – was SNAP “rolling full tilt boogie from the get-go”. JR has to somehow neutralize this reality in order to plump for his TCC theory, i.e. that the Church lavishly funded SNAP from the get-go whenever it was in the years before 1988 (or, as the SNAP website now claims, 1989).

  21. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    And – again echoing points that have already been demonstrated to be questionable – JR claims Anderson “didn’t have the cash to do that”. Anderson was a well-established tortie and ran a big office and remunerative practice well before SNAP came along. And all he needed to do was prime the SNAP pump with some seed money. The larger amounts of ‘donations’ would come from torties as the cases were settled over the years and the Stampede got really rolling.

    SNAP “was needed” – yet again – as a front/funnel organization since the torties couldn’t go out and hoover up allegant/plaintiffs on their own. That why Anderson would not only “want to” engage SNAP (and perhaps similar organizations) but would also very much need-to do so.

    The “Protect the Children” mantra was the high-sounding moral cover that cast the torties as the Good guys against the Evil bad guys of the Church. This made the whole scam very media-friendly, since they could now go to town with the old Good-vs-Evil script. The media had Good guys helping ‘victims’, the torties had allegant/plaintiffs whose stories could be burnished and guaranteed not only wide but friendly and even protective media coverage (protective in the sense that it was presumed that any claim was a veracious ‘report’ and to question that presumption was merely to ‘re-victimize the victim’ and so on).

    Thus JR’s assertion that such a scam could not at all be a “ploy by lawyers to get [allegants] maximum” money fails utterly. It was a sly, shrewd, and successful ploy that paid off its investors handsomely.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      But P The "Protect the Children"line wasn't about the victims. It was about the unharmed.

      Why would you talk about the unharmed when you have bodies all over the place who were harmed? Anfd when you claim to be for the victims??? Not puting non victims as THE topic before real victims and our damages and needs are ever discussed. It makes no kind of sense.

      But then you and  common sense never do see eye to eye do you P?.

      You're here to make nonsense sense. That's your job. 


  22. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    If memory serves, JR’s assertion that “only one state in only one nation got fair settlements” seriously needs some evidence-references since all he proffered the last time he tried to make this point was some partial list from a Wiki article from the way-back. In reality, the torties have gotten at least 3 billion in settlements and had to have garnered a solid third of that in fees (exclusive of ‘costs’ and ‘expenses’).

    And what, then, is this “rest of the payoff that paying for SNAP would give” to the torties? A billion in fees (exclusive of ‘costs’ and ‘expenses’) isn’t enough? JR’s “it’s not there” assertion fails here utterly. SNAP’s usefulness paid off the Stampede’s investors handsomely.

    Thus too it beggars description to adequately characterize the inaccuracy of JR’s assertion that “the money SNAP lived on never came in to the people you claim paid”, i.e. the “lawyers”. A billion dollars came to the “lawyers”, exclusive of ‘costs’ and ‘expenses’. If the settlements were achieved – and they most certainly were – then the money that went to the torties was taken out first, before any checks were cut to the allegants and before any ‘donations’ were made to SNAP (and perhaps similar organizations).

  23. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    SNAP “never bothered to ask for damages” … ? The torties did that, to the tune of 3 billion. SNAP’s indenture to Anderson required it be a front/funnel organization; the torties themselves would be the ones to “ask for damages” through the lawsuits. Does JR understand nothing about the law? SNAP had no legal standing to “ask for damages”.

    And then he’s back to “why” Anderson “wrote the checks” again. Anderson – like all the torties who ‘donated’ – did so to keep the front/funnel organization(s) going.

    As to when the torties realized the game was starting to falter, and when they finally decided – if they ever did – to cut back on the money … is a question that might be answered in the Discovery phase of the current lawsuit. I imagine SNAP hasn’t been living so high off the hog in recent years and at this point any income would be liable to involvement in the current lawsuit – which is probably why donations in Blaine’s memory are being directed to Bishop-Accountability rather than SNAP (though how long B-A remains above the legal fray here is an interesting question).

  24. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    Wearing his Gumshoe Wig through this whole bit, JR now proffers the old maxim to “follow the money”. For his own purposes he has to proffer the cartoon that it was Doyle and the Church. But – alas – the Bishops rejected Doyle’s Proposal of 1985 and its “committee” idea. What Doyle wanted and what the Bishops decided Doyle was going to get were antithetical; they rejected his Proposal.

    As for the “no payoff” for “any lawyer”, that ludicrous bit has been dealt with above here.

    And as for JR’s final stab at mimicking a Gumshoe with his concluding ‘question’ – i.e. “Why would real victims settle for 3 billion if they were owed more?” – a) who says they were “real”; b) who says they “were owed more”; and c) why did JR settle for a measly million if he thought he was owed more?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Because I couldn't sue in court. I was part of the settlement. But I couldn't sue in court because I had attempted to sue in the 90's  and those who had were unable to sue again. It was not double jeopardy ie the church couldn't be sued twice. It was a technicality about separation of legislative and justice  branches of government. So I personally could not sue but I and a few others were included as part of the settlement in order for the entire settlement to go through.To protect themselves from losing 1000s of millions more by the victims who could sue going to trial the church and it's insurors settled with all of us.

      Kowing P he'll try snd make those of us who were included this way cheats or thieves even more than he usually does. But the simple truth is were sexually abused and therwere damages done to us because of the abuse. Shithead will deny it all because what else has he got? He's a one note samba.We're bad and he's the gumshoe to prove it by lying. What he accuses us of doing, he 's doing.

      Sad! if he were smarter he might have been more moral but he's not. If he was faithful to his religions tenants he'd have shown respect and kindnes but he's too mean for that. Tar with a broad brush anyone who accuses the church of anything. Truth doesn't matter. 

      Also I'm not quite sure where you get the $3 billion figure from. Name your authority. If it's the church I wouldn't believe them. The bigger the number they put out the more they can cry victim and weknow how much money the church has hoarded over the eons crying poor mouth and victimhood.

      And just think what money the church will have to pay the people it's cheated when my analysis and the truth of the Doyle fraud comes to light. Delicious! Money mmmmmm! The one thing you,truly, hold sacred:MONEY.

      Why the church wouldn't even be covered by insurance for practicing criminal fraud. Even if I and every other victim of this fraud are long dead when the truth "appears", your church  will never be the same. Bye bye power. "The truth will out"

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 1248AM:

      Once again, the ‘Dan’ opening: it’s just “more lies”, while larding in more of his scatology.

      When a person is in a car accident, there are wreckage and medical damage and perhaps witnesses, with plenty of photographic and medical-record evidence for third-parties (such as juries and judges) to consider.

      There were very few, if any, such things in these allegation-cases. So the auto-accident scenario doesn’t at all apply to what passed for ‘cases’ in the Stampede.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 1258AM:

      The Church would not have needed B-A to “know” the claims against it. The lawsuits filed would have informed the Church far more reliably than B-A’s mere collation of every news article (not to say ‘report’) they could find on the Web. So this JR bit – that the Church could have or did set up B-A so that it could “know the numbers of victims” is inane in the extreme. Nor did B-A keep a formal and accurate tally of all the lawsuits so as to give a comprehensive picture, so the “number of defendents” bit (he probably meant ‘plaintiffs’) also fails utterly.

      The first John Jay Report made that tally, not B-A.

      It is also ridiculous to assert that ‘victims couldn’t sue’ “pretty much everywhere”. Clearly they could do quite a bit of suing, and the torties enlisted SNAP to make sure those that wanted to sue were advised to check with their local tortie. Curiously, although some states have now re-jiggered the Statutes of Limitation, we haven’t seen a recent re-ignition of the Stampede at anywhere near its original force and energy.

      Thus JR’s concluding mimicry of the cocky and competent Gumshoe fails – yet again. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 115AM:

      I don’t know how many torties have been involved and neither does JR, except by mere pronouncement (he pronounces 20 or 30 and claims he’s being “generous”). Does he have any references to back up that bit?

      But what would be the point of knowing the number in the first place?

      And are the torties “moving us cattle along .. to a corral where we can’t sue?”. What does this mean at all? That the torties – however many or few – are the ones trying to corral plaintiffs in a no-can-sue corral? Are we seriously – and without reaching for popcorn – to accept that there is a conspiracy of tort-attorneys in this country that is assiduously working to prevent people from bringing lawsuits?

      We are here down a rabbit-hole as deep as any ‘Dan’ creates.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 439PM:

      We had gone over this the first time JR tried this point quite a while back.

      Lawyers can advertise, but it’s tacky. The Stampede needed a very serious ‘high-ground’ image; these attorneys were going after the Church, after all. So ‘Do you want to sue the Church? Call this 800-number’ wasn’t really going to do much for the image of the torties; also it would reveal the Stampede as just another tort-attorney grab for money and clients wherever they might find them.

      Thus a ‘victim’ organization such as SNAP was a godsend, as Anderson saw. The torties could look not like ambulance-chasers trying to make money off ‘victims’ but rather as knights in shining legal armor coming to the defense of the victimized.

      Plus, while in a TV ad a tortie just has to hope some viewer somewhere picks up the phone and dials the 800-number, with a front/funnel organization they are delivered in a convenient and tidy bunch.

      And a numerous bunch of ‘victims’ would quickly fuel the (media-assisted) public impression that there are scads and scads of such ‘victims’ out there, which would create a self-sustaining and self-enlarging wave of more allegants and plaintiffs, figuring the surf was up and it was time to wax the board and toss it in the water. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 507PM:

      Confronted with the question about this mysterious “man” whom JR claims (take that for what it’s worth) to have given “a check to BA that floated it for a year” we are given a clear idea of just what a stellar Gumshoe JR really is.

      If this “man” (named something like “Puddles” … ) were an agent of the Church, would he have gone to a SNAP conference to deliver it? Would the Church even have given something as traceable as a check?

      And as far as “he wrote a book and was hocking it at the 2008 SNAP conference in Chicago”, I can only point out that D’Amato’s book didn’t come along until 2013.

      Doyle had two associates, a psychologist and an attorney. They were both named in his Proposal, if memory serves, and the attorney was not Anderson.

      Then JR – so much like ‘Dan’ – simply dives into his own 3×5 pile and starts tossing all sorts of things into his stew-pot here.

      From which – apropos of nothing on the table – he concludes that it was “not SNAP” that “pulled our lawyer’s chains”. Well I would say that it was the lawyers pulling SNAP’s chain, and not the other way around anyway. And if anyone here has seen a worthwhile indication that the Church was behind all the lawyers and SNAP, then they are welcome to point it out.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 507PM:

      And once again, Doyle’s “program” was rejected by the Bishops. And SNAP surely doesn’t qualify as any “secret committee” that JR – channeling the loon Economus – claims were mentioned in the Doyle Proposal.

      But we get a nice recap of the JR TCC theory: Doyle’s (rejected) 1985 Proposal “was the battle plan and the matrix for SNAP; BA; Anderson the whole chrade” (sic).

      But suddenly JR shifts Wigs: wondering if Blaine might have merely been a “stooge who obeyed Doyle and Anderson until it finally dawned on her what SNAP was”. She bought into the scam in 1988 / and are we to imagine that she didn’t know about all the money the torties started sending along? / and that she didn’t give much thought to the fact that SNAP employed almost no therapists and made no substantive provisions for actual counseling of those who came in the door?

      And by amazing coincidence it was the reality of a lawsuit and not just some innocent personal realization that immediately preceded her demise.

      But this gives JR the chance to put on his rarely-used Milk-of-Human-Kindness Wig. Alas for poor Babs, who – are we to forget? – was a honcho in the SNAP that “ignored” his “election”, thus exciting his “rightful anger”. Yes, that Milk just oozes from JR as from a leaky cow.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 543PM:

      He insists that he wasn’t dumped by SNAP (after he tried to lead a palace coup through some ‘election’ he wanted to have). Readers can file this assertion of his personal history with the rest of JR’s bits.

      If SNAP “ignored” the “election”, perhaps that was because a) SNAP didn’t have elections in the first place and b) as a front/funnel organization for the torties, SNAP couldn’t afford to let some ‘election’ throw it off-message and off-purpose, both of which involved fronting for the torties and funneling prospective allegants to the torties.

      I’ll stand by my assessment of JR’s vengefulness. Nothing he’s revealed about himself here – especially unwittingly – would indicate the inaccuracy of that assessment as far as I can see.

      And are there now “people” rather than an individual teacher who “molested” him? Another new twist to the old story?

      As the vengeful might easily say “Anything wrong in wanting to get those ‘em’?” And as the South Boston murderer and mobster Whitey Bulger has said: I never killed nobody that wasn’t tryna’ kill me.

      But JR’s just a lil ole victim, he’d have us believe.

      And – by the by – he already put himself on record as trying to get me when he made the death-by-shotgun threat a while back.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 543PM:

      JR then delivers a line that might best be delivered to his bathroom mirror: “Why would anybody believe you?” And heads – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – for the Victimy-highground by painting himself as just soooo “naïve” and taken advantage of by the Church (so – one might conclude – he, like Whitey Bulger, never victimized nobody that wasn’t trnya victimize him).

      Following JR’s ever-bouncing ball, he left SNAP in 2003 and … was “elected SNAP leader in 2007”. And if that isn’t enough to trigger the popcorn-please alarm, this ostensibly legitimate organizational election was “ignored” by the organization … and nobody seems to have raised a ruckus over such an illegitimate travesty of the by-laws. Or, perhaps, the “election” was a rogue bit of agitprop and ignored because it itself was in contravention of the by-laws. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 543PM:

      Was SNAP “a democracy” according to its by-laws? Why didn’t the dissidents go out and start their own group?

      I don’t recall using the term “nuttiness”. Is JR creating a quote for his own convenience?

      At any rate, he was simply filled to overflowing with “rightful anger” (as was Whitey Bulger when people were tryna whack him, which to Whitey happened anytime anybody did something he didn’t like). That’s why JR “had a beef” … as did Whitey Bulger, so many many times.

      SNAP, I have always said, is indeed a “false flag”; it was a front and funnel organization for the torties, at least from early 1988. And that guaranteed SNAP’s ‘success’ for the past quarter-century and more.

      And – yet again – JR is a ‘victim’ because it was somebody else’s fault that he “hired” the lawyer he did. And then – as some readers may recall – berated that lawyer long after the check was cashed for taking her fee.

  25. Jim Robertson says:

    Anybody who thinks an imaginary sky fairy compelled sheep herders to write the only book we are to believe is a special kind of stupid.

    There's no God. No Jesus. No Mary. It was all a political control to make it easier for the rich to manipulate and rob you, me and everyone else.

    You want to devote your life to what can not be proven to exist or to have ever existed. You are free to. What could be more boring than lengthy bible quotes? Oh yes, Pliars posts. Dead heat actually.

    And Dan thanks for the child like promise that I will burn in hell after I'm dead while you eat sugared deserts in the sky after you're dead. That shows your intellectual age level.


  26. Jim Robertson says:

    "Ooooooew Jesus is going to give me candy". Sounds more like Santa Claus than the God of the OT (except for my being in Hell of course.) Burning forever is pretty Old Testament. Along with not eating shrimp or wearing cotton with polyester (esther? :^)).

    How far did you get in school Dan? You are obviously not genetically stupid.(I would say P fit that description.) When did you bet the farm on a life after death and the Bible as a, sorry THE, only magic carpet to get you to Glory? Asking for a friend.:^)

  27. Dan says:

    Like I previously said, you're getting more annoying than publiar. I guess we'll just have to wait until it's all over to see who the stupid one was. I think you've been listening to one too many stupid atheist cartoons. Although I fail to remember cursing you to Hell, be well aware that the teaching of Hell is just as prevalent in the New as in the Old. God never changed His teachings on sexual immorality, but He did change rules against eating shrimp, FYI. And explain to me how you feel all yours and publiars crap about SNAP has somehow become more interesting than your prospects of eternity. You atheists dwell in such small box of ignorance and blindness. All your cute little stupid infantile comments denying the Creator, talk of sheep herders and sky fairies definitely display your lack of intelligence.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Ask me if I give a fuck that you find me annoying?

      You've no business here anyway. YOU are annoying and boring and wrong. Go away.. Find a street corner.

      Christ! when a Protestant can call a victim annoying for telling the truth on a site dedicated to putting forward Catholic propaganda against it's very own child victims. Its insane.

      I don't care if you like me. Your liking me is not the issue here. The Catholic faith is not the issue here. GET IT?

      Go away! You bring nothing real to the table. Take your bible and shove it.


    • Dan says:

      May the Lord bless you, Jim.

  28. Jim Robertson says:

    Hey asshole! Yes, you the other one, P.

    Asking for compenation is not limited to lawyers. Where did I ever say SNAP were lawyers? That's your line. SNAP posed as a "survivors" organization and "survivors" groups can talk about compensation publically all they want. Why didn't SNAP? You say it's because our lawyers were doing it for them. That lie won't wash. SNAP avoided talk of damages and compensation like the plague. With no reason to, other than they were working for the church and not for the victims.

    You know shit for brains. You can lie and obfusdcate and blow smoke and namecalltill the heavens fall but you're still just wrong. willfully wrong. knowingly wrong. Completly wrong.

    All your snobbery and pathetic arrogance and attitude, and high horsedness can not save you from being a lying sack o' shit. When a lying sack of shit is what you want to be. When being that is your career.

    You can't win against truth P. The truth always comes out in the long haul. I'm very confident in that.

    I stand by the truth that everything I've said about the false flags that are Doyle and SNAP and you will one day out. I'm committed to telling the whole truth about this little fraud of yours.

    What truth are you sure of P?  Have you ever told the truth? Why does the truth frighten you?


  29. Jim Robertson says:

    And really can't lawyers give money to victims groups if they want to?

    Where's the criminal act there? The suit against SNAP is over unjust termination. Did a lawyer write on aheck somewhere "this is a kickback"? SNAP's employee noticed that; mentioned it to Blaine and she was canned? I don't see any criminality. Wrongful termination maybe but criminal act? I don't get it.


  30. Jim Robertson says:

     Or is this "trial" about more smearing for the sake of smearing. No criminal act just another opportunity to smear victims by innuendo. SNAP takes money from victims lawyers SNAP fires an employee for mentioning that  and since SNAP represents all victims. SNAPs mistakes smear all us victims because SNAP says that SNAP IS us. SOS new day.

  31. Jim Robertson says:

    Asshole, my lawyers fee jumped from 33.3% to 40% because of how long it took before settlement. Those xtra months cost me about $120,000. 

    Again what did SNAP do for victims? We could have stood with our lawyers like any other plaintiffs in front of the Cathedral for a press conference. No one needed SNAP for anything. We were told to support SNAP because SNAP was "good". Our lawyers told us (like Charly Manson told his girls to do what ever Tex Watson tells them to do.) to go to SNAP. Of course we thought like P that the lawyers were funding SNAP. We also thought that obeying our lawyers was what we should do for our own cases. Why not? no wrong there. The only people who weren't happy with SNAP were about half of us with more education. We were treated like props wheeled out at press confrences to verify not ourselves but SNAP. We were treated like stupid children who must be controlled from St. Louis and or Chicago.When we wanted democracy we were denied it. Why? Udo the first ignored elected head of LA SNAP still doesn't believe what I say about SNAP. Yet he was cheated by them. Our democratic votes were ignored. Denied really. Why? Why was SNAP there? It was to funnel victims to lawyers yes but why those lawyers? Couldn't SNAP have had lawyers bid for our cases? Don't you think there might be a mass of torties willing to take on the church for us in L.A. in 2003? They weren't there. Even Gloria Allred only had 2 or 3 of our cases. It was all too fishy.

    Why can't you take what I say at face value and investigate my claims?

    Why does little squealy turd just dismiss what I say out of hand with no investigation? A hand wavy dismissal of my claims and questions s enough for P. If TMR was above board when it passes itself as a truth teller. Why not be aboveboard equally. Why don't they investigate. A little scratching and all is revealed with this charade.

    P says we benefited, when the majority of victims got nothing. We say the church benefited by paying far far less than it should thanks to SNAP's inaction. That's easily looked into.Look at what called press conferences about and were they, SNAP necessary there? Or is TMR not interested in finding truth only promoting a certain "truth"?  Just as you say SNAP did. Well if SNAP could do it why couldn't you? If they can sin why can't you?


  32. Jim Robertson says:

    Here's one of your lies. I quit SNAP in 2003. Their was no palace coup if that's what you need o call it by me untill 2007 2008. They couldn't kick me out when I hadn't been in since 2003.  I as a victim and all other victims superseceded SNAP and it's shit. SNAP never kicked me out ever. They just ignored my election as they had Udo's before me and he was much more in their camp than not.

    Remember we were the victims we were used weekly sometimes daily by SNAP in front of the press at the Cathedral. Guess who lived the closest to the Cathedral? Me. My business I'm there. When I say used by SNAP I mean the reason the press would come was because some new part or person in the scandal had come forth been outed what have you. So I had to stand next to SNAP to stand with victims. I was never kicked out of SNAP office yes SNAP no.


  33. Jim Robertson says:

    Piece of shit ,How dare you compare me to a fucking murderer? Who the fuck do you think you are? The only person I ever want to kill is you. I'd snap your lying neck like a stick and shit down your throat. You deserve to die for how you talk to people. Too bad your heart doesn't explode. Oh  my mistake. You've no heart..

    This is a threat motherfucker to fucking KILL you. I don't give a damn anymore. I will murder you while you sleep. You deserve to die as soon as I can make it possible. You've fucked with me for the very last time. you're very last time. I'm hiring a computer genius to find out who you are. Then I'll get you. You will be found dead. Going to prison for murdering a dog like you would be an heroic gift to the planet. Best get your dead soul straight I'll be sending you to your maker very very soon. That's a fucking promise.

  34. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    Of the three questions I posed at the end of my comment on the 7th at 1025PM, JR will here try to answer only the third. And what do we get?

    He “couldn’t sue in court” so he was just “part of the settlement”. it apparently has to be pointed out to him that being a Party to a lawsuit means that one is very much suing, and the fact that the lawsuit (by which one sued the Party Defendant(s) was concluded by settlement (which had to be approved by the cognizant court) does nothing to alter the fact that one did indeed “sue in court”.

    If he had “attempted to sue in the 90’s” and “those who did were unable to sue again” then this raises far more questions than it answers. Since the suit in the 90’s was merely “attempted”, then why was that? Why did it fail (presuming the lawsuit was actually filed)? And if by virtue of that lawsuit in the 90’s another lawsuit could not be brought, then was it – as the formal term has it – Dismissed With Prejudice … ?

  35. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    If it was Dismissed With Prejudice then that means that it was dismissed “on the merits”, meaning that the court found against the Plaintiff’s (JR in this case) claims and thus the Plaintiff could not file another lawsuit on the same claims against the same Party Defendant(s).

    If the 90’s lawsuit was indeed filed, and adjudicated and consequently Dismissed With Prejudice, then it is indeed interesting that JR somehow managed to essentially file the same lawsuit again in the mid-00s. But it was the salad-days of the Stampede and the L.A. complaint, with 500-plus Plaintiffs, was a doozy so perhaps some legal loophole was found or else – given the vast number of Plaintiffs – JR managed to sneak onto the gravy train, with or without the knowing connivance of his attorney.

    When you are confronted with both a) the almost-inevitable oddities of Stampede cases and b) JR’s stories then there is rarely going to be a reliably clear answer to obvious questions.

  36. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    Nor is anything clarified by the bit about “a technicality about separation of legislative and justice branches of government”. You can only sue in the Judicial forum; you can’t bring a lawsuit in the Legislative forum. So this bit of JR’s as proffered here makes no sense.

    And “a few others” hardly accurately describes a 500-plus Plaintiff lawsuit. But if there were indeed some smaller group-let that was allowed to participate in the 500-Plaintiff case, then on what basis could that have been? And – curiously – we have JR, who pronounces himself indubitably truthy and informed about so many Stampede matters, who cannot here clearly recall and sensibly explain the basis of his own (rather remunerative) lawsuit participation.

  37. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    Nor is any sense to be made of his further bit about it being necessary for him and his group-let to have been allowed to participate “in order for the entire settlement to go through”.

    Nor is any sense to be made of his bit that the Archdiocese and its insurers acquiesced in order to “protect themselves from losing 1000s of millions” (that much, really?). And how would the inclusion of the JR-group-let have prevented further suits by “the victims who could sue going to trial”? None of this makes any sense at all. One might even call it a smokescreen or blizzard of chaff (released to confuse and evade radar detection).

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    Having dumped that confusing load on us, JR – apparently realizing it might all be kind of dubious – then tries a preemptive strike against any questions: he bleats that I will try to “make those of us who were included this way cheats or thieves” … well, I didn’t use those terms but the possibility, upon consideration of JR’s proffering here, does certainly raise the possibility that JR himself has already put on the table.

    But it was the Stampede and it was California and it was Victimist ‘law’ and so who knows what might or might not happen when those three are all tossed into the same stewpot and the stove is fired up?

    In any event, what this whole bit does do is to remind readers of just how profoundly deranged the Stampede cases and Stampede litigation could be.

  39. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    And thus a further bit that I will say that those – certainly this new JR-grouplet – are “bad”. I didn’t say they were “cheats and thieves”; JR put that on the table.

    All I’ve done – as usual – is to ask questions of proffered material. I haven’t claimed to “prove” anything and if anything I’ve just put up in this sequence can be shown to be “lying” JR is welcome to point it out.

    Then he tries to wrap the bit up with the familiar ‘Dan’ I’m Not/You Are gambit.

    Then the Wig of Pious Bleating as JR doth ruefully consider how un-smart and immoral I am. JR, like ‘Dan’, might spend more time in front of his bathroom mirror when delivering his favorite little speeches.

  40. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    But don’t touch that dial – there’s more.

    As if he is new to the Stampede, JR doth opine that he cawn’t quite see where I got the figure of 3 billion dollars. That’s the generally accepted figure. One need only enter into a search engine some term like ‘most recent estimate of costs in Catholic abuse cases’. The National Catholic Reporter – no friend of the hierarchy – put the number in November of 2015 at 3.99 billion and considers it “underestimated”. That actually works out to almost 4 billion, actually.

    And from that question, JR then changes course: where he usually gave a large amount to back up his Stampede scare-visions, he now pooh-poohs large numbers because it means the Church can “cry victim”. But the NCR is surely not a hierarchy-friendly source. Does JR have a lower-ball estimate made by some at-least-modestly credible source?

    And from what we’ve seen over the years – and up to and including the shenanigans in  his own 500-plaintiff LA case – is it at all beyond the realm of possibility (if not probability) to consider that the Church was the target of a tortie-fed and tortie-led Stampede that could derange legal praxis?

  41. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    But don’t touch that dial – there’s more.

    JR tries to bring the whole performance home by then painting a picture of the glorious Day when his “analysis and the truth of the Doyle fraud comes to light”. it may well be a “Delicious!” and consoling pipedream to a manipulative and delusional mind, but I if any Day be coming – and the current lawsuit against SNAP will quite probably hasten it – it will be a Day when the Stampede is exposed for what it is and has been for decades. Surely, even the shenanigans behind his own recent revelations indicate where things are heading.

    And he raises – marvelously – the concept of “criminal fraud”. That possibility, even probability, has already occurred to me, going over his stuff.

  42. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1052AM:

    Once again, JR opens with a scatological epithet, just to remind us what we’re dealing with here.

    Apparently JR is now going for the claim that he didn’t really mean that SNAP had to file lawsuits when he said it should have ‘asked for compensation’.

    Well, if SNAP – according to my theory – was a front-funnel organization for the torties, then why would it distract itself from its indentured task in order to do something that the torties themselves were going to do, to the great remuneration of all of them?

    And is it true that in all of its public statements over the past three decades and more SNAP never once supported “compensation”? I find that hard to believe. Can JR demonstrate the validity of that claim (or presumption)?

    If I recall correctly, even the SNAP website mission-statement clearly states that it supports victims’ going to “civil attorneys” (a nice term for torties) in order to be advised of their legal rights.

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1052AM:

    Thus then, it has not at all been demonstrated that I “lie” when I point out that the torties – if my theory is correct – would be doing the heavy-lifting in the “compensation” department.

    And if SNAP – as JR himself says – was not comprised of “lawyers”, then it would not be well-advised to be giving legal advice about “compensation”. Instead it would be better advised to simply urge people to consult a competent attorney in that regard – which is precisely what even its own mission statement does.

    So much for JR’s Gumshoe Wig.

  44. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1052AM:

    And he tries to bring the performance home by more scatological epithets while simultaneously accusing me of ‘name-calling’.

    Upon which queasy cake he then lards the frosting of truthiness: he is – doncha know? – very confident that “the truth always comes out in the long haul”. Why, how can I not agree? Look how much more JR has revealed here recently that we never knew before.

    And the whole thing concludes with more Wiggy posturing about “truth”. Yah.

  45. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1106AM:

    Commenting on mine of the 7th at 1021PM JR will try more word-games: the mantra “Protect the Children wasn’t about victims … It was about the unharmed”. What would be the point here, in the context of my comment (which was itself commenting on his mention of it)?

    It would have been deployed to capture the public wave of concern over the harming of children, thus giving the torties and their Stampede a very media-friendly Good Guy cachet.  That’s PR 101.

    And just how many “bodies all over the place who were harmed” there genuinely and actually were is and remains un-demonstrated and – I would say – increasingly questionable.

    What really “makes no kind of sense” to JR is that his own rantings and schemes were not well-received and somebody’s gonna pay for that. He’ll cook up a ‘theory’ that get’s ‘em all. But he never goes after anybody that isn’t tryna get in his way – that’s his moral code.

  46. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1114AM:

    Here JR apparently is trying to plump for the torties. Readers can consider this bit as they may.

    The gravamen of the current lawsuit is not that the torties made donations , but rather that there was a quid-pro-quo scheme where the donations went to groups (or at least one notable group) that fed clients to the torties themselves, especially in a situation where there was an almost-certainty that such clients were going to garner very very substantial sums. That type of arrangement might well qualify as a kickback scheme and that’s the problem.

    What JR doth “see” and doth not see is what it is and what else need be said on that score?

  47. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1123AM:

    Now – and had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – JR will finally get around to the trusty old “smear” bit: if you ask questions, then you are ‘smearing’. There was – quotha – “no criminal act”. Well, at this stage it’s a civil lawsuit – which by definition is not a case in the criminal forum.

    Depending on Discovery and perhaps the outcome of the suit, some cognizant prosecutor might decide to bring charges against one or more torties involved, or at least the cognizant Bar Association or Court (in different States, the disciplining of attorneys is overseen by one or the other). Such disciplining is rare, especially when you have a well-connected tortie, but it’s theoretically possible.

    And – marvelously – JR doth huff and harrumph about the “smear by innuendo”. That’s rich.

  48. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 920PM:

    Opening as usual with a scatological epithet he doth wax wroth about how large his lawyer’s fees were. And after they went to all the trouble of getting him included in the lawsuit to begin with.

    “What did SNAP do for victims?” he again asks. As I have said so very often here, it performed as a front/funnel organization to bring victims and torties together for the run at the piñata. Few if any of the ‘compensated’ seem to have found the arrangement unsatisfactory.

    He claims “no one needed SNAP for anything”. I think that assertion would clearly need some explication and verification. I doubt many people today remember any agitprop bits like standing in front of a cathedral, but all that cash is in the bank.

    He now claims that the allegants all “thought like P that the lawyers were funding SNAP”. Did he now? They why get mixed up in the whole scheme? He actually answers that: because it “should be done for our own cases” … precisely so. There was money to be had if one went along with the torties and … wasn’t the money kinda the primary point?

    And as he even further – and marvelously reveals – “Why not? no wrong there”. Precisely so.

  49. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 920PM:

    The popcorn alarm is then tripped, however, when JR opines that he was one of only half of the SNAP-goers who were dissatisfied (not, however, enough to back away from the cash) because – had you been waittttinggggg forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – he was among the half “with more education”. Ovvvv courrsssse.

    Apparently he joined an organization that had no provision for elections in its by-laws, tried to get himself elected, and now claims he is a victim of having been “denied … democracy”. But SNAP wasn’t, to all appearances, a ‘democratic’ organization. Hadn’t he read the by-laws?

    He then goes further down the victim path by claiming that he was “treated as stupid children who must be controlled”. Readers will have by now read a very recent comment of his (the 10th at 1200AM) that would give some indication why he might have been treated like that.

  50. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 920PM:

    He then asks “Why can’t you take what I say at face value and investigate my claims?”. Seriously? His “claims” don’t hold up even under the type of examination one can undertake in an online forum, and that’s been explicated at very great length for a period of years now.

    Thus – epithets aside – I have investigated as far as can be done in this forum and the results are in the record for anyone to consider. And as even JR has claimed so often, I don’t do “hand-wavy”; I go to great length and in detail; that, indeed, is what irks JR no end.

    He wants TMR basically to take his stuff as truth just because – he claims – it takes my material as truth. That’s apparently how it works in his mind: no matter what he says should “equally” be considered true. To his mind that’s how the game is played, because to his mind it’s all a game, and even truth-telling is just a game.

    But this is also an echo of the old victim gambit: you believe my story and I’ll believe your story and we can get on with “our cases”.