Reliable, professional Church-basher: Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, O.P.

[This is first in a continuing series of profiles of individuals whom the media often cites in its coverage of the Catholic Church abuse narrative.]

When the media is seeking a voice to blast away at the Catholic Church over the sex abuse issue, one reliable source is often Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., a Dominican priest and canon lawyer. What the media will never tell you, however, is that Doyle has a storied history of contempt for the Church and a penchant to misrepresent the faith.

Fr. Doyle's desire to seek justice and compassion for innocent victims of Catholic clergy abuse is to be commended, and Catholics can learn much from his seemingly unrestrained fervor to provide healing. However, Doyle's open disdain for the Catholic Church is so exaggerated and over the top, one cannot help but wonder why he still remains a Catholic priest.

A troubling record

Almost without exception, journalists never mention Doyle's very lengthy record of dissent and animosity against the Catholic Church. In the past Doyle:

• has dismissed Catholic thought as "childish, unrealistic beliefs" and "magical thinking";
• has falsely claimed that the Catholic Church was established by Constantine;
• has been banned from acting as a canon lawyer in the Archdiocese of St. Louis for committing serious canonical crimes;
• has been removed as a military chaplain because he contradicted his archbishop regarding the Mass;
• has once sought an endorsement from the "Holy Orthodox Catholic Church," unrelated to Rome, as a way to keep his military job, salary, and benefits.
• has demeaned priestly vestments as "dresses";
• has actively participated in the error-laden, anti-Catholic film, Deliver Us From Evil;
• has misrepresented Catholicism, either intentionally or unintentionally, on numerous important issues, including the history of the Church, the role of the laity, the training of seminarians, and the Church’s requirement of celibacy;
• has wildly claimed in a 2012 commentary that "Nothing has changed since 1985" in the Church's handling of abuse cases;
• has falsely claimed to a worldwide audience that a 1962 Vatican document was "an explicit written policy to cover up child sexual abuse by the clergy" (read the truth here); and
• has apparently denied the historicity and doctrine of the Real Presence of the Eucharist by referring to it merely as a "symbol".

"With friends like these …"

Doyle has also been a close cohort and ally of the anti-Catholic group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), often appearing as a speaker at their annual conferences. In July 2007, the group even awarded Doyle its "Red Badge of Courage" award.

More recently, Doyle has submitted an affidavit (pdf) (scroll down) as an expert witness for the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Vatican. In other words, Doyle is presumably getting paid in supporting an effort by a plaintiff to collect millions of dollars from his very own employer.

A look at Doyle's Curriculum Vitae (pdf) reveals his political leanings and may explain his interest in attacking the Church over decades-old abuse claims. His academic studies uncover a devout interest in Marxist-Leninist thought, as his Masters' dissertations include the titles, "Organized Religion in Marxist-Leninist Philosophy," "Vladimir Lenin's Theory of Social Revolution," and "Liberation Theology in the Context of Social Needs in South America."

Again, Catholics and non-Catholics alike can admire Doyle's zeal to support badly needed healing for victims of atrocious abuse committed by clergy. However, the media should finally come clean and reveal that Fr. Doyle most certainly does not deliver a reliable representation of the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church abuse narrative. As an angry leftist and professional dissident, Doyle is hardly the unbiased "expert" that the media purports him to be.

Sinful journalism: Joshua J. McElwee

In fact, even a cursory look at the 1985 letter reveals that such a claim is blatantly untrue!

The author of the feckless piece is Joshua J. McElwee, a "staff writer" at the discordant publication.

A simple case muddled by an anti-Church agenda

The case is not very complicated. In 1985, the Archdiocese of Birmingham, England, sent a letter to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles on behalf of one of its priests who wanted to work in the United States.

The letter reportedly stated in part:

"[The cleric's] work as a priest has been highly regarded ever since his ordination fourteen years ago.

"He has shown considerable talent in recruiting groups of lay workers to assist in various capacities …

"Since his ordination he has regularly done summer vacation work in various American parishes and from time to time expressed a desire to join an American Diocese.

"The immediate reason for his being in the United States just now is that a few months ago he met a man with whom he had an unwholesome relationship about thirteen years ago.

"We have no reason to believe that there has been any recurrence of this problem, but [the priest] says that he would feel safer a long distance away and untraceable by this man."

One notices right away that the letter says absolutely nothing about any underage abuse or crime, and there is nothing in the letter that suggests the priest had had any problems with minors. It indicates a priest – likely gay – seeking to get as far away as possible from a source of disruption.

The Church takes immediate action

It turns out, however, that the priest had actually been suspected in England of abusing underage boys. Yet the Archdiocese of Los Angeles did not know this until some five years later, in 1993, when it received another letter from England.

This second letter stated that the priest had been accused of sexual abuse of children, and that he was being recalled home to the UK.

What did the Archdiocese of Los Angeles do? It immediately revoked his faculties and sent him packing back to England.

The archdiocese heard nothing of the guy until 2008, fifteen years after it expelled him, when it received an anonymous phone call saying that the former priest was managing a Southern California trailer park. At that point, even though the guy was a merely a former employee of the Church, it immediately notified the police.

Most notably, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has never received any allegation whatsoever of any sexual wrongdoing by the guy when he was employed in L.A.

Church-haters see an opportunity to bash the Church

But the Reporter's McElwee doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good hit piece on the Church. McElwee lines up the usual suspects of professional Church critics to argue that Los Angeles somehow should have known that the priest from England was a child molester.

McElwee turns to the perpetually angry Church-basher Patrick J. Wall, an employee of the notorious anti-Catholic Southern California contingency lawyer John C. Manly. Wall wildly describes the 1985 letter as a "bunker buster bomb" that could somehow indicate a crime by Cardinal Roger Mahony. Uh-huh. (Wall has passed himself off as a canon law expert even though he reportedly studied less than two months in the field. According to a source in a 2003 article in the Los Angeles Times, Wall was expelled from Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome after forging a letter in an attempt to get a leave from the priesthood. Wall is a former Benedictine.) [UPDATE, 5/13/12: We have since learned that Wall no longer works for John Manly. He now works for ... (drum roll) ... the nation's leading Church-suing attorney Jeff Anderson, from Minnesota!]

McElwee also quotes a member from the predictably hysterical group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) who somehow concludes that "kids were hurt in Los Angeles" because "the archdiocese knew that [the former priest] was a predator," even though there has not been a shred of evidence of any of this.

Indeed, the media has doled out enough fair criticism of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for its past mishandlings of abuse cases. But the Reporter is now scraping the bottom of the barrel and finessing facts in a desperate attempt to wring a story out of some new marginal information.

The Reporter is building a reputation for biased reporting on the abuse narrative, and McElwee's piece comes across as a baseless and sordid swipe at the Catholic Church.

Calls it as he sees it: Journalist Ralph Cipriano

Covering the trial for the Philadelphia Priest Abuse Trial Blog, Cipriano opined in a recent post that Judge M. Teresa Sarmina is "often mistaken for a member of the prosecution team."

Cipriano's reference is to the fact, ignored by others in the media, that it seems almost all of the judge's rulings have gone in the favor of the prosecution – and against the Catholic clergy.

A record of troubling statements and actions

Sarmina's fairness has been questioned before. As we have noted previously:

• On January 31 (before the trial), Sarmina declared in an open courtroom in front of Catholic priests and their defenders: "Anybody that doesn't think there is widespread sexual abuse within the Catholic Church is living on another planet." Not only was Sarmina's remark incredibly biased, but it was factually wrong, prompting a call from the Catholic League for the judge to step down. [Read More]

• On April 23, Samina opined, "I would not be surprised if there are not many, many more people out there who have chosen never to come forward [to report abuse]." [Read More]

• Two days later, on April 25, Judge Sarmina questioned a witness in a manner more fit for a prosecutor by actually asking an accuser on the stand how alleged abuse affected his life personally. "Defense lawyers squirmed" upon hearing the question, reported Ralph Cipriano. [Read More]

• Most notably, on January 30, Judge Sarmina actually ruled that Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, the former archbishop of Philadelphia, was "competent" to give testimony at the important trial. Barely 36 hours after her ruling, the cardinal passed away in his sleep. The ailing prelate, at 88 years old, was practically hours away from dying of cancer and dementia, yet Sarmina ruled that this man should appear and testify in public at one of Philadelphia's most publicized trials in history. Unbelievable. [Read More]

There are more examples, but one gets the point.

One can also wonder if Sarmina is even an improvement over the first judge overseeing the clergy cases, the combustible Renée Cardwell Hughes. In pretrial hearings, Judge Hughes berated the defense attorneys for accused clergy, telling them to "Shut up and sit down" and addressing them as "baby." [Read More]

Indeed, if the clergy on trial are genuinely guilty of the crimes for which they are charged, they should be punished accordingly. But the bedrock of our justice system is that defendants receive a fair and honest trial.

Bravo to Cipriano for raising the question if this is happening in Philadelphia.

Andrew Rosenthal, Editorial Page Editor, New York Times

They are at it again.

The Grey Lady just published another editorial on Sunday on its favorite topic: sex abuse in the Catholic Church from decades ago. This time the Times praises the state of Hawaii for passing a law to lift the statute of limitations for two years to file stale sex abuse claims and then lobbies Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York to do the same in an attempt to bankrupt the Catholic Church in New York.

The sex abuse story has been an obsession at the Times for a decade now. But in those ten years, the Church has radically reformed its polices requiring prompt reporting and annual audits while contemporaneous abuse claims have now fallen to near zero; abuse victims have already filed scores of often questionable lawsuits collecting billions in judgments; half of the accused priests have already died; a vast industry of wealthy contingency lawyers and professional victim's groups have emerged who heavily advertise for still more victims; and, indeed several dioceses have already been forced to file for bankruptcy protection amid the flood of claims.

So the simple, if sometimes unpopular, truth is that the problem of sex abuse in the Catholic Church has already been solved.

Finding a new angle

But since the Times isn't really as much concerned with the sexual abuse of children as it is with finding an issue with which to bully the Catholic Church into changing its doctrines with respect to sex and gender, the Times has got to keep the sex abuse issue alive somehow – anyhow – or else it loses its rhetorical cudgel to attack the Church.

Thus in its latest editorial the Times now pushes for a proposed law in New York that would abolish decades of established law and lift the statute of limitations for abuse claims for a set period – a so-called "window statue" – so that contingency lawyers could now bring 50-, 60-year, or even older abuse claims in order to bankrupt the Catholic Church in New York. And, indeed, in left-leaning states where window statutes have already been enacted, such as California, Oregon and Delaware, they have directly led to dioceses being forced to file for bankruptcy.

Selective facts

In promoting these statutes, however, the Times never mentions the rank unfairness of forcing defendants to defend decades-old claims after witnesses have died, memories have faded, and evidence has been lost. Indeed, permitting the filing of lawsuits which, because of the passage of time, results in the defendants being unable to effectively defend themselves amounts to nothing short of extortion which is why statutes of limitation exist in the first place.

Nor does the Times ever mention in its editorial that these statutes never apply to public schools where sex abuse is estimated to have occurred at a rate more than 100 times that of the Catholic Church. And that these window statues don't apply to the Times' beloved government schools is perfect evidence itself that the Times real agenda here is not the protection of children but simply an assault upon the Catholic Church.

The Constitution wisely prohibits ex post facto criminal laws and these reckless window statutes with respect to abuse in civil law are simply unprecedented in scope modern American legal history. Imagine the howls of protest from the Times if legislatures were to suddenly lift the statutes of limitation on defamation permitting claimants to sue the Times over matters it published 50 or 60 years ago!

Coming clean

In its editorial, the Times even admits that its real target in all of this is the Catholic Church, decrying of the Hawaii legislation that "[t]he law's leading opponent was the Roman Catholic Church, which has been working hard to defeat statute of limitations reform across the country." The Times then bemoans that the Church stopped a recent proposed window statue from passage in Pennsylvania. As always, it is not really about sex abuse but about the Times hating on the Catholic Church.

As the story of sex abuse in the Catholic Church fades into the past, look for more editorials like this from the Times promoting the passage of window statues as it desperately struggles to keep this old story alive and as it seeks any means at its disposal to destroy its archnemesis: the Catholic Church.

Fred Hiatt, Editorial Page Editor, Washington Post

Witness: Just a few months ago, Boston Public Schools leveled a two-week suspension on a school principal after she admitted that she did not report a case of suspected child sex abuse by a special education aide. After the principal's failure to alert the police or district officials, the aide transferred to another school, where he reportedly was busted in the act of abusing a special needs student.

So, where is that school principal today? She is comfortably back at work supervising teachers and children.

Two more cases of cover-up in public schools

In 2008, two high school administrators for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) pleaded guilty and no contest in a court of law for failing to report the rape of an innocent 13-year-old girl by a school employee.

Where are they now? Both are back at LAUSD – with – nice promotions. (And one of the individuals has since been personally sued for another shocking case alleging "wrongful death, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.")

The examples are endless.

Selective outrage

Do any of these cases upset the Washington Post? Apparently not, according to an editorial on Sunday.

What does agitate the paper, however, is the fact that a Jesuit Catholic official apparently failed to take aggressive action back in the 1990s against an abusive priest. (The official sent the priest away to treatment, which – while not nearly enough – was much more than what those school officials ever did.)

Because this official later held leadership positions on the boards of his order and of universities, this is enough evidence for the Post to forcefully declare that the Catholic Church "protects abusers" and "remains focused more on safeguarding its image."

The Post completely ignores the numerous unprecedented measures that the Catholic Church has taken in the past several years in its efforts to protect children. The result is that contemporaneous accusations against Catholic priests are extremely rare. In 2011, accusations that were deemed "credible" totaled only seven in all of the United States.

Back to school

Meanwhile, if the Post wants to cite an institution that "protects abusers" and "remains focused more on safeguarding its image," it should look again to the public school system.

A 2004 U.S. Department of Education report reported that "the most accurate data available" reveals that "nearly 9.6 percent of [public school] students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career."

The report cited an important study from the mid-1990s:

"In an early [1994] study of 225 cases of educator sexual abuse in New York, all of the accused had admitted to sexual abuse of a student but none of the abusers was reported to authorities."

That is an important and alarming fact:

Number of abusive educators: 225
Number reported to police: 0

So, in other words, as recently as 1994, it was the universal practice in New York among school administrators not to call police to report abusers.

The 1994 study also reported that only 1 percent of those abusive educators lost their license. In addition, most alarmingly, "25 percent received no consequence or were reprimanded informally and off-the-record. Nearly 39 percent chose to leave the district, most with positive recommendations or even retirement packages intact."

So here we have yet another case of the media simply using the decades-old clergy scandals as a tool to bludgeon the Catholic Church while ignoring massive abuse and cover-ups in our nation's public schools which are happening in our public schools today.

Maureen Dowd and Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times

The New York Times has shown yet again that the abuse of children does not really bother them unless it involves the Catholic Church. But if there were still any doubt, the Times has now made it perfectly clear that the decades-old abuse of minors by Catholic priests is simply a rhetorical tool with which it can bludgeon the Catholic Church because it does not conform to the paper's left-wing liking.

It was only a week ago when a New York Times editorial fretted about the Catholic Church's efforts to align the dissident leadership of a conference of left-wing nuns with Church doctrine, and the paper predictably used the scandals as a useful cudgel to promote "progressive" dissent.

Now Times' opinion writers Maureen Dowd and Nicholas D. Kristof have double-upped on the Grey Lady's predictable tactic with similar Church-bashing columns running just a week later in the same Sunday issue.

Maureen Dowd: Off the rails

Maureen Dowd's deep-seated animus towards the Catholic Church is nothing new. Yet one cannot help but wonder if she may have outdone herself this time.

Dowd smears the Church by claiming that leaders are "more offended by the nuns' impassioned advocacy for the poor than by priests' sordid pedophilia."

In fact, as we have repeatedly shown, the Catholic Church's efforts to establish safe environments for children are unprecedented anywhere.

In other words, Dowd resorts to false statements and bogus attacks – again – in her latest effort to attack the Church.

Nicholas D. Kristof looks to dissent

Kristof's attack is remarkably similar to Dowd's in its content, tone, and disregard for truthfulness.

Kristof falsely accuses the Church of claiming that nuns are "worrying too much about the poor and not enough about abortion and gay marriage."

After displaying an ignorance of basic knowledge of the Bible and Catholic teaching, Kristof then promotes the views of a number of angry Catholic dissidents.

These figures include Mary E. Hunt, whom Kristof merely identifies as a "Catholic theologian," but who openly cohabitates with her woman 'partner' and whose theology is barely distinguishable from some wacky brand of Universalist-Unitarianism.

Kristof then cites Sr. Joan Chittister, whose public work has been so problematic that she has actually been banned from even speaking in some dioceses.

An obsession and a delusion

The Times' obsession with the Catholic Church has clearly become pathological. It is unwavering in its ideological commitment to bludgeon the Church by any means necessary, and the principle means by which it does this is to endlessly rehash the sex abuse scandals.

Anti-Catholicism is indeed pervasive at the Grey Lady. The paper intensely dislikes the Catholic Church and what it represents. And it cannot countenance the fact that the Vatican is finally pushing back against openly dissenting individuals who have opposed the Church by speaking favorably on "progressive" issues with which the Times aligns itself.

Unfortunately for the Times, the ranks of "liberal" and "progressive" Catholics are now shrinking and increasingly geriatric. "Traditional Catholicism is Winning," despite what the Grey Lady wants you to believe.

The Times can get as huffy as it wants to, but it will simply get even more frustrated if it continues to think it will somehow bully the Catholic Church into changing its 2,000-year-old teachings.

Manuel Vega, SNAP

While abuse victim lawyers have often sought to portray themselves as sober and tireless champions of the afflicted, an alleged victim of Catholic clergy abuse has described a jubilant scene among contingency lawyers following the 2007 record-setting $660 million settlement in Los Angeles that "looked like a frat party."

The individual, former police officer Manuel Vega, says that some victorious attorneys "were even chest-bumping" at the news of their financial windfall.

Vega has long argued for the release of Church document files in Los Angeles, and he is upset because contingency lawyers and Church attorneys have yet to reach an agreement through a judge on the release of certain personnel records, as dictated in the 2007 settlement. Vega has now been arguing for the release of such files for nearly a decade.

The Los Angeles Times reports that a lot of Vega's anger is directed at the very lawyers who once represented victims like him. He feels that the self-righteous attorneys involved in the windfall settlement have essentially abandoned him on the issue that he finds most important.

"They took the money and ran," says Vega, according to the Times.

The Times quotes high-profile contingency lawyers John C. Manly, who once compared being a Catholic priest to being a train conductor carrying prisoners to Auschwitz, and Raymond P. Boucher, whose eye-popping earnings from abuse settlements have recently been disclosed.

A 2010 article from USC's Annenberg News identified Vega as a member of the advocacy group SNAP (Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests).

It would be nice to see the media look into some of the statements and actions of some of these contingency lawyers who have profited so nicely from the Catholic Church in the past number of years.

Wayne Laugesen, Colorado Gazette

Our nation's public schools have a serious problem with child abuse, and if schools want their children to be safe from predators, they should look to the model of protection implemented by the Catholic Church.

Those are the rarely aired words penned by Wayne Laugesen, Editorial Page Editor at the Colorado Springs Gazette, in a recent editorial.

Laugesen's article is a refreshing diversion from the well-worn "The-Catholic-Church-is-a-harbor-of-pedophiles" narrative that fails to account that abuse in the Catholic Church is a historical problem, not a current problem.

Laugesen correctly points out that in all of last year, there were a total of seven credible and contemporaneous accusations against Catholic priests in the United States, a minuscule number in the context of the country's 41,406 priests and 77 millions followers.

"Statistically, this makes priests the safest professionals in the country to leave children with," Laugesen concludes.

While even one incident of abuse is an outrage, the Church's low number of current accusations is the result of the several aggressive efforts it has taken in the past several years to create safe environments for children.

Our public schools, however …

"Many schools have more credible allegations of abuse by employees than the entire church has nationwide," Laugesen reports. He then cites a rarely referenced 2007 Associated Press study which chronicled the epidemic of abuse and cover-ups currently going on in our nation's schools:

"Students in America's schools are groped. They're raped. They're pursued, seduced and think they're in love.

"An Associated Press investigation found more than 2,500 cases over five years in which educators were punished for actions from bizarre to sadistic …

"Most of the abuse never gets reported. Those cases reported often end with no action. Cases investigated sometimes can't be proven, and many abusers have several victims.

"And no one – not the schools, not the courts, not the state or federal governments – has found a surefire way to keep molesting teachers out of classrooms."

If the mainstream media is really concerned about atrocious child abuse and the protection of children, then why doesn't it report more about this epidemic in our public schools?

The answer seems to be that the media is really more interested in creating a battering ram in order to bludgeon the Catholic Curch.

The time is long overdue for other clear-thinking journalists to pick up on Laugesen's truths. (And this is not the first time he has penned such a column.)

Bravo to Wayne Laugesen.

The Boston Globe's Joan Vennochi and the Los Angeles Times' Steve Lopez

Since when have journalists been so concerned about internal doctrinal matters in the Catholic Church? Why are journalists suddenly fretting about the status of nuns in America?

It has been no secret that many Catholic women religious (nuns) in recent years have been in open dissent of a number of gender-related components of Church teaching, such those regarding the all-male priesthood, celibacy requirements, and, in some cases, abortion.

Because of this open dissent, the Vatican has finally taken efforts to review and monitor the leadership of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). These efforts simply seek to align the conference – a Church-recognized body – with the teachings of the Church and with Church law.

Now it seems that the Vatican's actions have journalists worked up all over the country.

The Boston Globe's 'Pope Joan'

The Boston Globe's Joan Vennochi rarely misses an opportunity to plaster the Catholic Church. In her latest diatribe, Vennochi accuses Pope Benedict of acting "swiftly" to "crack down" on nuns but dragging his feet in efforts to protect children.

Of course nothing could be further from the truth. The Church's efforts in recent years to create safe environments for youth are unprecedented among comparable institutions that deal with youth.

Can Vennochi say the same about the efforts at Boston Public Schools? Just a few months ago, when a school principal apparently broke the law and failed to report the suspected abuse of a special needs student by a teacher's aide, the district merely leveled a two-week suspension on the principal and allowed her back to work. This episode has not seemed to bother Vennochi, however.

Loopy Lopez

Just like Vennochi, the Los Angeles Times's angry Steve Lopez rarely misses an opportunity to take swipes at the Church.

Lopez’s bleary-eyed piece follows the predictable theme of "Bad-Catholic-Church-pounds-on-innocent-nuns-who-help-the-poor-but-have-'ignored'-child-abuse."

But Lopez also allows his interview subjects to mislead his readers. Lopez quotes a Sister Simone Campbell, who claims that the Vatican's measures are "payback" against some nuns who supported President Obama's healthcare legislation.

In truth, as the Catholic League has correctly pointed out, the decision by the Vatican to assess the LCWR was announced in April 2008, when George W. Bush was President. Meanwhile, U.S. legislators did not introduce President Obama's healthcare initiatives until September 2009.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good anti-Catholic hit piece?

SNAP National Director David Clohessy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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