TheMediaReport.com has uncovered even more episodes of collaboration between individuals in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office and the Catholic Church-bashing advocacy group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests).

3. An October 13, 2006, forum at Temple University School of Law (Philadelphia) convened to discuss the aftermath of the 2005 Philadelphia grand jury report on the Catholic Church. Featured panelists included:

- Lynne Abraham, then-District Attorney of Philadelphia,
- Maureen McCartney, former Ass't. D.A. of Philadelphia (worked on Philly's 2003-2005 investigation of the Church. McCartney co-wrote a nasty 2006 letter with Mariana Sorensen to Cardinal Rigali.),
- Marci A. Hamilton, law professor and attorney for SNAP, and
- John Salveson, FACSA / former head of SNAP Philadelphia.

Leaders of SNAP Philadelphia were also reportedly present.

4. An August 5, 2008, panel discussion – presented in part by SNAP – convened at the Siegel Jewish Community Center in Wilmington, Delaware, to discuss – again – legislative efforts to lift statutes of limitations for abuse claims. As the photos below show, featured speakers included:

- Charles F. Gallagher III, Deputy D.A. of Philadelphia,
- Marci Hamilton, law professor and SNAP attorney, and
- Joelle Casteix, "Southwest Director" of SNAP.

Is collaboration between SNAP and the Philadelphia D.A.'s Office illegal? A knowledgeable lawyer can answer that.

Nevertheless, the partnership certainly helps to explain the extreme hostility and acrimony with which Philadelphia has relentlessly pursued the Catholic Church in the past several years. With three grand jury reports in the last decade (not just two, as widely reported), the Philly D.A.'s office has not targeted any other organization for its past abuses with the same prosecutorial zeal. Not – even – close.

(Meanwhile, while Philadelphia aggressively prosecutes the Church, the Pittsburgh District Attorney – just a stone's throw away in a sense – recently closed an inquiry against the Church and determined "none of the allegations merited criminal prosecution" (Fri. 8/12/11). Hmmm.)

The troublesome associations between SNAP and individuals in the Philly D.A.'s office should raise serious concern.

This unseemly kinship strongly suggests that the Catholic Church is not receiving equal justice and equitable scrutiny under the law. And that is wrong.

Are the current criminal charges against Catholic clergy in Philadelphia the fruits of an active collaboration between the city's District Attorney's Office and the bitter, anti-Church advocacy group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests)?

At first, such a startling question may sound ridiculous and paranoidal. However, TheMediaReport.com has uncovered eye-opening evidence – including video – suggesting close collaboration between the two parties in the past several years.

1. In 2006, John Salveson, who was head of the Philadelphia chapter of SNAP, decided to form his own organization called "The Foundation to Abolish Child Sex Abuse Inc." (FACSA).

Among Salveson's first actions at his new group was assigning Mariana C. Sorensen to his board of directors. (See a news brief about this.)

Who is Mariana Sorensen? She is an Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia and is the current prosecutor in the criminal cases against Catholic clergy. She was also the lead author of both the 2005 and 2011 Philadelphia grand jury reports against the Catholic Church.

Like those at SNAP, Sorensen has a well-established record of hostility against the Catholic Church in her actions and writings. (For much more on this, see TheMediaReport.com Special Report, "Who is Mariana Sorensen?" (Aug. 2011).)

2. A year later, a video from September 25, 2007, shows Salveson, Philly Ass't. D.A. Sorensen, and leaders of SNAP together in collaboration.

Yeshiva University law professor Marci A. Hamilton, a lawyer with a deep animus for the Church who has worked extensively with SNAP, convened a conference in New York City ("Call to Action"). The meeting's purpose was to advance legislative efforts to lift statutes of limitations for abuse claims in states across the country.

As the video below shows, Hamilton offered some remarks at her conference about the mission's efforts. She then introduced current and former leaders of SNAP, including Barbara Blaine, the founder and president of SNAP; and John Salveson.

Directly after this, Hamilton introduced Mariana Sorensen (Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney) and Charles F. Gallagher III, Philadelphia Deputy District Attorney (at the time).

Hamilton prefaced her introduction of the two Philly prosecutors by saying that the Philadelphia District Attorney's office "has been – by far – the best D.A.'s office in the country."

So here is a lawyer for SNAP openly praising the Philadelphia D.A.'s office during a close, collaborative endeavor.

[By the way, several notable attorneys were also in attendance at Marci's gathering. All of these have made BIG bucks suing the Catholic Church: NY's Michael G. Dowd, NJ's Stephen C. Rubino, Boston's Mitchell Garabedian, and NY's John Aretakis. (A note on Aretakis: In 2008, the State of New York actually suspended his law license for one year. The court cited numerous reasons, including that Aretakis "knowingly made false statements of law and fact," "engaged in undignified and discourteous conduct," and "asserted positions which served to harass and maliciously injure." In 2007, when a judge sanctioned Aretakis, the jurist specifically cited Aretakis' "personal vendetta" against the Catholic Church.)]

In Part II of this Special Report, TheMediaReport.com uncovers even more collaboration between individuals in the Philadelphia D.A.'s Office and SNAP. Check it out.

Ms. Sorensen's alliances and actions suggest that she has a deep animus against the Catholic Church. Her associations with the bitter and dishonest advocacy group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) are undeniable.

Witness:

- In 2006, John Salveson, who was head of the Philadelphia chapter of SNAP, decided to form his own organization called "The Foundation to Abolish Child Sex Abuse Inc." (FACSA). Among Salveson's first actions at his new group was assigning Sorensen to his board of directors. (See a news brief about this.)

- In a mean-spirited 2006 opinion article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sorensen argued for lifting the statute of limitations for abuse claims. Yet her desire for this legislation seemed almost singly rooted in her eagerness to punish the Catholic Church.

- Also in 2006, Sorensen co-wrote a nasty letter to then-Cardinal Justin Rigali of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, recklessly accusing the archbishop of being callous and uncaring in light of priests committing "countless child rapes."

- On September 25, 2007, Sorensen eagerly attended a conference in New York City ("Call to Action") composed and hosted by SNAP attorney Marci A. Hamilton. Sorensen sat in close proximity to the national director of SNAP as well as John Salveson. (TheMediaReport.com has posted must-see video of this event.)

- Ms. Sorenson was the lead author of the 2005 Philadelphia grand jury report, running 418 pages (!). The acrimony of this report against the Catholic Church cannot be overstated. The report was so erroneous and hostile that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia actually issued a 73-page response. The archdiocese cited the report's "sensationalized, lurid, and tabloid-like presentation of events." It retorted that the report's reckless claims of a Church "cover-up" were "categorically false." It especially took offense to the "cruel and undeserved portrayal" of Cardinal Bevilacqua after a notably harsh deposition in 2003.

- Ms. Sorensen was also the lead author of the high-profile Philadelphia grand jury report from earlier this year (February 2011). In addition to its brute mean-spiritedness, the report contains a number of fallacious and misleading claims, which TheMediaReport.com has carefully chronicled. Sadly, the media has almost universally accepted the wild claims in the report.

Sorensen's venom is further catalogued with her recent actions in the courtroom. Most recently (August 2011), Sorensen urged the judge overseeing the Philadelphia cases to allow her to question Cardinal Archbishop Emeritus Bevilacqua for testimony in advance of the March 2012 trial. She made this request even though she fully knows that the former archbishop is 88 years old and reportedly suffers from prostate cancer and dementia. (Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina, who has been notably biased in favor of the prosecution, ordered the ailing cardinal to appear at a September 12, 2011, hearing to "determine his competency." Ugh.)

The bias and animus of Sorensen certainly helps to explain the deep hostility and acrimony with which Philadelphia has aggressively and unfairly targeted the Catholic Church in recent years.

Indeed, Sorensen has not targeted any other organization for its past sins (The School District of Philadelphia, anyone?) with the same enthusiasm and zeal as she has with the Catholic Church.

Those with the dream of prosecuting and bludgeoning the Catholic Church could not find a better ally than Mariana Sorensen.

1. There should be serious concern about the impartiality of the presiding judge, Common Pleas Court Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes. Judge Hughes also oversaw the recent grand jury, from which the current criminal charges materialized. As we've outlined before, the Philadelphia grand jury report is quite factually fallacious, mean-spirited, and misleading in its presentation.

How is it fair that the judge who supervised the grand jury be the same person who presides at the criminal trial? Isn't a judge supposed to be impartial?

When a defense lawyer asked Hughes to recuse herself from the case, she flat-out refused.

Most remarkably, at one point during the March 25 hearing, Hughes remarked to a defense lawyer, "Avery, Engelhardt, and Shero (three of the defendants) picked a child and singled him out."

Wait a minute. Isn't it the job of a jury to determine the validity of that serious claim – a claim that the prosecution is making, but the defense strongly denies – during a trial?

Again: Where's the impartiality? Where's the fairness?

2. During the March 25 hearing, Michael McGovern, the lawyer for Fr. Charles Engelhardt, loudly complained that the government has not yet presented all of the evidence against his client. He also asked for a preliminary hearing.

Judge Hughes rudely dismissed his concerns and rejected his request. As the Philadelphia Inquirer reported, an agitated McGovern exclaimed, "This is so patently unfair! What kind of country is this?"

A short time later, McGovern calmly stated, "I just want a preliminary hearing, Judge."

"I heard you, baby, and you're not getting it," replied Hughes.

When McGovern protested, the judge snapped back at the attorney, "You need to shut up," and then ordered him to sit.

On another occasion, after a defense attorney challenged her, Hughes cracked, "Well, snapdoodle! Shut up and sit down!"

"Baby"? "You need to shut up"? "Well, snapdoodle!"? "Shut up and sit down!"? Is this how a professional and impartial judge addresses lawyers in a courtroom packed with observers?

Meanwhile, the government lawyers who are prosecuting the priests have received no such harsh treatment from Hughes. They have been able to sit back comfortably and enjoy the fireworks.

(While a preliminary hearing is not guaranteed under the Constitution, it is guaranteed that a defendant be presented with all of the evidence against him. The government still has more time to turn over its evidence, apparently.)

3. In addition, Judge Hughes has been especially harsh towards accused priest Fr. James Brennan and his lawyer, Richard L. DeSipio. In a courtroom overflowing with spectators, during the March 14 hearing, Judge Hughes angrily screamed at the accused priest and branded him a liar.

Why? Well, during the grand jury proceedings, which were several months ago, a frightened Fr. Brennan tearfully told Judge Hughes that he was unable to afford a lawyer. The judge, therefore, assigned him a public defense attorney.

But this was before Brennan was publicly charged with the crimes. After the cleric was publicly charged and a huge media firestorm ensued, friends, family, and supporters came forward to fund a pair of private defense attorneys.

When Hughes heard that Fr. Brennan had hired his own attorneys, she openly berated the priest, "You lied to me! You jerked me around!"

Fr. Brennan obviously didn't "lie." He didn't "jerk anyone around." At the time he said he needed representation, he believed what he was saying was true; he couldn't afford a lawyer. He had no idea that supporters would later step up and assist him. 

Judge Hughes' mean outburst was incredibly unwarranted and unfair.

Outside the courthouse after the hearing, Brennan's attorney addressed the media, "It's a shame you didn't have [your cameras and recorders] in the courtroom because she screamed at that man."

But she obviously scored huge points with the media sitting in the courtroom, which included the New York Times' Maureen Dowd and journalists from the notoriously slanted CNN.

4. Also at the March 14 hearing, Judge Hughes disrespectfully addressed the accused priest as "Mr. Brennan."

"She addressed him as Mr. Brennan, deliberately," said the cleric's attorney, Richard DeSipio. "He's a priest; it's Father Brennan." (Brennan has not been active as a priest since 2006, and canonical proceedings are in progress, yet he still retains the title as priest.)

Again, it must be repeated: We must demand justice and compassion for all victims of clergy abuse. This is not optional.

However, all clear-thinking people should demand a fair and proper trial for criminal defendants, no matter what the crime is. If these defendants are found guilty (and this is more likely than not, from what I've seen), they should be found guilty justly.

Without a fair and honest trial, can there ever be true justice?

Judge Hughes' one-sided and unnecessarily mean behavior only leads one to believe that "the fix is in" against the Church in Philadelphia. Judge Hughes appears determined to assure the prosecution a victory. She presents herself less as an impartial observer upholding the law and more as an angry spokesperson for SNAP.

And that is not right.

No media outlets have taken note of the report's glaring contradictions, notable omissions, and unfair characterizations of Church officials. The report also routinely assigns the most sinister motives to actions by archdiocesan employees, even though an objective assessment would conclude otherwise.

For example:

1. The grand jury report slams the Philadelphia archdiocese by saying it had "conducted non-investigations that predictably failed to establish priests' guilt."

This charge is patently untrue. In fact, for a number of years now, Philadelphia has maintained a high-profile web page that publicly posts the names, pictures, and assignments of those clerics whom the archdiocese has found to be guilty of abuse. The list is extensive and spans the removal of priests over the past several decades. (In fact, SNAP, the so-called victims' advocacy group that relentlessly criticizes the Church, has publicly praised Philadelphia on numerous occasions for being among the few dioceses that have such an accessible list. (2008))

The archdiocese's web page is clear-cut evidence that the Church in Philadelphia has in fact investigated several priests, found misconduct to be true, and laicized offenders.

In other words, the report's claim of "non-investigations" by the archdiocese is clearly contradicted by historical facts.

2. The report heralds itself as uncovering "new" information, yet the report spends several pages outlining cases allegedly involving Rev. Edward Avery. (Although the report is 128 pages long, the name “Avery” appears 162 times.)

Most readers of the report would be unaware of the fact that the media already widely reported the history of Fr. Avery back in 2003, and the Church laicized him in 2006.

In other words, the Church already removed Rev. Avery from ministry even before the first Philadelphia grand jury report in 2005. Meanwhile, the latest report provides nothing revelatory about Avery, except for the fact that another accuser came forward in 2009 to claim abuse by the cleric in the late 1990's. (This accuser, "Billy," has claimed that three men, two priests and a teacher, abused him.)

3. In a large section of the report, the grand jury makes strong objections to the fact that the archdiocese conducted its own investigations into abuse allegations. The jury forcefully attacks archdiocesan officials, claiming that they "hounded [victims] to give statements" and "used investigations and intimidation to silence victims and fend off lawsuits."

The characterization of "hounding" and "intimidating" victims is simply unfair and unwarranted. There is no doubt that it is painful for many victims to recount episodes of their abuse. However, it should not be characterized as an "attack on the victim" when Church officials ask for details about an episode, especially if the result of the investigation often involves the removal of a previously unblemished priest and a very sizable monetary settlement.

When a person comes forward decades after an alleged incident, it is often outside the statute of limitations, rendering an investigation by law enforcement officials highly unlikely. Investigations, therefore, are often left in the hands of the Church.

The Church has every right to look into the veracities of allegations. Although the grand jury states that the Church has this right to defend itself, it seems to strongly object whenever the Church does exactly that, and it assigns the most sinister and mean-spirited motives when Church officials simply seek to gather information.

The grand jury is unfair in this regard. It adopts a tone throughout its report that priests should be assumed guilty and settlements awarded with "no questions asked."

In one episode that the report relays, the jury portrays archdiocesan officials as grossly insensitive because when they went to question an accuser about an abuse claim, the accuser was "high on heroin." Hold on a sec. Why would this be the fault of the archdiocese?

4. As an example of a case that supposedly contains "substantial evidence" of abuse, the report profiles the case of Rev. Joseph DiGregorio. A woman came forward in 2005 to accuse the cleric of molesting her in "1967 or 1968." With no other allegations against him in over four decades as a priest, a Review Board concluded back in 2006 that "evidence obtained through the investigative process was not sufficient to substantiate" the single allegation against the cleric.

The report takes strong issue with the archdiocese's 2006 decision to return Fr. DiGregorio to ministry. Yet a closer look reveals that this accused priest could very well be innocent, rather than guilty.

After the grand jury released its report last month, the archdiocese re-suspended Fr. DiGregorio (along with two other priests the report profiled). Rather than bow to public pressure, Fr. DiGregorio forcefully went to the media to declare his innocence. On February 18, 2011, the priest appeared live on The Dom Giordano Show on Talk Radio WPHT 1210AM:

"In my almost 45 years of me being a priest my character and integrity have never been questioned. Almost 20 of those 45 years were spent as an army chaplain in the United States Army. I was deployed in Operation Desert Shield, Desert Storm for almost a year, and again in Operation Iraqi Freedom for 10 months.

"I love my country, I love my church. I am not intimidated by false accusations against my character. I am, however, angry, very angry, and I intend to fight these accusations with every legal means at my disposal. I applaud and support any organization or group of people, including SNAP, that seeks to protect minors against any abuse, sexual or otherwise, by anyone. I also applaud those who seek the truth with honesty …

"Every statement [the accuser] made concerning me is an absolute lie, completely and totally a lie. I never once touched her. I never once groped her or did anything inappropriate. I was never in her company alone. The only times I saw her was when she came to the rectory to see [another priest]."

The priest also cited reported inconsistencies in his accuser's allegations.

Yet a reading of the grand jury report would leader an observer to believe that Fr. DiGregorio committed abuse without a doubt. Among the little evidence that the report provides is the news that the cleric reportedly failed a polygraph test.

However, the jury left out an important element regarding Fr. DiGregorio's polygraph. As the cleric said on the radio:

"The [report and the local newspaper] failed to mention that I requested the polygraph test to establish my innocence. The test was administered in a Holiday Inn in Allentown, PA by an archdiocesan-appointed investigator. Needless to say how upset I was when the results of that test indicated that I was not telling the truth. [However,] a review of the transcripts of the test was [later] made by two polygraph experts with more than 30 years combined experience in administering and reading polygraphs. Their conclusion in reading the results of that test were [that] at best the test was 'inconclusive,' and at worst, it was wrong."

Fr. DiGregorio makes a convincing case for his innocence.

If the Fr. DiGregorio case is among the most egregious that the jury could profile, it does not say much for the veracity of the claims against the other three dozen "credibly accused" priests that the jury claims were in active ministry.

5. Throughout its report, the jury does not present charges of abuse as "alleged" incidents. It flat-out portrays them as undeniable fact. Allegations are automatically assumed to be true. And the jury has no qualms about using graphic language and stomach-turning descriptions to portray accused clerics in the most guilty light.

Yet in relaying the case of Rev. Charles F. Engelhardt, the jury makes no mention of the fact that the priest had received no allegations of wrongdoing whatsoever in over three decades of ministry until 2009, when "Billy" (the one "high on heroin") came forward to say that the cleric brutally sexually attacked him on a number of occasions after Masses a decade earlier.

The report presents the uncorroborated allegations against Fr. Engelhardt as undeniable truths, yet the priest vehemently denies the charges against him. A press statement from Engelhardt's order said:

"Father Engelhardt strongly denies these charges and claims his innocence. Prior to this incident, there had never been a complaint against Father Engelhardt in his more than 40 years of Oblate life. I feel deep concern both for the man claiming this abuse and for Father Engelhardt. The protection of children does not need to compete with our respect for a man's reputation. While we work hard to ensure that every child with whom we work is safe, we also honor the dignity of any man claiming to be innocent. In this case, it is our hope the facts will bring the truth to light."

By the way, almost no major media outlet has reported Fr. Engelhardt's denials.

——

There is a lot more one can point out with regards to the problematic Philadelphia report, but in the interest of brevity, we'll leave it at this.

Back in 2005, after the release of the first grand jury report, Philadelphia Church officials fired back, claiming the report was "a vile, mean-spirited diatribe against the church" and "a sensationalized, lurid and tabloid-like presentation of events."

Indeed, this latest report is also mean-spirited. It is difficult to swallow the jury's recommendation that the Church "should partner with victim organizations such as Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP)," especially in light of the fact that SNAP has chronically shown itself to be an untrustworthy organization.

As the late Pope John Paul II declared, "There is no room in the priesthood for those who abuse children." And as Pope Benedict has said, we must rid the Church of its "filth."

Indeed, many clerics in the Philadelphia archdiocese wrecked deep harm on innocent youth and shattered numerous families. We must continue to demand compassion and justice for victims.

However, we should not shy away from speaking out when the Church is unjustly profiled. While misleading the public with claims that are not forthcoming and fair, the high-profile Philadelphia report ultimately exposes itself as an agenda-driven project designed to create maximum damage and embarrassment to the Catholic Church.