**BREAKING** Appellate Court OVERTURNS Historic Philly Conviction of Msgr. Lynn [UPDATES: Court Docs Added ... More Links and Developments ... Philly D.A. Unhinged?]

Msgr. Lynn : Msgr. William Lynn

Vindicated: Philadelphia's Msgr. William J. Lynn (shown in 2012)

***MAJOR BREAKING STORY*** In a landmark July 2012 event which made headlines around the world, Philadelphia's Msgr. William J. Lynn became the first Catholic official convicted on the claim of failing to supervise abusive priests. An appellate court has now overturned this wrong conviction. [See full background]

• [THU. 12/26/13, 1:06PM] … Associated Press:

"A Pennsylvania appeals court has ruled that a Roman Catholic church official was wrongly convicted for his handling of priest sex-abuse complaints.

"The unanimous decision released Thursday by the state Superior Court also dismisses the criminal case against Monsignor William Lynn."

• [THU. 12/26/13, 1:46PM] … Ralph Cipriano / BigTrial.net coverage! … "This whole prosecution was totally dishonest from day one," Lynn's attorney Thomas Bergstrom tells Cipriano. "He's been sitting in jail 18 months for a crime he couldn't possibly commit as a matter of law."

• [THU. 12/26/13, 2:15PM] … Philly Inquirer / Philly.com reports …

• [THU. 12/26/13, 2:44PM] … NY Times reports … "I felt all along that the trial was a freight train," said Jeffery Lindy, Monsignor Lynn's lawyer during the trial. "None of the judges who had this case wanted to stand in the way. It was too bad politically."

• [THU., 12/26/13, 5:09PM] … [CLICK TO READ THE COURT RULING (pdf)] … Ruling was unanimous … Court's closing words:

"Appellant [Msgr. Lynn] did not know or know of D.G. [accuser of abuse Dan Gallagher], he was not sufficiently aware [a priest]'s supervision of D.G. or any other child at St. Jerome's, nor did he have any specific information that [a priest] intended or was preparing to molest D.G. or any other child at St. Jerome's. In sum, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Appellant acted with the 'intent of promoting or facilitating' an EWOC ['Endangering the Welfare of Children,' the crime for which Lynn was convicted] offense.

"Having determined that the evidence was not sufficient to support Appellant's conviction for EWOC either as a principal or as an accomplice, we are compelled to reverse Appellant's judgment of sentence. And, as there are no other offenses for which he was convicted in this case, Appellant is ordered discharged forthwith.

"Judgment of sentence reversed. Appellant is discharged. Judgment Entered."

• [THU. 12/26/13, 5:49PM] … Archdiocese of Philadelphia issues a press release … (Thank you for the tip, josie!) …

• [THU. 12/26/13, 6:11PM] … David Clohessy, the vulgar director of the anti-Catholic group SNAP, becomes unglued, has a hissy fit, and falsely accuses Church leaders of "deceiving police, stonewalling prosecutors, ignoring victims, destroying evidence, fabricating alibis, hiding crimes and protecting pedophiles" … The dishonesty is off the charts. When will the media call him out on this?


So … The mainstream media loudly trumpeted the July 2012 conviction as "historic" and as the first Catholic official to be prosecuted for failing to supervise priests. How will the media examine this stunning development?

[UPDATE, Fri. 12/27/13, AM newspaper round-up] … New York Times (page A16) … Philly Inquirer (page 1) … Wall St. Journal (page A3) … SNAP's wild-eyed Judy Jones has become completely unhinged, claiming the court's decision will somehow "enable and empower child predators to sexually abuse more kids." (Can someone get her some fresh air? Please?) … Boston Globe (page A2) …

[UPDATE, Fri., 12/27/13, 1:26PM] … Allison Steele at the Philly Inquirer now reports that a judge will decide "next week" if Msgr. Lynn will be released from prison on bail as the angry Philly D.A. Seth Williams appeals the court's unanimous decision … Unfortunately, the judge making the decision about Lynn's release will be Judge Teresa Sarmina (!), the very judge who was cited as being "often mistaken for a member of the prosecution team" during the trial against Msgr. Lynn … "[T]he appeal is not over, and probably won't be for many months or years," D.A. spokeswoman Tasha Jamerson says. "Given that, the prison has no authority to release the defendant." … The anger and bigotry at the D.A.'s Office are off the charts, folks.

[UPDATE, Fri., 12/27/13, 2:54PM] … New post from Ralph Cipriano / BigTrial.net on Judge Sarmina deciding whether or not Msgr. Lynn gets out of prison … Cipriano: "Sarmina presided over a ridiculously slanted show trial of Lynn." … Msgr. Lynn's lawyer Thomas Bergstrom: "The Superior Court has said he [Lynn] should be discharged forthwith, so I don't think that requires any interpretation. Seems to me she [Judge Sarmina] has to do exactly what they've ordered."

[UPDATE, late Sat., 12/28/13] … Is Philly D.A. Seth Williams losing his mind? Not only will the D.A. argue on Monday that Msgr. Lynn should be held in prison on bail – after the court unanimously overturned Lynn's conviction – but will actually claim that the cleric is a "flight risk" and could escape to the Vatican. Unbelievable …

Ralph Cipriano now reports the latest and reaction from Lynn's lawyer, Thomas A. Bergstrom:

"Bergstrom [says], 'The whole thing is idiotic. These guys [in the district attorney's office] are the most unprofessional lawyers I've ever run across in my life. They simply ignore the law and they're gonna continue to do it. But that [Superior Court] order applies to them as well.'

"Contrary to what the D.A. is peddling, Bergstrom said, there is no evidence to support the contention that Lynn might flee to the Vatican.

"'It's very difficult to respond to an idiotic statement like that when it's not based on fact, it's just fiction,' Bergstrom said. 'It's almost delusional.'"

[UPDATE, Mon. 12/30/13, ~4PM] … Philly.com reports that Judge Sarmina has set bail at $250,000 for Msgr. Lynn and has required that he wear a monitoring bracelet, among other silly demands … Ralph Cipriano / BigTrial.net coverage: During the bail hearing, Philly Asst. D.A. Hugh Burns actually compared Msgr. Lynn to Ira Einhorn, "the notorious killer hippie who, back in 1981, fled the country on the eve of his murder trial in Philadelphia."

Cipriano continues:

"So the D.A. was comparing Lynn, the celibate priest and ultimate company man, to the free-loving, freewheeling hippie sociopath who clubbed his girlfriend to death and kept her mummified corpse in a steamer trunk next to his bed for 18 months. Nice.

"Today's comedy act of a bail hearing was a fitting capper to the show trial that was the Lynn case."


  1. gloria Sullivan says:

    Wonder what the weathly  Catholic church paid the judges to get Lynn ff.  Amazing but trure!   ai

    • KenW says:

      What an evil thing to say. If I were wrongly convicted of a crime, I'd EMPTY my own savings to fight it. And I know of many falsely accused priests that have done exactly that. 

    • Mark says:

      To Sullivan, take a long look in the mirror tonight and say this word slowly:


    • josie says:

      Wild and crazy GloryBe is back fraught with her hate for the Catholic Church. 

  2. Michael J. O'Neill says:

    This is good news for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia coming Saint Stephan's Day. Was this urgent news regarding Msgr. Lynn's alledged sex-abuse broadcast on the Philadelphia radio and TV stations?  Was the monsignor's case the top headline for KYW-radio AM 1080?  Media bias is proved if the Philadephia media ignores the Msgr. Lynn's court exoneration.  


    • josie says:


      All 4 local stations had to cover it (to remain competitive) and they had it (for about a minute or 2). However, when Msgr Lynn was convicted, the coverage was non-stop. KYW 1060 had the story at 3 PM and it was brief, as well.   At 6PM, some stations had the Archdiocese' response to the news. It can be read at———-   www.archphila.org/press%20releases/pr002297.php

      I had a comment about media reaction on the prior thread that did not post for some reason.

    • dennis ecker says:

      There is Josie again showing her true childish character with her name calling.


  3. Mark says:

    Outstanding! Despite the naive attempt at damage limitation by the justice system (I'm surprised they didn't pick Christmas Day in the hope that this embarrassment would be lost in the media), the truth is out and we will now be able to sit back and watch this whole house of cards come tumbling down. What's even better is that this is so huge that the mainstream media are going to have to cover it, no matter how minimally. Spread it far and wide, people, spread it far and wide. 

    Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. 

  4. Jeb Barrett says:

    How can any moral person rejoice in this action by the courts? The protection of children is supposed to be one of our foremost responsibilities. Yet, proclaiming innocense for those who cover up criminal activity seems to make at least some subjects of Rome happy. Nothing could be sadder, and vilifying those who cry for distributive justice for the the hundreds of thousands of victims of childhood sexual assault casts shame upon the entire institution that was at one time respected.

    • Mark says:

      Ah! The sham righteous indignation from J Barrett and his embittered anti-Catholic ilk. 

      How can any moral person rejoice in false accusation and wrongful conviction? The protection of children is one of the Church's foremost responsibilities – and its accomplishments since the Dallas Charter have been widely recognized by those not blinkered by their own prejudice against all things Catholic. The Church is being consulted and imitated by secular bodies and organizations wishing to implement similar "state of the art" measures that have made the Church today the safest environment for children. Oh, and "state of the art" is not my description, but that of Elizabeth Yore, Oprah Winfrey's legal counsel on child protection. 

      Here's a fact: statistically, there is more chance of child abuse occurring within Jeb Barrett's family than the Church.  

    • KenW says:

      Jeb, the court ruled that it was ipossible for Lynn to have committed the crime that he was accused of. Lynn was a trophy for the over zealous DA and nothing more. Putting people like Lynn in jail does NOTHING to protect children. What does do A LOT to protect the children is to train the laity how to recognize the signs of abuse and immediately report it to the authorities. My own bishop has told many parishioners, when they have knowledge or suspicion of abuse, to NOT call him. He explicitly told them to first call the police, and THEN call him. 

  5. jP says:

    Martyrdom is part of job description of the faithful who love God above all things. May God have mercy on those who willingly do evil.

    • Mark says:

      Yes, JP, as Christians we are called to forgive the false accusers, corrupt legal representatives, and unethical judges who do evil by putting innocent men in jail. May God have mercy on those who willingly do evil. And may justice be done in the many, many cases of modern day martyrs like Fr Engelhardt and Fr MacRae, priests who sit in jails for crimes they never committed. 

    • dennis ecker says:


      Putting Lynn in prison sends a very clear message to anyone else who is in a position such as his. You wish to take a vow of obedience and do as you are told and not question something you know is wrong you will face the punishment.

      Then you state it is the laity responsibility to recognize the signs of abuse. Is it also the responsibility of individuals to recognize the abuser before the abuse ever happens ? Its not stamped on their forehead !

      If you believe in your own statement then you as a parent failed your own two children.

      Did you call the police when two of your children faced attempted abuse ? Did you file an official complaint ? Was there a investigation into your complaint and OFFICIAL finding ?

      All complaints are public record !!!!!


    • Mark Manos says:

      So put an innocent man in prison for the crimes and cover up of others. Makes sense, deny people thier basic right to freedom. What you will fail to ever understand is that the law did not apply to lynn before it was updated. Could he morally have done more to help victims, well that is up for him to decide. Not you or any of the other imposters out there who claim to be on the victims side.

  6. True Catholic says:

    Lynn lied through his teeth. And enabled several child abusers. He is no hero of mine.

  7. Pat says:

    Good work TMR!


    Merry Christmas

  8. Jim Robertson says:

    Gloria may have it completely right. A another false flag effort that the church might appear persecuted. One out of thousands of unprosecuted claims. one sham show where one judge and one d.a. crap out. How hard would that be to get done in this best of all possible worlds? And SNAP goes into a choreographed mad cap tarantella. There is mob written all over this and we know how tight the church is with the mob boys.

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    Mark, What about the guilty abusers who've never seen the inside of a hoose cow because "prosecutors" ignored them for the benefit of the corporate church?

  10. LDB says:

    Lynn = John B. McCormack of the RCAB. He knew about the sexual abuse and helped handle the abusers. How do we know that he knew? It was his job. He dealt with the insurance companies, confidential settlements with minors and their parents, sending priests for treatment and recommendations for reassignment.

    Legally, however, Lynn had no duty to report the sexual abuse of minors to the police or to anyone outside the church. Why would a person report sexual abuse or suspected sexual abuse of minors, unless obligated by federal or state law? Lynn should not be in jail because he did not break the law. He does, however, deserve your moral condemnation.

  11. Chip says:

    Where is Retired Detective Joseph Walsh of the DA's office? He knows the facts of these cases and was forced into retirement by Seth Williams because he knows that Dan Gallagher's stories are BS. The FBI needs to get involved and make him testify. He knows the truth that Fr Engelhardt and Bernard Shero are INNOCENT. Don't be afraid to lose your bar stool at the FOP lodge Detective Walsh. The truth will set you free. Innocent men are in jail because you have gone silent. 

  12. Dennis Ecker says:

    Lynn's case returns to the trial judge because it's not over. The appellate court overturned his conviction but did not order his release.

    A spokewoman for Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said Friday that prosecutors will appeal the higher court's ruling and ask that Lynn remain in prison while their appeal proceeds.

    "Since we are seeking further review, the appeal is not over, and probably won't be for many months or years," said spokeswoman Tasha Jamerson."The decades long inaction of Lynn put countless children in harm's way and he is where he belongs – behind bars. We will be fighting bail of any kind for this defendant."

    Mr. Lynn don't pack your toothbrush yet.

  13. Dennis Ecker says:

    We must look at the positive. If Lynn is released the enabler still spent 18 months in prison. Time for him to reflect on his in actions. Time that he will never get back. The time like so many children will never get back. Children who were forced to become adults because of people like Lynn the PIMP FOR THE PRIESTS.

    He maybe getting released but his legal troubles are not over and most likely since his face is known now to everyone he will spend the rest of his days within the safety of four walls living in shame. A self imprisonment if you wish to call it.

    • josie says:

      Huh?? Who are you talking to? Who is "we"?. You sound like you have gone overboard. Most that comment here and most active Catholics (which you are not) and others who have some sense of justice don't believe that Msgr. Lynn should have  spent time in jail. Can you follow that? With all the reading that you claim to do, you should have picked up on that by now.

      You need to get that dictionary out again, Dennis. You must misunderstand the definition of the word "pimp". You are a little desperate now calling people names like that. It is a real reflection on your maturity. Do you really think that you were forced to become an" adult"? You had better look up the word "adult"!!!!

      Msgr. Lynn must have had a lot of different emotions over these past years and I couldn't imagine what he has gone through , but I doubt that he feels that he will live the "rest of his days within the safety of four walls living in shame". And "self imprisonment"? Where in the world do you come from????


  14. Jeb Barrett says:

    Is anyone willing to hope or believe that anyone will be held responsible for not reporting clergy sexual assault to the authorities, rather than a hierarchy who merely move them around? And, isn't it reasonable to believe that the same hierarchy breathe a sigh of relief that Lynn won't jepardize his own future by pointing the finger at those who expected him to do as he did, not only in this one case, but undoubtedly in dozens of other cases. After all, "They've always done it that way."  The Church's recorded history is strewn with victims of a corrupt clergy culture incapable of self-correction.

    • malcolm harris says:

      Jeb Barrett wonders if anybody will be held responsible… for failing to report clergy sexual assault to the authorities. Well honestly am beginning to think that I have been living in a parrellel universe. Because in my universe a child would instinctively run to parents when hurt or afraid. The parents, upon discovering that their child had been sexually abused, would immediately go to the police. The profession or rank of the alleged assailant would make no difference to the parents, or the police. This inconvenient truth, about a child's instinctive reaction, is smoke-screened out of consideration by various ploys.Such as saying… the child never told his/her parents. Really? Most mothers can spot when their kids are even a little off colour. "what's wrong with you…are you sickening for something?'

      To swallow these attempts at extracting financial windfalls from the Church, we have to start with the very unlikely premise that the child was not distressed and said nothing to nobody. But then we have to get around the problem of the claimant saying that the abuse was so horrific that it ruined their lives? So an attack that was so traumatic that it was still ruining lives, decades later, was not emotionally upsetting enough to attract the attention of parents, on the day it happened. You people should be laughed out of court.

      If it really did happen (problematic) then it was the responsibility of the parents to notify the police. Not the Bishop, who almost certainly would have been kept ignorant by the perpetrator. This is  a greed- fuelled witch-hunt. In thirty years I never heard one hint of a priest molesting a child.



  15. Jim Robertson says:

    Josie, why do you say anyone who tells the truth about your corporate hierarchs is a "Catholic hater"? Gloria hasn't said one word against your faith; but you scream Catholic hater all the time. You're like the boy who called wolf.

    • josie says:

      Gloria/ GloryBe admits that she hates the Church. She says vicious things that don't always make sense and I wouldn't say she speaks the truth, by any means..I am surprised that you have never read her rantings. She is proud of the fact that she has been "blogging" she says for 12 years? and she is 85? or more by now. In any case, Ken W. called what she said "evil",  Mark correctly calls her pathetic (she has been called worse) and I say she is crazy. 

      I am thinking that it is really sad that you have nothing else to do during the Christmas holiday with the festivities, etc.that most people partake in. You just feel the need to  stick your nose in where direct comments about others are made. We were responding to GloryBe, not you. I , personally, try to avoid you if I can.

  16. Jim Robertson says:

    I just saw Tom Doyle at the end of this documentary ( one hour and forty one minutes in) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpDJhCVTItg admit that he always "testifies on behalf of the church". Isn't it amazing how people can delude with partial truths? He's still a priest. Why is that?

  17. dennis ecker says:

    Bail was set Monday at $250,000 for Msgr. William J. Lynn, four days after an appeals court ruled he was wrongly convicted of endangering children.

    Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina also ruled that Lynn must surrender his passport and be subject to electronic monitoring and weekly reporting while on bail.

    He must post $25,000 to be released.


    Victims/Survivors – Please look at this as a positive instead of a negative. We all would have liked Lynn to remain in prison, but the judge handed down a second best punishment. A large monetary bail that is seen with serious crimes, restriction of his freedom, and he must check in weekly with his babysitter most likely for his remaining days on this earth, or until the appeal by the District Attorney is ruled on.

    Judge Sarmina handed down the temporary ruling until Lynn's appeal is overturned and he is reunited with his jailhouse friends, or until he meets the devil himself.

    We as victims/survivors are only moving forward. Little steps they maybe, but we are still moving forward.

    I would doubt very highly that anyone who holds a position as Lynn did will attempt to follow in his footsteps.

    He maybe out of the facility that held him but he is still in prison being punished for his crimes.

  18. Publion says:

    We may now contemplate the action of the State Superior Court and of the trial court judge Sarmina.

    In the Abusenik reactions – as seen on this site and the Big Trial site – we see revealed once again the fundamentally necessary conflation required in the Victimist and Abusenik legal approach: the personal is the public is the legal; they are all the same thing and – when you get right down to it – the personal is actually the primary and controlling element; and it is that element to which the public and the legal must conform no matter what the costs or consequences.

    It was the wisdom of the Anderson Strategies to recognize, and then to harness, the existence of numbers of persons – ‘empowered’ by the internet age – who didn’t know much about the law and didn’t really much think about things, but definitely had lots of personal feelings and – when you get right down to it – didn’t see where their feelings were any less useful than whatever insights study and thought and knowledge might provide.

    And on the basis of the derangement – amplified by the media for their own purposes – that was thus caused in the public forum, enterprising and variously-motivated law enforcement types could feel more secure in contemplating various gambits that, absent the derangements of the Stampede, would clearly not have passed muster as competent and rational legal process and praxis.

    For reasons that have to do – I would say – with the opportunities afforded in locations where sufficient congenial interests and forces and authorities could be assembled, we see in Santa Cruz/Santa Clara, and in Philadelphia, and in the Twin Cities, the particularly egregious efforts of local legal authorities to ‘push the envelope’ and garner hoped-for rewards.

    The Philadelphia example is particularly egregious – from a legal point of view, and that is to say from the point of view of the rule of law – because of the intensity of the politically hospitable influences and the strikingly extraordinary lack of legal judgment of the current DA (under whose aegis the present case has been brought to trial).

    For a while all the old familiar Stampede dynamics worked. But that simply whetted his appetite for more ‘success’. Thus the decision to bring so flagrantly flawed (due to the Constitutional Ex Post Facto principle) a case as the case against Msgr. Lynn. The case was steered to a congenial (to say the least) trial judge and the main local media did their bit precisely as called-for in the Anderson Strategies.

    With so many of the theoretical checks-and-balances (law enforcement, judicial, media, and both the DA and the State AG’s Offices) harnessed-together – which, I point out, is precisely the dynamic that Nazi theory called Gleichschaltung – there was no effective firewall or watertight-compartmenting which would slow the rush. Or, as I would call it, the Stampede.

    All of which, again, was lubricated by that utterly fundamental conflation of the personal and the public and the legal forums, such that any manipulation could be imposed upon public opinion and any derangement could be imposed upon the integrity of the process of law, in the ostensible service of the scream-y demand for personal redress.

    But in all such gambits, there remains the danger that sooner or later one is going to go so far beyond the pale that higher review has almost no choice but to reverse or else allow itself too to become complicit in the gambit.

    And that is what happened – unanimously – here.

    And that reversal was couched in what – for higher-court review of a lower-court’s case – is strong and forthright language indeed.

    Judge Sarmina was given – in the coded phraseology of legal expression – clear notice as to what had better happen. It is open to surmise whether this was done as a professional courtesy (to give her the chance to grant bail on her own) or in order to force her to publicly pronounce upon her own performance (she admits that she is “fallible” but cawn’t think why she was fallible in the Lynn case).

    Demonstrating that she is not going to be educable by higher-court review, she insists upon Msgr. Lynn coming before her for the bail hearing, where – I am going to imagine – she will use his presence as a mule upon which to load all of the Abusenik scream-visions (which she might hope will justify whatever fallibility she might have fallen-into) and to give herself one last chance before the footlights to swing into an Abusenik coloratura (which might be a swan-song; or just might build a public case for herself as the scrappy, screw-the-rules tribune of ‘the people’ – which might appeal to enough types in the Philly area to keep her on the payroll).

    And in that regard we have already seen – marvelous and pitch-perfect – the first rumblings of this in various comments: that the Church and the elitist judges of the Superior Court are somehow in cahoots, or the latter in the pay of the former.

    The Superior Court also notes that Msgr. Lynn had at times “prioritized the reputation of the Archdiocese” over considerations for the safety of potential victims, but – the Court continues – such a showing is not “sufficient to demonstrate intent to promote or facilitate an EWOC offense”. And, in any case, “the question of Appellant’s priorities … is not the issue in this case”. Rather, “the relevant question is whether there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Appellant intended to promote or facilitate … endangerment”. (All of the foregoing, pages 39-40 of the Court.)

    The Court here is construing according to the law. The Abusenik objective is – as discussed above – precisely not to construe according to the law but instead to appeal to that Abusenik ‘consciousness’ that is a direct descendant of Lenin’s “revolutionary consciousness”. It was the DA’s abyssal error that he too sought to bend the law to the Abusenik “consciousness”, assisted – such as it was – by Judge Sarmina. Both of whom, I would say, provide rather clear examples of the type of legal officers who attempt to impose their own “revolutionary consciousness” upon the law, and wind up subverting the law, undermining not only its integrity but even its legitimacy.

    I would also note the substantial similarity between Soviet legal theory and Victimist/Abusenik legal theory: all that is need in a ‘revolutionary’ judge, said Lenin, is “revolutionary consciousness”: no need for unimaginative and obstructive concern for law or the rule of law or some ‘bourgeois’ sense of justice. No, to be a good Soviet (that is to say Leninist) judge one simply needed to have right ‘feel’ for the revolution and then – in an obscene rework of Augustine’s “love God and do what you will” – the judge can do whatever s/he wants to do.

    There are assorted comments that might be mined for useful material. I’ll post about those in a bit.

  19. Publion says:

    On the 27th at 119AM JR opines that “Gloria may have it completely right” (not just ‘right’, but “completely right”). “Gloria” – we recall – figures that the Church paid off the Superior Court.  JR will also include the Philly DA and the trial judge : apparently the whole case was a “sham” simply to make it look like the Church was persecuted. He then attempts to float the idea that this was just “one out of thousands of unprosecuted claims” (proof of the existence of which he – dare I say ‘naturally’ – fails to provide). Apparently, we are to believe that the entire trial was deliberately set-up to fail so as to give the Church the opportunity to claim it is being persecuted.

    And then the charming riff on “tarantella” which leads him to SNAP which leads him to the Church which leads him to the mob. Readers may consider it as they will. You reach here a level of sublimity – even though in an instance of derangement – that provides clinicians with an experience of the sublime similar to astrophysicists contemplating the dizzying sworls and swirls of the Horsehead Nebula or some other distant celestial entity.

    Thus too, at 906AM on the 27th, he asks a question for which he provides no basis in demonstrated fact: that prosecutors ignored abusive priests because they were somehow in thrall to the Church. (We see here, as so often in Abusenik material, the actual sense of the Philly ADA’s comment in the bail hearing that “sometimes fantasy may be reality”. But ‘reality’ only for the fantasizer.)

    On the 29th at 1040PM “Dennis” gives-away the fact that the whole thing really wasn’t about the law (the Superior Court reversal was based, the Wig of Judicial Knowledge seems to think, merely on a “loop-hole”) but rather was about – not to put too fine a point on it – “putting Lynn in prison” because it “sends a very clear message”. The citizens of Philly dodged a bullet – and perhaps literally – when they gave him a badge but not one that would give him a gun too.

    The numerous exclamation points and scream-y caps are what they are. And there still remains the hardly inconceivable possibility that in that public record is something he came up with, which – if PA opens up some SOL window – will enable him to collect yet again. Charming.

    On the 29th at 1131AM JR once again bleats – as if de novo – that “Gloria hasn’t said one word against [the Catholic] faith” … she simply went for the idea that the Church bought judges and entire Courts to save itself. Now that is indeed a subtle distinction. And then infers that “Gloria” (no doubt in company with JR and “Dennis”) simply “tells the truth”. And, of course, no further demonstration of that assertion is required because JR is by nature a truth-teller and anybody who doubts that is simply re-victimizing not only him but all victims. Ovvvv courssssse.

    On the 30th at 1129AM JR then gives us a reprise of his SNAP-as-Church-tool assertion (you can’t really call it a theory because it hasn’t been supported by anything): “How, pray tell, has SNAP damaged the Church at all?”. Once again, we are transported to the Horsehead Nebula.

    Then the “barking” image (curiously revelatory, if – as he has claimed – he is familiar with British colloquial usage): once again, although the point has been raised and never responded-to by him, he conflates SNAP doing nothing for ‘victims’ with proof of SNAP being a tool of the Church. (Readers may recall my hypothesis: that as a creature of the Anderson Strategies SNAP was required from the get-go to be a front-organization to do the spadework and ‘grooming’ for the torties, and the torties had never intended to get into the victim-services business, except insofar as garnering fees from settlements went. To which must also be added the fact that the 12,000 or so formal allegants who split the 3 (or 6, if you go with the numbers “Dennis” came up with) billion in payouts do not seem to have any desire for further interactions with the Church, so what could the Church – or any organization in a similar situation – possibly do? To which must also be added the fact that JR’s on-going vaudeville requires the pure and simple belief in myriads of still un-reported ‘victims’.  To which must also be added the fact that as far as can be determined, none of the oceans of settlement monies to any of the remunerated allegants seem to have found their way into any foundation specifically dedicated to helping all of the myriads of still un-reported ‘victims’.)

    Thus the “LOL!”s come scratchy and croaking to us over the vast distance separating us from the truly different precincts of the Horsehead Nebula.

    Then we get an attempt to explain how SNAP is “hostile” toward victims. Which may be true, but doesn’t at all establish that SNAP is a tool of the Church rather than, say, the torties. The statement that “everything SNAP does makes victims look bad” could be, I would say, applied to JR’s internet oeuvre itself and could as easily provide ‘proof’ that he himself is a tool of SNAP (or – if one cares to imagine something more adventuresome – that JR is himself a plant of the Church to make “victims” look truly awfully baaad, and he was slyly and ingeniously paid by means of an uncontested payout for a highly dubious claim that simultaneously established the pretext of his creds as a “victim”; surely that possibility cannot be refuted on the basis of his performance here, which – if this possibility is accurate – has been most successful indeed).

    Nor does JR address the equally valid possibility (not to say probability) that SNAP’s speaking for “victims” makes them look bad simply because the whole Stampede has a certain badness built into it from the get-go and once anybody starts talking-about it then that badness is going to reveal itself ineluctably.

    But for JR – who perhaps should be cut some slack for formulating opinions from so great a distance as the Horsehead Nebula – everything has been an elaborate kabuki run by the Church: judges finding against the Church, judges finding for the Church, prosecutors bringing cases against the Church, prosecutors not-bringing cases against the Church, SNAP speaking against the Church, SNAP taking the Church to court and vice-versa … all of this is just a huge kabuki put on to keep up the appearance that the Church is being made a piñata and there are innumerable un-reported “victims” still ‘out there’ who have nobody but JR and a few others to carry the torch for them. Even though JR has already admitted that he doesn’t know what they want; to which must be added: we don’t even know if they exist.

    The “we were raped” bit has been dealt with before at great length. As has just about everything else in JR’s production on this most recent thread.

    On the 30th at 1155AM we are then told that “SNAP’s founding documents as a non profit says it’s founded by the church […] sponsered by the Dominican nuns of Siniwa Wisconsin” [sic]. Once again, transmission problems over the vast distances from the Horsehead may have garbled both content and expression: there are Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa. Their website search-function does not respond when queried for anything relevant to SNAP. The SNAP site does not enable one to examine their founding documents; nor is the Wiki entry helpful in that regard. Perhaps JR can give us a link to the “founding documents as a non profit”.

    However, they appear to be quite ‘progressive’ (to say the least) and since the still-Father Tom Doyle is also a member of the Dominican order, then the possibility that they were used as a cover for Doyle (rather than the Church) to start up a front-organization is always there. If the disaffected Doyle used the progressive (and thus perhaps by definition disaffected) Sinsinawa group as a legal formality, the umbrella or cover for starting-up a non-profit, then what we do not have here is clear evidence that “the Church” created SNAP; if that were true, then Doyle is also a tool of the Church (which, given the vast distances between our world and the world of the Horsehead, might actually appear rational).

    D’Antonio in his book only takes up the SNAP story when Anderson encountered Barbara Blaine, which is – in light of the question at issue here – inconclusive.

    I have no idea how it can be rationally asserted that still-Father Doyle only ‘testifies for the Church’ or any such. His corpus of public statements certainly seems to render the assertion incredible, even if he himself made it.

    The whole skein here seems to be on the same order as Deschner’s efforts to ‘prove’ that the Vatican was in alliance with the Third Reich. And that truckload of baloney was dealt with at length on this site during the past year.

    The comment of “Dennis” on the 30th at 1153AM – also put up on the BigTrial site – simply seeks to put the best possible face on the Superior Court’s ruling. As for the DA’s assertion that he will appeal from the Superior Court of PA to the Supreme Court … we shall see. It is equally possible that the Supreme Court of that Commonwealth will avoid an abyss for itself by simply allowing the Superior Court’s ruling to stand.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Excuse me, but the church facist connection has not been "dealt with" here. just because one apologist says it has.

      Would the 110 acres and 880 population of the vatican have been considered as a nation if not for the efforts of both the corporate church and Italian fascists?

      And deny as apologists may, every fascist death camp was and will always have been created and operated in only catholic countries. That's the facts Jack. Read'em and weep.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      How does your faith connect exactly to corrupt individual priests and bishops in this scandal?

      Is there something in the Nicean creed I missed? Something about "believing in" individual priests; bishops; cardinals; and popes when it comes to being a good catholic no matter what they do? Especially if they rape or enable the raping children? I must have been out sick the day that little tenant of faith was being taught.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Here's a link for the founding docs.Cityofangelslady@yahoo.com. Though Kay and I disagree about much. She has the evidence. Ask her for it. The former web site it was posted at Victims of Silence, is no longer up.

      All non profits must show their history in gaining non profit status upon request. Ask SNAP or the state of Illinois for their files. They have to give them to you.Those rules were created by the people that false flag efforts could be found out.

      And the dead fr. Econimus analyzed brilliantly in his writtings in Link Up, also posted at Kay's site; Doyles real plan for counterintelligence called "The Project" that became SNAP VOTF etc. It's all there.

      What would be the benefit for the church in planting me as a provacatuer regarding SNAP? How does what I tell about the SNAP, Doyle; church connection help the church?

      How does what I do harm victims or hinder SNAP and the church in any realistic way?

      I'm not fighting for the unknown victims. I'm fighting for the unrepresented victims. The victims SNAP only wants it's self to speak for. The unconnected victims who still to this date have no place to link up at; thanks to the false flag efforts of the church.

  20. DCAE says:

    What part of "Appellant is ordered discharged forthwith" evades this narcissistic judge's reading comprehension? Is she not in contempt of court for carrying out yet another dog-and-pony-show at the expense of law and justice, while Msgr. Lynn's release is delayed for no justifiable reason? And why aren't Msgr. Lynn's attorneys not at the Superior Court at this moment seeking his release, as ordered?

  21. Jim Robertson says:

    Why is it that experience is given no credit here but posturing by apologists is?

    It's the same old class war, new day. Workers need not be heard from. The people who've worked with SNAP for YEARS know nothing. The apologist for the corporate church knows everything about SNAP. The apologist thinks SNAPs showing well for victims and our cause. But the victims don't.

    Explain that. Even if they did work only for our lawyers how has SNAP's behavior helped our side?  When it consistantly makes us look bad around important issues.

    the church needed someone appearing leftish, pro victim (Doyle and SNAP) to behave the way they do that they might circumvent any self leadership and connection for victims. Hoist the false flag: SNAP VOTF and have those two clownfits walk the masses and media into non viable territory and leave us there to rot, while they waving their fake banner run the victims share of the show and always for the benefit of the church's status quo.

    Keep watching with more time you'll see what I say is the truth. It's, SNAP's, failure for victims will happen over and over again. It always has. It always will. I tell you this after YEARS of first hand experience, on the job training if you will. Ah, but I forget this is America. Who listens to workers when you have "professionals" telling you what's what.

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    Could the false flag efforts called SNAP and VOTF ever have come from the right wing of the church? Of course not. Don't be stupid. It had to come from the empathizing left not the "I'm not resposibile for any of my actions" right.

    You may notice I have had an answer for all your "questions" about SNAP and Doyle and VOTF.

    That's what being truthful gets you. All the right answers. Try it.

  23. Jim Robertson says:

    Let me rephrase that. The so called "survivors' movement" had to APPEAR to come from the left in the church.The left has no need to mislead anyone in the church; the right are doing a swell job. Doyle himself has rambled on about what a "conservative" he "used to be". HA!

  24. Publion says:

    Tales from the Cafeteria continue, with the new possibility that all along the Cafeteria has actually been located in the Horsehead Nebula.

    On the 1st at 1152AM JR attempts to re-toss a lot of his old plop at the screen, on the premise that it hasn’t been “dealt with”. It (either JR’s own material or somebody’s else’s that he has parroted) has been dealt with extensively, many conceptual and historical questions are in the record as having been raised, and JR is on the record as having answered none of them.

    Part of this difficulty lies in the JR’s self-serving conflation of ‘come-back’ with ‘answer’, which two terms – out in the precincts of the Horsehead Cafeteria  – apparently are synonymous.

    Thus the reappearance of the old Deschner material here. The Vatican managed to diplomatically separate itself from the Fascist State in the Concordat of 1929, realizing a Vatican objective that had been active since at least 1870 when the increasingly anti-clerical Italian government had taken over all of the former territory of the Papal States. Just what that diplomatic fact is somehow supposed to establish in regard to the Church and Fascism generally is not something JR has cared to explain.

    Ditto the location of Nazi death-camps. First, JR has not explained whatever he thinks he sees as the significance of the Nazis’ selection of the sites as being anything more than a matter of convenience, i.e. the camps were put close to the populations that were destined for eradication. The five extermination camps (Auschwitz-Birkenau, Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec) were all in the former Poland, which after its defeat had become the directly-administered Nazi state called the Government-General – a large area simultaneously under direct Nazi control and close to the targeted populations.

    Does he claim that the fact that many Central European countries had historically strong Christian or Catholic ties somehow demonstrates a deeper alliance between Christianity and Fascism or – more properly – Nazism?

    Second, camps such as Bergen-Belsen, Flossenburg, Ravensbruck, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald and Dachau – where executions were carried out – were located in Germany, which was had Christian ties but was not a Catholic-majority country.

    And in any case, the fact that the former Poland was a “Catholic” country of itself demonstrates no other “facts” that JR thinks he can “read”. He is welcome to counter that with demonstration of his own thinking on the matter, if he can. But we went over all of this quite a while ago on this site and got nothing substantial from the Horsehead precincts in response.

    Then on the 1st at 158PM JR will offer Kay Ebeling’s website as his evidence, thus we are sent from one table in the Cafeteria to another – which is hardly progress. The question that has to be answered is this: wherever the initial pretextual location for SNAP’s non-profit status was lodged, can it be demonstrated in documents that “the Church” somehow ‘founded’ SNAP?

    It will not at all be sufficient to demonstrate that the Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa, coupled with the Dominican still-Father Doyle, were somehow present at the creation of SNAP as a non-profit entity. Because the presence of the Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa and the still-Father does not offer clear proof that “the Church” – rather than Doyle, using the Sisters as a cover – initially organized the SNAP entity; it merely demonstrates that Doyle used the Sisters to set up SNAP as a non-profit. Nor does this maneuver of Doyle’s in any way establish that the Church conceived of SNAP as a concept with its mission and purpose.

    What the use of the Sinsinawa group might indeed indicate is that Doyle – using the Sisters as either witting collaborators or un-witting mules – wanted an organization of his own that would be able to legally raise funds independently of the Church in order to pursue his own purposes.

    All of which then has to be added to the problem that, as D’Antonio relates, it was only when Anderson encountered Blaine that SNAP’s actual ‘career’ took off, as that shrewd tortie realized that this would be the perfect front organization for cultivating and  grooming his ‘victims’. Doyle does not appear from the historical record to have objected as that major transformation took place, to the benefit of the torties and the SNAP organizational staff.

    Thus the deceased Economus joins Deschner in JR’s mental shoebox, which – I would say – is pretty much where they belong anyway. They all pretty much operate mentally the same way, picking and choosing bits and pieces like magpies building a nest they like, but unable to explain the complications or questions arising from the material they have patched-together.

    So the “false-flag” effort here does not reveal any role of the Church whatsoever. If JR wants to insist that SNAP never had “the victims” as its first priority (which may – or may not – be news to the Sinsinawa group) then he is welcome to do so and I have already gone on the record as agreeing with that, for reasons I have explained. But the only way to involve “the Church” in this is to claim – in the manner of a child playing with blocks – that since the Sinsinawa group and Doyle were all Church-affiliated, then “the Church” founded SNAP.

    And another possibility is that the Church was indeed somehow informed of the formation of SNAP – but merely as some sort of group that would ‘help victims’, which possibility would certainly place the Church as approving some sort of help for ‘victims’.

    But then Blaine met Anderson, and Doyle set-up for himself as opposed to being a collaborator with the Church, and SNAP went in an entirely different direction.

    Readers are welcome to consider the usefulness of JR’s Wiggy effort to mimic competent analysis and judgment in his characterization of Economus as having “analyzed brilliantly” anything at all.

    Then JR asks – with an uncharacteristically competent usage – “what would be the benefit for the church in planting me as a provocateur regarding SNAP?”. I had not given his role so magnificent and honorific a characterization as “provocateur”; I had simply pointed out that if the Church wanted to make “victims” somehow ‘look bad’, then JR was the perfect tool for the job; and – adding a bit more counter-intelligence thinking into the mix here – JR would not even need to be prepped for the job since merely winding him up and letting him roll-on would be more than enough to achieve the objective; he would ‘make victims look bad’ rather ‘naturally’, so to speak. This, of course, is a very desirable type of agent – one who doesn’t have to be taught new skills because his natural tendencies will do the job for you. Such an agent is, in a sense, like a fire-and-forget munition: just set it in motion and it will do the job on its own without the bother of further monitoring.

    And since what JR doth “tell” is so clearly and demonstrably deficient in rationality, coherence, and competence, then it becomes clear quickly the value for the Church (presuming for the purposes of this discussion that JR is a tool of the Church): he reveals – unwittingly and ‘naturally’ – the inherent whackness of the Abusenik position at its fundamental level. And then – taking this possibility to the level of counter-intelligence sublimity – JR need not ever be further monitored since he himself believes that he is an independent agent pursuing a goal that he thinks is actually the opposite of what he is actually doing.

    But whatever the case may be in that regard, we see clearly why the Abusenik Playbook has always and from the get-go eschewed serious and sustained discussion of the fundaments of the Abusenik position and the material produced in support of it: as soon as anybody starts poking at it, this baloney-skin tire is going to puncture and deflate.

    He then gets into true semantic word-play: he is not “fighting for unknown victims”; he is fighting for “unrepresented victims” [italics mine]. But in order for such “victims” to be “unrepresented” they first – not to put too fine a point on it – have to be in the first place. And that is precisely the core problem here: we don’t know if they even do exist, and nothing JR has produced has demonstrated that they do. So we are right back where we started here, with what at this point remains nothing more than a phantasmagorical construct self-servingly invented to keep JR in business doing what he does.

    And whatever the failures of SNAP in regard to “victims”, there is no demonstration by JR that the Church created the SNAP organization as it came to be under the aegis of the Anderson-Blaine alliance. And if the Church, hypothetically speaking, originally approved of the Sinsinawa enabling of SNAP as some sort of victims-help organization, then that opens up a whole further can of worms for the JR and Economus fantasies.

    Lastly, on this point, in the internet age it is not possible to credibly assert that a group of persons cannot get themselves together – at least virtually – if they wish. And after two or more decades of the internet, that has not happened. And JR has never explained that absence in any credible way.

    On the 1st at 1234PM JR bleats plaintively that “experience is given no credit here”, while “posturing by apologists is”. Yah.

    For what am I an “apologist”? Can he demonstrate with accurate quotations where I am a shill for “the corporate church”? But it’s going to be easier for him to toss this plop than it is to deal with the questions I pose to his assorted claims, assertions, conclusions and stories.

    And more to the point, in what is JR supposed to have “experience”? We have nothing to demonstrate conclusively and credibly that JR is ‘experienced’ in anything more than the administration and sustaining of his own fantastical system.

    But – apparently aware on some level that his own material won’t be enough to pull of his gambit here – he goes for the inference of “class war” (as well as the initial “experience” bit): JR is apparently a “worker” (not some effete ivory-tower “professional” type).

    How does his skein of fantastical bits square with D’Antonio’s material? (Or are we to presume that D’Antonio too is a tool of the Church?)

    Nor do we even know – as I said a while back on an earlier thread where this bit surfaced – that JR actually “worked with” SNAP (which term itself would have to be more clearly explained).

    And where did I ever say that SNAP is “showing well for victims”? Once again, JR cannot handle the actual material so instead he invents material to which he can more easily object.

    Does SNAP “make us [victims, presumably] look bad around important issues”? It does now, in no small part because of the work of the TMR site. Otherwise, things might have kept Rolling Along: SNAP issuing its usual boilerplate press-releases whenever some new bit floated by in the news, to ensure that the public adopted the correct (i.e. negative) spin toward the Church. And I say again that if JR is under the impression that his own material makes ‘victims’ somehow ‘look good’ on those “important issues”, then he needs to re-think some basic stuff indeed.

    Then he tosses in a third random variable, trying to introduce a right-left twist into the mix.

    And then that somehow what Doyle and SNAP have done has somehow worked to “circumvent any self-leadership and connection for victims” [italics mine]. That isn’t really the right word here: ‘prevent’ would be more accurate, but that presumes that there is a myriad of “victims” out there in the first place. “Circumvent” would indicate that such “self-leadership and connection” had taken place but Doyle and SNAP had somehow gotten-around it; whereas, actually, there has been no such activity on the part of the (hypothetical) myriads of “victims” in the first place.

    But how in any rational universe could Doyle and SNAP prevent these hypothetical myriads of ‘victims’ from somehow coalescing? Perhaps JR knew very well what he was doing in choosing the wrong term (“circumvent”) here: to claim that Doyle and SNAP could actually prevent such a coalescing might well be too much of a muchness. But JR had to somehow get by the fact of the very absence of that coalescing, and if he didn’t have somebody to blame for that absence, then the alternative explanation would come to light: there has been no such coalescing because there is nobody out there to coalesce.

    Then we are assured that if we just “keep watching” we will see – sure as shootin’ – that JR has been right all along. Well, that’s not much of a demonstration. He will gladly pay us Tuesday for a hamburger today. The Wimpy Gambit.

    Thus the comment of the 1st at 104PM also fails. And it is in this comment that we get the actual demonstration of JR’s conflation of ‘come-back’ with “answer”. But what are definitions to Abuseniks? They are as much silly-putty as the stories, claims, assertions and all the rest. Ditto the “truthful” bit.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      [edited by moderator]

      I'm a 66 year old citizen and veteran and rape victim and an intelligent, relatively well read man, Who also identifies himself as himself. You know who I am and where I live and even what happened in my rape.

      Why is not identifying yourself so necessary for you? Do you have some intelligent reason to be anonymous? It doesn't seem to be helping your reasoning and people skills. So what's the need for secrecy? If we know who and what you are, is that going to demean your already tattered image as a rational, moral person?

    • Publion says:

      On the 2nd at 531PM, JR once again models for us his inimitable modus operandi: having been confronted with a number of issues and questions arising from various bits of material above, he deals with none of them and instead simply goes for the old dodges.

      Thus the adolescent reversion to scatology.

      And the creation of material that makes him look like a victim so he can swing into his whining vaudeville: thus that he – rather than, as I wrote, the Abusenik use of definitions etc. – has been made to “give up my humanness and become not flesh and blood but silly putty” [correction supplied]. This, as we see clearly here, enables him to swing into declamatory mode wearing the Wig of Victimization.

      And the retreat to simply painting himself in his preferred favorable light: he is 66 and “a veteran” (who spent two years waiting to get out and considers his being drafted a victimization by the government) and “a rape victim” (that’s been dealt with before, and all his comebacks have simply gotten him deeper into the swamp on this one) and  – we are now deep into the territory of the utterly sublime – “an intelligent, relatively well read man” [sic].

      And the re-tossing of his trusty stand-by plop: he has ‘identified’ himself and that makes all the difference. To which one can only inquire: difference to what? Not credibility, rationality, accuracy, or coherence, surely. And what else of relevance is there in the internet modality? And we “know” nothing about “what happened in [his] rape” nor did he shed any further light when he tried to go back and plaster over the problems with his proffered material. Nor, for that matter, do we know “where” he lives – except that it is apparently in the State of California … and so what? His personal information is irrelevant to any matters of concern to the discussions on this site.

      And then – as if this bit hadn’t been addressed numerous times before on this site – the old questions that have already been answered: do I have “some intelligent reason to be anonymous”? I have several and I have explained them at length in comments – and recently – on this site (can he not read?). Then an effort to deploy the I’m Not/You Are kiddie bit: my ‘anonymity’ “doesn’t seem to be helping [my] reasoning or people skills”. (“People skills”? Of what relevance are those in the internet modality? And then again: what “people skills” does one deploy when dealing with persons who are not altogether well? And does “people skills” mean that you don’t ask such types questions they might find uncongenial?) Readers, I will say here, already know all they need to know about “who and what” I am from the material I put up; just as they may also have formed some rather substantive conclusions about any commenter from his/her material. Surely, from JR’s record now on display on this site, we don’t “know” much about him from the (lack of) accuracy and rationality and coherence of his claims and stories, although we do know a great deal about him – and more than he would like, obviously – from observing his modus operandi.

      And the bit about “moral” – as if in continuing to point out the problems in his proffered material I am somehow not being “moral” (and not showing good “people skills”).

      JR clearly cannot cope with what he already ‘knows’ from my material. Why burden him further? 


  25. LDB says:

    Hi, Msgr. Lynn here. Let's all try to do our best in 2014, just like I did down in the AoP! Remember, it's not trying that counts, it is saying that you tried even though you didn't.

  26. KenW says:

    To Dennis, per his 12/29/13 post at 10:40PM, your words are in italic, my responses follow in bold regular type (ed.).

    Putting Lynn in prison sends a very clear message to anyone else who is in a position such as his. You wish to take a vow of obedience and do as you are told and not question something you know is wrong you will face the punishment.

    Putting Lynn in prison on nothing more than bias and a sense of spite only feeds mob mentality. It is a VERY DANGEROUS MINDSET, one that I will protest loudly and obnoxiously with every breath of my being, both as a Catholic and as an American. Do not forget, Msgr. Lynn was cleared of all of the other charges, and the one charge that he was originally found guilty of was based on the sole testimony of one Danny Gallagher, AKA Billy Doe. It has now been successfully argued that THAT law was grossly misapplied, and if one backtracks the steps, the misapplication was clearly deliberate and intentional and agenda drive. The safety and well being of those abused played NO part in the actions of WIlliams and Sarmina. 


    Then you state it is the laity responsibility to recognize the signs of abuse. Is it also the responsibility of individuals to recognize the abuser before the abuse ever happens ? Its not stamped on their forehead !

    Then whose responsibility is it?!?! Really?!?! You advocate simply watching the sparks turn into a full blown forest fire, and then blaming the Park Ranger stationed 100 miles away. Not in my world! Best to LEARN how to recognize the sparks BEFORE they ignite, EXTINGUISH them IMMEDIATELY by LOCAL means, and THEN alert the Park Ranger that something is causing sparks, and he needs to PREVENT them from showing up in the first place!

    WAAAAAY too much can (and does) happen LOOOOONG before the any given bishop even recieves a memo. For example, (at least) SIX people suspected Ratigan's activities for years before Bishop Finn had heard even one word about it. ALL SIX of those people met the legal criteria for "mandated reporters". 

    Now answer this very important question: Who could have stopped Ratigan dead in his tracks years before the fact? The correct and righteous answer is…….THE LAITY!

    As to recognizing the abuser before the abuse happens, it is possible, and it is a work in progress for society as a whole. The key is not in us recognizing the pedo, but teaching our children how to recognize the signs of grooming behaviors. You really need to read the Abel Harlow Study, and then talk to professional child welfare people about -who- fits the MO of any given pedophile.  


    If you believe in your own statement then you as a parent failed your own two children.

    I firmly BELIEVE and ADVOCATE my own statement, and you are not the judge of my own parental abilities. That decision rests soley with my children and with God. You have no part of that decision. 


    Did you call the police when two of your children faced attempted abuse ? Did you file an official complaint ? Was there a investigation into your complaint and OFFICIAL finding ?

    All complaints are public record !!!!!

    NUNYA BIZNEZZ!!!!!!! In one case I did not know until many years after the fact. In the other, we took drastic legal recourse. That is all that you need to know. 

  27. Rondre says:

    He is still guilty of moving preditor priests around. Of course no one takes responsibility.

  28. Chip says:


    He was in jail for 18 months. He never said a word, did a press conference, wrote a editorial, or even did a newspaper interview. He accepted his fate. His lawyers spoke, but not him. I think that is accepting responsibility 100%.  

  29. Jim Robertson says:

    Chip, He was forced to accept "responsibility". Forcing someone to be responsibile is not the same thing as him choosing to behave responsibly.

    There is set up written all over this with  SNAP again frothing at the mouth for it's real owners benefit. Who's SNAP's real owner? The corporate church. That's who.

  30. Chip says:


    Under the LAW of the United States, he should not have had to accept or be forced to accept anything. Lynn broke the law post 2007, not before. Too bad he wasn't in that post past 2004. Why did the DA not prosecute the former Archbishop (now deceased) or bishop Cistone who was more involved in Lynn. The DA was never divulged all the information and threatened detectives along the way not to reveal the real truth of Dan Gallaghers account, which never happened. 

  31. malcolm harris says:

    Am beginning to suspect some posters have given up on Jim Robertson, because he tends to drift off into fantasy land. However his metaphors are vivid and provocative and can grab attention…. For example his description of SNAP ..'frothing at the mouth' over a 'set-up' all for the benefit of SNAP'S real owner  'the corporate church'  So let's stay with his vivid words…..Imagine the Church has purchased a vivious attack dog, called SNAP,  to menace and intimidate it's opponents. But horror of horrors, the dog turns against it's master and begins to attack him. What can be done? Well at the first sign of 'frothing at the mouth' the creature would have been destroyed. That's for sure!  But has it been destroyed" Nope! Why not? Because it is not, and never, was the instrument of the Church. If it was it would have been destroyed long ago. In fact I cannot think of any organization that has done more injury to the Church in the last fifty years.

  32. Jim Robertson says:

    LOL! LOL! How, pray tell, has SNAP damaged the church at all? Ever? Snap barks at the church and pretends to speak for victims. How does barking at the church, around issues it should be barked at for, do anything to harm them? It's the church's cover up it's behavior that's causing the harm. not SNAP.

    If you made two lists of actions: SNAP's towards victims and SNAP's towards the church. It's hostile actions towards victims ( by pretending it represents us without our vote for one) will be much longer than any so called harmful actions done against the church by SNAP. Everything SNAP does is there to make victims look bad and to pretend it cares about victims and our needs, while it makes us look bad. Bad as in unfocused, angry; illiterate; uneducated; hypocritical and stupid.Think of the case in Missouri or Kansas that was fought to the supreme court by SNAP to keep it's records sealed. Exactly what the church had fought having done to itself for 25 years. And attempting to pass SNAP off as a rape crisis center sans therapists. Oh please! How did that make victims look good and the church look bad? The church makes it self look bad. SNAP makes victims look bad. Now that's quite an accomplishment to make raped children out to be the bad. When all we've done is say we were raped. When we were raped and by who we were raped.

  33. Jim Robertson says:

    Chip, On the one hand you say Lynn accepted 100% of responsability ( by being in jail and being quiet (?)) at 6:52 am 27th. And then you say he "shouldn't have been forced to accept anything" at 11:43 a.m. Which way is it? Was he responsible or not?

  34. Jim Robertson says:

    P.S. SNAP's founding documents as a non profit says it's founded by the church. Sponsered by the Dominican nuns of Siniwa Wisconsin. Fr. Tom Doyle is still a Dominican priest again I quote Doyle, that he "always testifies (in abuse cases) on behalf of the church" Where is someone speaking for the victims if both SNAP and Doyle are "testifying for the church"? Nowhere that's where. Sad Sad Sad!

  35. Jim Robertson says:

    All SNAP does is vocalize the next local issue. SAY that the people who behaved badly ( and we all know who they are) behaved badly and moves on. Never linking the issues or empowering victims. In fact, rarely producing victims other than themselves. Not because victims aren't out there but because SNAP must control victims where ever we appear. That's their real job. Heaven forbid we victims think for ourselves. And victims must Never NEVER question SNAP as being other than virtue incarnate. They are a chiminey' a vent for victims feelings. When you see SNAP, both victims and the public think, "Well somethings being done for victims" when nothing's being done for victims at all thanks to SNAP and it's owners.


  1. [...] old man was set up. Actually the conviction of Monsignor William Lynn has now been reversed. Msgr. Lynn Verdict OVERTURNED, Philadelphia Abuse Trial "A Pennsylvania appeals court has ruled that a Roman Catholic church official was wrongly [...]