Journalist or Spokesperson for SNAP? St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Fowler Promotes Claim That Church Should Stalk Its Ex-Priests

Lilly Fowler

Fuzzy thinking: Lilly Fowler from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

In a recent article sparse on reason and logic, Lilly Fowler of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch promotes the novel idea that the Catholic Church is now somehow responsible for hunting down and shadowing every past employee accused of abuse, and then constantly publicizing their whereabouts, no matter how long ago the alleged abuse occurred.

There is no doubt that former priest Gary P. Wolken committed disgraceful crimes and was a shame to the priesthood. Yet it was Church officials who first discovered the abuse and immediately reported it to the police. Police arrested and charged Wolken, and after Wolken pleaded guilty to his crime and went to jail, the Church expelled him from the priesthood.

No good deed goes unpunished

David Clohessy

Perpetually angry:
SNAP's David Clohessy

Yet Fowler completely fails to report that it was Church officials who put a quick stop to Wolken's crimes.

Instead, Fowler trumpets the claim that the Church should still somehow "do more" to "protect the public."

And Fowler completely ignores several obvious questions we have asked before: Exactly what other organization tracks down and then publicizes the current addresses and phone numbers of its former employees accused of abuse? St. Louis Public Schools? The Boy Scouts? Some Hollywood studio? The St. Louis Post-Dispatch? Fowler doesn't say.

Fowler could have easily found someone who could have raised these questions. But she didn't.

Instead, Fowler sought out a parade of predictable malcontents and cranks who think the Catholic Church should risk criminal and civil liability and track the exact whereabouts of its former employees and then hold regular press conferences to announce the results of its monitoring.

Fowler turns to former disgruntled Church employee Jennifer Haselberger, angry ex-priest Patrick Wall, and the perpetually angry National Director of the anti-Catholic group SNAP, David Clohessy (whom we suspect to be the source of Fowler's wobbly piece).

Irony of ironies: The log in Clohessy's own eye

Ironically, the hysterical Clohessy never reported to police back in the 1990s that his own brother Kevin, a Catholic priest, was sexually molesting innocent young boys.

And to this day, neither Clohessy nor SNAP has ever once publicly reported the current whereabouts of Kevin. Yet that does not not stop David from boldly claiming to Fowler that Catholic officials "do nothing" to protect children and the public.

SNAP lists its headquarters in Chicago, but Clohessy and SNAP do the bulk of its operations out of St. Louis. And even though SNAP functions right in her own backyard, Fowler has never even bothered to examine the background of SNAP and the leaders who run it before providing them with unlimited, free, and un-fact-checked quotes.

Make no mistake about it, folks. Fowler's article has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called "protection of children" and enlightening the public about institutional failures. Fowler's article is simply another bow to the professional hysterics at SNAP in their everlasting crusade to bludgeon the Catholic Church.


  1. Jim Robertson says:

    "Pop" meant an orgasm (Oh Horror!) You moron. Ever have one?

  2. Jim Robertson says:

    By the way what a big non surprise that a reporter from St. Louis, a city named after one of my grandfathers :^), would back vigilante behavior.

    St. Louis were the catholic plot to manage it's own raped children, SNAP, was Frankenstien-like, brought to "life".

    St. Louis, Home of the Catholic Reporter the fake progressive catholic paper; that bans progressives!

    St. Louis, home of Anhueser-Busch, the same kind of "catholic thinking" drinking?, that brought you Hitler. Bavarian beer money; American  style.


  3. Jim Robertson says:

    Ah, it's spring again! Where the sex besotted walk arm in arm with the religiously deluded. Sorry! I went to my happy place:^)

  4. Publion says:

    In regard to the 2nd at 1250PM:

    As to the first paragraph: I rather clearly recall JR giving us quite some time ago here the number of $17,000 as the original offer to him. Now it’s changed – surprise, surprise – but only in such a way as to raise the exponent of increase to 60. Thus the Anderson Strategies got him 60-times as much (perhaps a bit more, since his 1 million dollars has also now changed to 1.1 million dollars).

    And he wonders (the second paragraph) why he would or should be grateful to his lawyer.

    As to the third paragraph: but there’s a ‘reason’ for that – bearing in mind the working definition of the term in JR’s dictionary: Anderson “is so obviously the church’s appointee”. We have been around the track on this many times, yet JR has never provided any coherent and logical theory as to how Anderson, whose work has cost the Church almost 3 billion dollars, is a tool of the Church.

    Further, we note that now his attorney was “on a team led by an Anderson appointee” – and how did JR himself know that? And when did he know it? Since he chose the attorney whose services he engaged. Unless – that it – he simply hooked himself up to the big (500 plaintiff) lawsuit merely because they said they could get him lots more money.

    As to the fourth paragraph: now – on a roll toward the Victimist high-ground – JR will plaint that his attorney took 40 percent of the take (a bit more than the usual tortie’s one-third, but maybe the expenses were included) but  – waitttt for ittttttt – she wasn’t “in the room when I was being raped”.

    Very few attorneys – whose services are engaged after the commission of the tort – are present for the (alleged) tort. In fact, given their operating model, they wouldn’t want to be: when they too are merely a Third Party then they can stay within professional boundaries: not having been present at the (alleged) tort, they can run with any story their client proffers (and can even help the client burnish the story) without running afoul of the major no-no of perpetrating a fraud upon the court by knowingly presenting false material to the court.

    And we also have to take into account the definition of “rape” in the Abusenik dictionary.

    As to the fifth paragraph: JR can think what he likes, but it seems that somebody who got you over half a million dollars for a story that originally was only going to bag $17,000 dollars deserves a little thanks. And Anderson who got the Strategies put together and operating deserves a little credit too. But that’s not how JR rolls.

    As to the sixth paragraph: we just get a further riff on his already hugely dubious ‘theory’: if she was somehow following the Anderson Strategies playbook and template, then he wonders what “victims” would have gotten if she weren’t following the Anderson Strategies and Template. Well, we already know the answer in JR’s case: not well over half a million dollars, but merely $12,000.

    And then we are again back to the bit about Anderson being “the church’s chosen lawyer for the Church’s victims”.

    As to the seventh paragraph: now we are on to the still uncorroborated Australia material. Let us presume for the purposes of this discussion today that SNAP and Anderson and Doyle were “’organizing’ victims in Australia starting 10 years ago”. Why then only $65,000 dollars?

    I repeat here in full (from a recent comment on this thread) the list of possibilities as to why that might be: But several complications interfere with his cartoon here: i) we don’t know the actual gravamen of the individual allegations; they may be so modest (not actual “rape” but some act carrying a far lighter legal burden) that they cannot support a demand for even more money; ii)  the allegations may be so weakly evidenced that the 65K is the best that can be hoped-for; iii) Australian law in this type of case may be different from relevant US law; iv) Australian culture itself may not be so Stampeded and the far more lucrative possibilities open to an American allegant are not open to an Australian allegant.

    Thus, absent any knowledge about these possibilities and circumstances, there is no way to rationally conclude that the simple fact of the 65K figure prima facie constitutes “proof enough [of] who SNAP works for”. Except in a certain cartoon universe version of rationality and logic.

    As to the eighth paragraph: we are now given an assertion without any corroboration that in any cases where the cognizant government was a co-defendant with the Church – which is alleged to have happened in other countries – then there was apparently a cap of $100,000 to any monies awarded.

    Once again, we get no corroborating links. But let us for the purposes of the discussion here today presume the veracity and accuracy of this assertion. Why might that cap be in place? I would say that one very probable explanation – and one that is often in play in this country whenever a government entity is the object of a lawsuit – is that the government sets up a cap so that its losses can be minimized.

    And also – even more relevant in light of the Stampede – the government sets up a cap precisely so that a Stampede dynamic is not ignited by a larger award, i.e. people see how much money might be gotten for a story, and then shoals of allegants present themselves as ‘victims’ at the offices of tort attorneys who seem to be especially able to whack the piñata. As JR did a decade ago, for example.

    Governments know what Stampedes are, especially when it comes to getting money. Thus too then: the US government, secularist and seeking to take down its greatest rival for public esteem and its strongest opponent in the matter of a secularist agenda, knows precisely what a Stampede is.

    And State and federal governments simply took care to make sure that in their own sex-abuse matters in schools or other agencies either there was a cap or the matters were squelched in the (often compliant) mainstream media.

    But the Catholic Stampede rolled on for quite a while.

    As to the ninth paragraph: either JR remains abysmally ignorant of the standard legal agreements into which he willingly and deliberately entered or else he is simply working the Wig of Victimization here: tort attorneys charge a standard 1/3 of the take plus expenses.

    And are we now to understand that the 500-plaintiff lawsuit settled in 2007 included the State of California as a co-defendant? I cannot find anywhere any mention of the State as co-defendant, although the case was widely reported.

    As to the tenth paragraph: there was no “luck” involved in any of it; the Anderson Strategies were heavily strategized and with the surf up in the Stampede back then it would be almost impossible not to garner – say – 60 times as much cash as might otherwise have been available for an allegation.

    And the assertion as to whether “our injuries were majorly discounted” in regard to the allegants pales next to the exponential increase in cash for each allegant.

    But while that ‘discounting’ trope seems a stretch even for JR, we see in the eleventh paragraph just why it was put up here: JR wants to work a play on the word such that I too do ‘discount’ the stories, claims and allegations. Neato.

    And, discounting the queasily violent juvenile epithets, so much for that comment.

  5. Publion says:

    Then on the 2nd at 1254PM: JR hoot-hoots that I am not familiar with what is apparently current kiddie slang for “orgasm”. I am not, JR is. And that’s a revelation in itself.

    And discounting the queasily sexual juvenile epithets, so much for that comment.

    And so on to the 2nd at 112PM: here we simply get a riff on St. Louis, where JR does what little he can to try and make the place and its Archdiocese seem especially egregious in regard to abuse-matters.

    And in the process name-drops that the place was named after “one of [his] grandfathers”. That would be ‘ancestors’, since St. Louis of France (JR is descended not only from Pope Gregory X and some archbishops, we recall, but also from Saint/King Louis of France – if you buy the bit) is a forebear (allegedly) removed by over half a millennium.

    And Frankenstein gets dragged in, although it was Dr. Frankenstein’s monster that he was probably going-for here.

    And then a bit about Busch beer and Catholic drinking, right out of the Nativist era and even Al Smith’s bid for the Presidency.

    And he even characterizes the National Catholic Reporter not only as a “fake progressive catholic paper” but also one that “bans progressives!”. This whole bit has to do with the fact that the paper banned JR from commenting (as he told us quite a while ago here) and thus must indeed be part of that massive conspiracy – nation-wide if not world-wide in its scope and reach – that does not consider JR to be the greatest  thing since sliced-bread. Why on earth such a conspiracy would start up is anybody’s guess. My my.

    And on to the 2nd at 117PM: merely a juvenile riff on being “sex besotted”. Which, however, we are informed is JR’s “happy place”. Which can be a surprise to nobody.

    And I would say that, all things considered, JR has a very very great deal for which to be thankful toward his attorney(s) in that LA lawsuit.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I know Frankenstien was the doctor's name in Ms. Shelly's composition. But the name has become synonomus with the monster in the public mind.

      "Why on earth would such a conspiracy start"? TO SAVE THE CHURCH MONEY you dolt!

      MONEY, the church's main drive. All the rest is fluff and fancy. Believe it or not.

      St. Louis is where the SNAP monster was brought to life.

      St. Louis appears again and again as a place of very strange manueverings press wise. That thanks to SNAP's choices makes victims appear to be outrageous hypocrites.

      Read what TMR has so often pointed out about SNAP's behavior: Blaines letter in favor of a convicted kiddie porn owning shrink. Clohessy's protection of his brother, a perpetrator; SNASP's fighting the judge in Kansas City after breaking a court order of silence. Rubbing priest sexual abuses in the face of catholic families at mass on Sunday. Vigilanteism. etc etc. All acts completely unnecessary and created publicly by SNAP to harm victims not help us. Acts done on purpose to harm victims by our only representatives?

      SNAP meeting where victims are told what to say and how to say it to each other in the privacy of the "survivor's" meetings. Why would I spend 2+ years here being insulted by morons if I'm trying to end an organization you "claim" to hate? I tell you victims hate SNAP and Doyle etc. What am I getting out of doing that here with you? Especially if I want all victims compensated at the level I was. SNAP brings lower settlements not higher ones.

      For once could you just think?

  6. Publion says:

    Apologies for my poor math calculations.

    JR’s attorney actually increased his settlement amount by a factor of more than 90, not 60.

  7. Jim Robertson says:

    Where's your happy place, P, the vatican bank?

    I don't need anyone to think anything about me. I have no control over others. I present the true questions that victims have about SNAP and Doyle and Anderson and am banned by the Catholic Reporter. Hence since I'm pushing the only critique of SNAP a real progressive newspaper would look into what I and other critical victims have to say about SNAP etc.

    But given we no longer have major portions of the Bill of Rights in; the U.S;  the investigative reporter, is no more.

    If the corporations own the government by buying our representatives,( whose saleries we pay. Lucky us! ) We are living in a defacto fascist state.

    Hey! I don't care if your catholic. I care that your lying about my life and about your own raped catholic children. Don't pretend moral authority if you refuse to be just.

    $12,000 is what they offered and what I said they offered. Dope!

    Notice please readership, how P offers another defense of the SNAP; Doyle; Anderson machine; as being what they pretend to be. (That's what false flagged opps and their supporters do.)

    I think he's supported them more than he's listened to what I say. (He's stopped by my bad spelling I'm sure. What a man!)

    But that doesn't explain his need to see them as what they pretend to be. He never see's the continious patterns of SNAP's shit moves "for" victims done in our names. Everything SNAP does makes victims look bad but these acts are presented by SNAP without our vote. So how does SNAP help victims?

    P's a fascist. He fits perfectly in the multilayered Doyle plan to limit information and belief.

    I again will offer to send Dave Pierre my family tree from at anytime. But since, the not dead soon enough to suit me, P. Has never once kindly; openly admitted any error he's made about my veracity. Will he doubt Dave Pierre's response too?

    And I've told you before that Art Goldberg an L.A. attorney charged his clients 25%.

    As far as Pop as an euphemism for an orgasm. That was my own attempt at wit. I have no idea what young people call it. But after all isn't the orgasm the ultimate echo of the Big Bang that created us all? A rememberance of things past.


  8. Jim Robertson says:


    How does it feel to be attacked for the unimportant?

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    Oh I forgot sociopaths don't feel. They relate only to themselves. Others are just there to serve and obey .

    ( Watch P attempt to flip this on me. He's such a good christian! )

  10. Jim Robertson says:

    Hey if you make as much money as Budweiser beer brings in. You are a maker and shaker in the U.S..

    St. Louis is named after my 24th great grandfather; I'm defending the family honor. I don't like Nazi's, out of the mid-west, fucking with rape victims. Call me old fashioned.

  11. Jim Robertson says:

    The church, so far, has paid out $1 per catholic for the victims who've received anything.


  12. Publion says:

    On the 4th at 634PM:

    In the first paragraph,  we simply get a ‘comeback’ in the form of an epithet and relevant to nothing of substance.

    In the second paragraph we are informed that JR doesn’t “need anyone to think anything about me”. I would disagree with that assertion: we are surely supposed to think he was “raped”, that he is a truth-teller, and that he almost always knows what he’s talking about.

    And anyway, once you put material up on a comment-enabled site, then you have opened yourself up to having other people “think about” you from reading your material, whether you like what they think or not. Is this a surprise?

    And whether JR was banned by NCRep because of his truthiness or for other reasons is an interesting question.

    And have there been other “critical victims” who have also been banned?

    In the third paragraph we get a lament about the lack of ‘investigative reporting’ in this country. My consideration of the media’s role in the Stampede surely provides more than enough evidence that I have been saying that for quite a while here.

    However, if we are to infer that JR himself is one of the last examples of ‘investigative reporting’ on the hoof in these parts … I would find that self-characterization to be rather wide of the mark.

    In the fourth paragraph he observes that “we are living in a de facto fascist state”. I have a comment (the 4th, 412PM) on the Cardinal-O’Malley thread that discusses this very point. And I would say that the Stampede is a very acute example of just how ‘totalitarian’ the liberal/progressive/ revolutionary Nanny State genuinely is.

    In the fifth paragraph we simply get yet again the un-explicated and un-supported claim that I am “lying” about his “life” and about Catholicism’s “raped children” (although, again, few allegations have involved claims of “rape”).

    And as to just who doth “pretend moral authority” is certainly an open question. The Wig of Declamation, Denunciation, and Condemnation is not something that I have trotted across the boards here.

    In the sixth paragraph he insists that he said $12,000 all along. Readers so inclined can go back in the archived comments here. At any rate, the figure of $12,000 simply works out to increase his take by a factor of 108 or so. (Even my earlier correction from ‘60’ to ‘90’ was insufficient). Meaning that the Anderson Strategies in his case yielded at least 108 times the amount his story might originally have garnered.

    Now as to the seventh paragraph: I have written at great length on this site about the problems (and they are legion) with SNAP and the still-Father Doyle and all the other element of the Stampede pandemonium. What we see here, then, is another clear example of how the Abuseniks a) simply toss up stuff that might work for them in the moment, so long as b) one doesn’t go back and look in the record (whether their record or the record of somebody else).

    Nor am I offering a “defense” of SNAP and the rest here: I am simply pointing out that that no material JR has proffered supports his assertions and as a matter of logical investigation we need to consider other (and far more probable) possibilities for that $65,000 figure. But to the Abusenik mind – so very fundamentalist-y and primitive – you either agree with their stuff or you are defending some evil.

    And then the sly effort to preclude analysis by insisting that since SNAP (and my “defense” of it?) is a ‘false flagged op’ then there can be no evidence to analyze (and thus his assertion has to be taken as is without further demur).

    And of course and again: if SNAP were a false-flagged op, then it would have to be a most stupendous failure since it means that something that the Church theoretically controls has cost the Church almost 3 billion dollars.

    This is right up there with the bits about the “Imperial Romans” having themselves created the Gospels (and thus Christianity) in order to provide the recalcitrant Jewish population with a more “peaceful” Messiah – although those same “Imperial Romans” would then have then deliberately put into the Gospels that statement that “all power in heaven and on earth is given to me” … which makes no sense at all unless one presumes that the Flavians and the Romans generally were political imbeciles. (See my recent comments on the Cardinal-O’Malley thread.)

    As to the eighth paragraph: JR now insinuates as a ‘thought’ of his that I have “supported” SNAP (and the rest of that pandemonium) “more than” I have “listened to what” JR says. In light of my numerous and extensive comments in the archived record here this bit can simply be left to twist in the wind.

    Nor – as should be equally clear – am I “stopped” by JR’s (highly-dubious) spelling ‘problem’. But today is today and some plop – any plop – has to be tossed.

    As for the ninth paragraph: JR has yet to produce a single accurate quotation from me to the effect that I “see [SNAP] as what they pretend to be”. I don’t. But I also don’t see SNAP as what JR pretends them to be: a tool of the Church. SNAP and such are tools of the torties and of the Stampede. (Time-saver: JR’s comeback to this, we recall, is that the torties too are tools of the Church.)

    Also and yet again: what makes “victims look bad” is not SNAP but rather the fact that when SNAP and the Stampede and various aspects of the “victim’s” material are examined, they “look bad” all on their own with no help from anybody or anything else.

    Also: I have no idea of whether SNAP has any by-laws, but I don’t imagine it is written anywhere that SNAP is somehow a ‘democracy’. What we see here – as always – is JR trying to come up with some way to whack an entity that doesn’t buy his stuff. Nor have we ever seen any groundswell from the already-‘compensated’ ‘victims’ (genuine or otherwise) to make SNAP more ‘democratic’.

    The tenth paragraph is merely an epithet (I am a “fascist”) with no explication. One recalls Haile Selassie attempting to make his country’s case before the League of Nations after Mussolini’s Italy invaded it; il Duce instructed his goons in the League to simply hoot and catcall as the Emperor was speaking and we still have grainy sound-and-film footage of the goons doing just that. There’s a clear (and familiar) example of “fascism” in action when it has to squelch material it doesn’t want anyone to think about it.

    In the eleventh paragraph: merely and yet again a repetition of the “offer” to send Dave Pierre a copy of the JR ancestral tree. Of what use would it be if it were sent to DP via private communication? Why not put the relevant links up here straight-forwardly? But also: even if he were – along with heaven knows how many other people – a distant descendant of that panoply of greats and worthies, of what relevance would it be to anything dealt with on this site?

    But this bit merely serves to platform a plaint that I have never admitted any error I have made as to JR’s “veracity”. JR would first have to demonstrate credibly that I have indeed actually made some “error” I have made about his “veracity”.

    In the twelfth paragraph: first, I don’t recall any such prior comment to the effect that his tort attorney charged (an uncharacteristically low) twenty-five percent; second, JR recently referred to his attorney as being a female; third, if an attorney stipulated twenty-five percent in an agreement with a client and then took forty percent (even with expenses and ancillary charges), then there would be grounds for the client to take legal action against that attorney. And in JR’s ‘theory’, aren’t torties as well as the Anderson Strategies tools of the Church in the first place?

    And in the thirteenth paragraph we get an effort to tootle-away the orgasm reference: JR was just trying to make a joke with his “euphemism”, doncha see? And the term “pop” is only what JR would call it; and he has “no idea what young people call it”. Ovvvvv coursssse. The fact that the term “pop” as slang for ‘orgasm’ appears in the Online Slang Dictionary is not something we are expected to have checked.

    But that still leaves us with the fact that a man of such mature years still thinks and expresses himself in such terms.

    Thus his rather uncharacteristic reference to Proust (misspelled, as so often) simply suggests that his muse helped him here in an effort to distract from that queasy reality.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      My attorney Kathy Frieberg took 40% of my settlement.

      Art Goldberg , who was not my attorney, took 25% from his clients, who were mostly fr. Rucker's victims FYI. You were either drunk or tired last night. Judging from your errors in your posts.

      My experiences are/were just what I've said they are/ were. Nothing changed. No lies found again by you.

      What does it matter if I misspelled "Remembrance" I referenced, and with wit, Proust. You reference who, Haile Sellassie? Gee! I'm so impressed. What erudition!

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Il Duce created the vatican as a nation state. Everything you defend is a facist creation including SNAP.

      I thought you were supposed to hate SNAP not defend them to be what victims know they are not: a valid victims organization.

    • Publion says:


      On the 4th at 641PM: we are back once again to the Wig of Diagnosis delivering its mimicry: I am a “sociopath”. Since we all know what happens when JR is put under the lens of psychological assessment, there’s no need to go further. 

      But we notice: if JR wears the Wig of Diagnosis, he’s truthy. If somebody else were to make some psychological speculations, that’s un-Christian. Apparently he has constructed in his mind the following cartoon: He can go after anybody he wants to because he’s a truthy victim but nobody can come after him because they’re Christians and Jesus doesn’t want anybody dissing truthy victims. 

      And he really thought he was going to get away with it on this site. 

      On the 5th at 1057AM we enter a universe of discourse that takes us back to adolescent questions any parent or high-school teacher would recognize. 

      God “made sex so great” because it is a vital component of full and genuine human-ness. But it has to be used properly, just like the weapons on a warship (being in command, you still don’t simply fire off the main battery whenever you feel like it). 

      And we see clearly (as if this will be news to most readers) that JR – hardly alone in this pandemonium  – doesn’t grasp the difference between a) having a ‘capability’ (i.e. the ability to experience sex and its visceral pleasure) and b) using that capability properly and constructively (i.e. to procreate and relate intimately for the purposes of companionship in the context of the vital task of begetting and raising a family). 

      Thus we see the fundaments of the Cabaret mentality and the culture in which it results and – also – the derangement it creates in humans.

      Ditto as to the bit about “pleasure is so bad”: pleasure isn’t of itself “bad” at all; it is only when personal “pleasure” becomes the primary or only objective of the exercise that things go off the rails. 

      Then the concluding bit about “orgies in the Vatican” which was dealt with in prior comments on this thread.

      Then on the 5th at 1204PM of the same juvenilia masquerading as theological discourse. 

      And considering the quality of the material, then the Wig of Declamation’s concluding directive to “wake up!” since “[we’ve] been had” can stay right up where they were put for anybody’s amusement. And that giddy exclamation point does stand out. 

      And on the 5th at 1130AM JR reminds us that he has “explained” just how “Anderson’s a tool of the Church”. This theory of his has been dealt-with at length already many times and its grossly obvious problems have been listed and discussed, with – of course – no serious responsive material from JR. 

      In brief: Anderson doesn’t “need” the Church; he “needs SNAP” – as even JR has written here – as a front and feeder for “victims” (genuine or otherwise).

       And once again and again: all JR’s bit here achieves is to (accurately) demonstrate the connections between Anderson and SNAP, but nothing whatsoever at all in any way does his bit here demonstrate any connection with the Church. 

      Then on the 5th at 1156AM: 

      In the first paragraph, again, we are seeing only ruminations – not necessarily inaccurate – about SNAP but no connection with the Church whatsoever at all in any way.

      Ditto the second paragraph. 

      As to the third paragraph’s specifics as to timing of offers and acceptance, we have no way of knowing a) if any of this is accurate and b) it might simply reflect the fact that SNAP and its associated strategists had conducted a prior assessment and knew what limitations they were facing in the Australian venue.
      And – suddenly – we are informed that the Anglican Church in Australia now is joined to the Catholic Church there as “the 2 biggest perpetrators of child rape there”. 

      Buttressed – have you been waitttttting forrrr ittttttt? – by nothing more than a manipulative plaint that poor JR only doth “wish [he] were making this [stuff] up”, with the queasy but characteristic manipulative juvenile scatology omitted. Is it hard for any reader to imagine JR’s capacity to “make this [stuff] up”?

      Then in the fourth paragraph we merely see – and yet again – JR’s 3×5 file on SNAP but with utterly no causal connection to the Church whatsoever at all in any way.

      As to the fifth paragraph’s claim as to how many “victims” gave money to SNAP after the LA settlement, the factoid – if indeed it is accurate and who knows? – may simply indicate that the allegants were mostly in it for the cash and got out of town (so to speak) as soon as the check was in hand. 

      Ditto the sixth paragraph with merely more stuff on SNAP and – as so often – the queasy juvenile scatology to try to spiff-up an irrelevant bunch of stuff.

      And the mess concludes with another exhortation from the Wig of Knowing that we all “Wake up!”.
      On the 6th at 1049AM: readers are welcome to follow the bouncing ball as to who was and wasn’t JR’s attorney. 

      However, a one-third cut of the take is usual and then there might have been various expenses. Still – assuming any of this is true at all – 60 percent of 1.1 million rather than $12,000 is a pretty nice chunk of swag.  

      On the 6th at 1101AM JR will give us the contents of his already often-discussed 3×5 file. 

      Mussolini entered into a Concordat with the Church in 1929: he couldn’t make the Church ‘go away’ and the Church realized that by being merely a tenant on Italian soil it would be utterly vulnerable to Mussolini and whoever else might take over Italy as time went on. 

      As it turned out, the creation of the Vatican State was effected not a moment too soon since Mussolini then soon indentured himself to Hitler’s Reich. 

      However, we then see JR’s cartoon-making mentation in full swing: Mussolini ‘created’ the Vatican, therefore the Vatican is “fascist”; and SNAP is “fascist” too (because – doncha see? – SNAP soon came to realize there were problems with JR and JR thus realized SNAP wasn’t buying his stuff and so it had to be (fill in the blank: evil, fascist, un-christian, sociopathic).

      JR’s beef with SNAP is what it is and they deserve each other. I don’t “defend” cartoons or Stampedes or the people who perpetrate them. 

      And yet again: SNAP is a front for the torties; JR is an Abusenik who got his swag from the Stampede; and things have to proceed from those realities. 

       Then on the 6th at 1031AM:    

      In the first paragraph, we get yet again the effort to presume what has yet to be demonstrated: that any of those historical figures are JR’s ancestors. As if such a status could do anything to bolster his material.

      In the second paragraph, mere epithet about my being “un christian” (corrections not supplied). We see again clearly JR’s personal twist to the Playbook: he can go after Christians because he is truthy, but Christians can’t doubt his material because … well, because Jesus wouldn’t have done it. 

      In the third paragraph we get a nonsensical bit about the “second to last sentence” in my comment  - presumably of the 5th at 1040AM (he doesn’t bother to identify the comment by date-time). Perhaps he meant second to last ‘paragraph’: in which case I was merely drawing out his originally senseless bit about how much per capita the Church has paid out in settlements. Having missed that point, JR has wound up simply acknowledging the nonsensical nature of his original gambit here.

      In the fourth paragraph, JR would like to know about my sexual history. And we see just what sort of mind we are dealing with here. 

      Ditto the fifth paragraph and his further forays into “pop” and orgasms. What he doth “swear” to be true is up to the reader to consider. 

      But I am certainly not going to get drawn into a discussion of JR’s sexual habits or predilections or experiences.

      Then in the sixth paragraph an effort – yet and yet again – to reduce the analysis of the many problematic points in his material to some form of epithet. 

      And here we are now, confronted with a man almost 70 years old who wants to put his sex life(and others’, if he can manage to inveigle them) into an internet discussion. There are sites where – as he probably well knows – this sort of thing is done. This is not one of them. I had said “sex besotted” and it is now clear that the assessment was accurate. 

      Ditto in the seventh paragraph, where he indicates that he equates “sex” with being “alive” and that any limitation on sex equates to being “dead”. This is Adolescent Psychology 101 type of stuff. And he is, he says and if he is to be believed, a “man” of 68. 

      There are websites for this sort of stuff and this sort of “lost soul”. He apparently has confused TMR for some other site(s).

      And thus – thankfully – on to the next topic: he now treats the witless bit about “uncompensated” victims (genuine or otherwise) as if it were my idea rather than his. And it might be asked: What sense does it make to have uncompensated live catholic victims (genuine or otherwise) included statistically in a division of the swag monies from the Stampede? The entire gambit is senseless and it is his gambit.

      But if you follow Abusenik thoughts or stories to their logical conclusions, then you are being un-Christian and obsessive and sociopathic. That they propound such material to begin with is, however, not clinically remarkable … that’s the cartoon.

      And if their material is thus followed, and the incoherences noted, then it is your fault for making them “look bad”. That’s more of the cartoon.

      About the only mitigating factor to be found in their situation is this: either i) they haven’t really thought-through any of the stuff they assert, or ii) they are so besotted with their own cartoon-thinking, that they are genuinely surprised when the whackeries of their material are – without too much effort – brought to light. 

      As for how much the Church has “accumulated”, perhaps he can provide some corroboration for his 1.5 trillion dollar figure with special attention to how the figure was derived. The same for the rest of the figures he has put up.

      Until we see something along those lines, then JR’s (or his muse’s) ruminations and eructations as to the Church’s financial situation can simply stay up where they were put. 

      Then a genuine ‘reach’: by using the example of Haile Selassie at the League to demonstrate the agitprop tactics of Mussolini’s goons, I have – in the Abusenik cartoon – “compared [myself] to a bush league Emperor and diety in his own right” (correction not supplied and giddily breathless exclamation point omitted). 

      This bit nicely distracts from the gravamen of the example. But throwing that unhappy Emperor under the bus as being “bush league” in order to try to score a point or two is, really, rather bush-league of the Abuseniks. No surprises there.

      But then – as the cartoon now enters into an efflorescent state – the Wig of Declamation doth declare itself bemused because that unhappy Emperor “would be appalled at such a comparison”. 

      First, the comparison (example, actually – the two terms mean different things) was based on the agitprop activity of the goons, not on the Emperor himself. 

      Second, we see the Abusenik Wigs channeling historical figures, trying to mask their own epithets and insinuations in the purported reactions of the long-deceased. We may as well expect before long a declamation from the Wig of Indignance that Pope Gregory X, Saint/King Louis IX, and a panoply of archbishops and other worthies are incensed that one of their distinguished descendants is getting such “un-christian” treatment on this site. 

      And, frankly, this entire ‘change the subject’ section, with its posturing about financial chops and its giddily breathless tone, resembles not JR’s usual style and tics, but another, former, commenter’s. 

      And the whole stew is topped off, finally, with more epithets. Which – through the wonders of projection – gives us a nice enough indication of the nature of the Abuseniks themselves. 

      And also adds what apparently is some presumption that for me “obedience is superior to truth”. When actually, it is a necessary hewing-to the Playbooks goon-ish agitprop distractions that has indentured the Abuseniks to material that is so very far from the truth. 

      We can expect nothing better from them, and they will indeed continue to “keep up the bad work”. 

      And then, on the 6th at 1056AM, as if we were getting material from someone other than JR, we get a purported bemusement about the three-billion dollar figure, about which much discussion on prior threads has already taken place. Had JR – as the purported author of this comment – forgotten it all? 

  13. Publion says:

    As to the 4th at 635PM: I can do math; it just takes me a while. Nor is the matter “unimportant” since the numbers indicate a) how his story changes and b) how very very much of a temptation the Anderson Strategies dangled in front of prospective story-tellers and allegants: an increase factor approaching 100 is a pretty good invitation.

    And on the 4th at 649PM we are given an irrelevant bit about “Budweiser beer”.

    And then – slyly presuming what has yet to be demonstrated – JR heads for the Victim-y high-ground: he is merely “defending [his] family honor”.  I would say – presuming for the purposes of this discussion the accuracy of his claims about his lineage – that his more contemporary family-honor would be better served by better material and that the “family honor” of his (alleged) forebears can no doubt stand on its own, as it has for more than half a millennium. I hardly think that Pope Gregory X and Saint/King Louis IX and the assorted archbishops of yore are ever going to be blamed for JR’s (alleged) presence among their descendants; I – certainly – do not hold them responsible.

    And on the 4th at 653PM we get a very nice example of a useless and irrelevant factoid. And following the same lines: if we divide the 3 billion dollars in Stampede swag by the number of Catholics that ever existed (since the ‘abuse’ is alleged to have been going on since just about the Church’s inception) then the amount would barely reach a few cents, if indeed it doesn’t actually go into negative-numbers.

    And while there are many things JR may be, “old fashioned” is not a characterization that would come quickly or easily to mind. And that’s as far down that road as one need go.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      That's really white of you, as they used to say, to forgive my ancestors for me.

      You are the most un christian "christian" ever.

      Given your second to last sentence above makes no sense.

      How many "roads" in life have you explored? Like the pleasure centers in your own body; what roads have you walked down there? Why is it so bad to feel good sexually?

      I swear I never knew pop was a slang word for an orgasm. I just thought that's what an orgasm was a bit like to me. Pop was my creation as a discription for my orgasm, so very unlike everybody elses' orgasm..(LOL!)

      What a useless life you live, worrying about what I write enough to look up words in a slang dictionary. You sound so desperate.

      And how exactly is a "man" of my age" (68) supposed to "sound"? Dead? Not at all ? Stiff like a stuffed shirt? Stately perhaps; or maybe like a heckled Emperor? You are such a lost soul!

      Changing subject:

      What sense does it make to have uncompensated dead catholic victims included statistically in a division of 3 billion $, they did not share in?

      Also contributions and profits from catholic investments come to $116 billion a year in the U.S. alone annually. So since 2002 when the Boston Globe stories broke. The church has accumulated over one and a half TRILLION dollars in the U.S. alone.

      In that time you've been forced to pay out $3 billion to victims.

      I think, exactly like the pathetic fines impossed on  Wall street and the banks (by their own stooges in government) for their creating the economic crash, that $3 billion has been a slap on the wrist to the church.

        Let's see, a $3 billion dollar partial "fine"  that the church might continue doing business as usual; and they rake in $1.5 Trillion. And all tax free too?

      Oh the poor; poor; put upon catholic church!

      And in your screeds above you compare yourself to a bush league Emperor and diety in his own right!

      I think, the "I and I", "the Lion of Judah" (Rasta names for him) Sellassie would be appalled at such a comparison.

      Remember your error claiming I hadn't seen he Nazi Titanic film on TCM? When I had. etc. etc.

      You are such a nasty little nothing. Your facism needs no explaining; every word you write screams it.  It's as plain as the nose on your mug. Obedience is superior to truth as far as your concerned dear Adolph. Keep up the bad work. 


    • Jim Robertson says:

      This "$3 Billion" church pay out is a confusion to me.

      Here's why. Did the church pay all of that? Or did the insurors pay half? I don't know where that $3 billion dollar figure comes from.


  14. Jim Robertson says:

    Why would your god make sex so great; if it was wrong to get so wonderfully "besotted" by it? Even if no children are produced.

    Why is pleasure so bad? Is it to be reserved only for life after death or something?

    Who says; the guys who have orgies in the vatican? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Did the devil create the pleasure nerves/ centers in our bodies; or did god?

      If god made me why did he make my "bad places" the nerve endings of which lead me towards the sins of pleasure? Again, wake up! You've been had.


  15. Jim Robertson says:

    I have explained how Anderson's a tool of the church. He NEEDS SNAP because SNAP recomends him to victims. Victims who call SNAP to find out what they can do and where they can get legal help. No SNAP no clients for Anderson. SNAP's the controller for clients. Therefor SNAP controls Anderson's client possibilities. Jeff needs SNAP. SNAP could and can create another Jeff Anderson any time they want. Anderson needs SNAP. SNAP invents Andersons.

  16. Jim Robertson says:

    And since SNAP's been exported from the U.S. to replicate itself in other countries; it seems a rather easy thing to controll victims world wide Especially, if we are all contacting and dealing with the same people Blaine; Clohessy; Doyle and Anderson.

    All who have "led" victims towards $65,000 (at best) settlements in Ireland; Australia and Canada for example.

    And in Australia  SNAP's accepting from the first "day of offer" the very first offer IN AGREEMENT with the catholic and anglican churches in Australia. The 2 biggest perpetrators of child rape there. I only wish i were making this shit up.

    So please tell me where SNAP has "done" anything good for victims? We victims haven't seen it.

    Out of 600 victims only 16 gave any money to SNAP after our settlements here in L.A.. Oh yea, SNAP is sooooooo loved by victims.

    SNAP's going to hold it's luxe convention again in Washington D. C. in August again when all congress is on vacation and not even there. (Can you say D.DDDDDDdumb?)
    Look if SNAP ever got one thing right or did one thing well for victims. I'd say well maybe I'm wrong; but they don't. They consistantly fuck up everything but blaming the right people, the enabling hierarchs.

    So simply, for that act of pointing out the ,oh too obvious, criminals we are to believe they really do work for victims even though they screw up everything else that would help us?. Most particularly real compensation for victims!!!!!!!

    Please, Wake up!