Hypocrisy Alert: SNAP Leader Clohessy, Who Refused To Call Police To Report Abusive Priest, Now Lectures Church on Reporting Abuse

David Clohessy

"Do as I say, not as I do": David Clohessy, National Director of SNAP

Back in the early 1990s, even after he began his work with the lawyer-funded, anti-Catholic group SNAP, David Clohessy already knew of allegations that his brother – Kevin, a Catholic priest – was sexually abusing innocent boys. But David did absolutely nothing about it.

As we have relayed many times before, it was reported back in 2002:

"David said he had known for years about the allegations and agonized over whether to report his brother to authorities. He even contemplated distributing leaflets outside his brother's church. But in the end, he did not go to the police."

The Reporter: 'See no evil':

However, Clohessy's reckless failre to prevent harm and protect children has not prevented him from repeatedly lecturing the Church about reporting abuse. In a recent article Clohessy scolded the Church to "alert the authorities" about suspected abuse, not realizing the rich irony and hypocrisy of his admonition.

Yet media outlets continue to give a Clohessy a free pass, never pointing out Clohessy's own sordid past with respect to the issue.

Unsurprisingly, Clohessy's warped article appeared in the dissident National Catholic Reporter, whom we have cited in the past for false reporting on the abuse scandal.

It might finally be time, however, for the Reporter to wake up to the scandal in its own rank of contributors and disclose Clohessy's own personal history with respect to reporting abuse.

[It was also the Reporter (specifically reporter Joshua McElwee) who literally stole our exclusive story that finally revealed a carefully guarded deposition that Clohessy gave in early 2012. (We have the emails and timeline to prove the thievery.)]


  1. Jim Robertson says:


    David was picked by the church to (partially) head SNAP; BECAUSE his protection of his brother could be used to discredit all victims. Just like what's happened here with this article.

    Right next to this article are the 4 heads of SNAP. THEY ARE ALL ACTIVE CATHOICS. No other victims I've met are still catholic. Doesn't that tell you something?

    Bishop Accountability's 2 leaders are both active catholics. At what point don't you get you're being had along with the rest of the world regarding SNAP?

  2. Jim Robertson says:

    The catholic reporter article by Clohessy is a shame because of what David didn't do regarding his twin the perp.i.e. David failed to protect children from his brother.

    Why would anyone with such a history be given the post Clohessy has with SNAP?  He should never have been given (and I do mean given. He was handed the job with either no vetting or he was given a pass on his behavior regarding his brother, the priest perp) such a position.

    The question is: Add David's failure to report his brother to Barbara Blaine's letter in defense and support of a shrink kiddie porn collector; and you have an obviously contradictory and hypocritical public image for an organization (SNAP) feigning to be for victims in this sex abuse tragedy.

    Name any other organizations with such a cynical history that is so heralded as virtueous. I can only think of 2 the U.S. government and the catholic church.

  3. Jim Robertson says:

    How do you know that the catholic church isn't funding SNAP? It created SNAP. Ask fr. Thomas Doyle O.P.. Why would church property, a former convent in Chicago, be used as SNAP's initial public address? You actually think the church would allow that, if SNAP wasn't their's?

    By using SNAP, as a false flagged front for the church. SNAP filters all victims who call them, seeking help, to a few hand picked lawyers usually refered to them by Jeff Anderson. Who picked Jeff Anderson to be the "leading lawyer" around catholic sex abuse world wide? What were his qualifications?

    It's a tightly closed circuit. The church picked Jeff Anderson to be the "leading" lawyer in the catholic church's sex abuse scandal.

    You think this was a hard thing to do? No it was too easy. Victims' isolation made us vulnerable to such manipulation; and the church, through Doyle and SNAP, took unfair advantage of the misery that the church had ,in fact, caused.

    One day ,hopefully soon, the SNAP chickens will come home to roost; and the truth will out. And on that day the church will rue it's stupidly horrific machinations.

    SNAP is a false flagged set up. I know. I was there; and I attempted to work with them. They are a complete lie.

    • Lauren says:


    • Publion says:

      We might as well brace ourselves for this. With the TMR topic articles now shifting to SNAP and media reporting, we are in far more familiar territory for JR’s shoebox. Thus what we are going to get is merely a repetition of all of his 3×5 bits on the topic, all over again, completely unfazed or un-improved by any refinement in light of the profound problems and complications with his assorted ‘theories’ (presented to us, of course, as assertions of fact though without any corroborative evidence or reasoning whatsoever).
      So let’s get this over with.

      As to the 9th at 836PM:

      In the first paragraph, we merely get assertions of his signature theory that SNAP is not only a) not primarily focused on the interests of ‘victims’, but also that SNAP is b) a complete creature and tool of the Church (along, readers will recall, with the torties, the judges, the DA’s, Jeff Anderson, most of the media (especially in Chicago where the Church is alleged to own most of the real estate downtown), the pols, and anybody anywhere at any time who disagreed-with or doubted JR’s theories and assertions).  

      And all of this is delivered in scare-caps, always a signature give-away that JR will rely on emotion to manipulate and distract us away from the problems with his theorizing. 

      Thus in the second paragraph we are informed (with no corroborative demonstration whatsoever) that “David” was “picked by the Church” (correction supplied) to “(partially) head SNAP”. But why would the Church do such a thing when Blaine was – as Clohessy himself admitted under oath – the only one who actually knew the Big Picture of SNAP’s operations? 

      JR deals with this problem by – slyly – insisting that Clohessy was picked to be a ‘partial’ head of SNAP in order to – have you been waittttttttttttting forrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttttttt? – make victims look bad. 

      What we are seeing here is an effort to somehow explain-away the increasing problems with SNAP’s credibility by claiming that the Church put SNAP together in order to make victims look bad. But for a period of years now here we have seen how i) the Victimist-derived emotionally manipulative Stampede against rational and coherent analysis and assessment and ii) the general and well-established tortie lawsuit strategies themselves, abetted by iii) clear media bias and selectivity in favor of merely presuming the veracity and accuracy of all allegations, while iv) surfing the many ‘victim-friendly’ reforms (which are actually derangements) of Law and jurispraxis in order to undermine the fundamental legal principles of evidence, the integrity of impartial judging and juror-selection, and even the fundamental Constitutional principle of presuming the innocence of the accused and the burden of proof being on the accuser … have all worked in synergy to foment and sustain what I have called the Stampede. 

      Thus that victims (and Victimist strategy and dogma) don’t need any help to “look bad” once you have carefully considered the many aspects of the scam that is the Stampede. 

      To bolster this hugely problematic theorizing of his, JR will toss in a few factoids: in the third paragraph, that all the “4 heads of SNAP” (there are 4 “heads” of the organization now?) are “active Catholics” – whatever that “active” may mean and however JR can be considered to accurately characterize the faith-life of the (un-named) 4 persons involved. Thus, JR’s ‘logic’ goes: if these people are (which has not yet been demonstrated) still “active Catholics” then the Church is running the whole thing. 

      Then in the fourth paragraph the factoid that Bishop-Accountability’s “2 leaders” are also “active Catholics” ditto. 
      And then, as if these two factoids were utterly dispositive and demonstrative of the soundness of his theory, JR then concludes that paragraph with a snarky epithetical to the effect that readers must be a bit daft or perhaps sociopathically malicious not to see (“along with the rest of the world”, doncha know?) that SNAP is a tool of the Church designed merely to make victims look bad.

      My own theory – to repeat for the umpteenth time – is that SNAP and B-A are indeed front organizations, but for the torties: they perform the task prohibited by professional standards and practices and law to the torties themselves. To wit: they round up and attract allegants (inaccurately presumed from the get-go to be genuine ‘victims’) and steer them to the torties’ offices for participation in lawsuits (where the tortie objective, as ever, is to settle for monies and avoid examination at trial). 

      This theory is supported by the history of SNAP as described in D’Antonio’s book: SNAP originally had been going nowhere, and then Anderson invited Blaine for coffee one morning in the later 1980s, and what we now know as SNAP – i.e. as a front organization for the torties, fueled by tortie ‘contributions’ (or kickbacks) – was devised and brought into being. 

      With B-A performing ancillary tasks: creating assorted internet databases for the purposes of a) ‘tracking’ priests who have been accused (credibly or not, and whose cases may not have been sufficient for inclusion in the national Sex-Offender Registries so ‘au courant’ in the 1990s) and b) providing prospective allegants with assorted caches of specific details about already-accused priests for the purposes of burnishing their own stories and – but of course – helping such prospective allegants and tortie-clients to ‘recover their memories’. 

      So I would re-work JR’s concluding question in the comment: At what point do some not realize they are being had and have been had by specious if not abyssally insufficient ‘logic’ and ‘evidence’ into being stampeded by a well-conceived strategy for creating an entire world of Catholic sex-abuse lawsuits that have provided billions to those allegants (and torties) willing to have a whack at the piñata, without any serious danger of their claims and stories being seriously examined … ?

      And I will go further, building upon the now-familiar RICO bit so favored by Abuseniks: at what point does the tortie strategy here pass from a legitimate and legal advocacy for their clients by the torties and morph into an ongoing, deliberate criminal enterprise to extort monies under color of law and by perpetrating on-going frauds upon courts in the pursuit of forcing settlements and settlement-payouts … ? 

      On then to the 10th at 934AM:

      In the first paragraph, Clohessy’s failure to report child sexual abuse of which he apparently had sufficient knowledge (though not necessarily a ‘mandated reporter’ obligation under law) … is characterized as merely “a shame”. 
      But JR indulges Clohessy’s actions here for a particular purpose: in the second paragraph he asks “why would anyone with such a history be given the post Clohessy has with SNAP?”. A question answered quite rationally by the theory that (presuming the full extent of his nonfeasance here was known at the time he took the post) the new-SNAP bosses figured that under then-current media conditions he would be immune from examination (based on the general Victimist theory that ‘victims’ and their ‘advocates’ are Pure and Innocent and can do no wrong and any attempt to examine them is somehow nothing more than an Evil effort to ‘re-victimize’ them; all of which derives from the general Victimist dogma that by definition and ‘a priori’ the ‘oppressed’ cannot themselves be ‘oppressors’).

      All of which does clearly indicate some skullduggery by the new-SNAP bosses but does not in any way demonstrate the Church’s involvement as the puppet-master of SNAP as a front-organization for the Church in order to make the ‘victims’ look bad (as opposed, again, to my theory that new-SNAP is a front for the torties to hoover up prospective client/allegants for the torties under the masquerade of being a victim-assistance organizations). 

      Thus then the third paragraph in the comment may well be the case, but does not in any way demonstrate or establish the role of the Church as puppet-master for the Stampede.

      And thus then the riff in the fourth paragraph fails since it is based on the faulty theorizing and reasoning in the prior paragraphs and prior comment of JR’s. 

      On then to the 10th at 958AM:

      In the first paragraph, again demonstrating the signature JR and Abusenik effort to place the burden of proof on the accused rather than the accuser(s), we get the insinuation/innuendo question: “How do you know that the Catholic Church isn’t funding SNAP?”. 

      To which I would respond: first, the claim that the Church is running (or “funding”) SNAP is an allegation put forward by JR and the Abuseniks and the burden of demonstration lies with them.

      Second, there is a far more rational explanatory theory, supported by D’Antonio’s research and by what we know of general tortie Strategy and Anderson’s own adaptation of those strategies and by what we have seen of precisely those strategies operating in other types of cases.

      And further buttressed by the weakness of Abusenik responsive ‘logic’ when confronted with problems, i.e. that whoever’s theory or actions does not fit in with the Abusenik schematic must simply be yet another part of a claimed (and ever-increasing) conspiracy to make victims look bad and that’s that. For which assorted factoids are then proffered, as we see in this set of comments by JR and as we have seen many times before. 

      But – continuing on with the first paragraph material – I will go as far as to say this: At some point in the very beginning, back in the mid-1980s, SNAP, conceived as a victim-representation or advocacy organization, may have indeed been started up by some concerned nuns and/or priests (such as the still-Father Doyle); it may have even been started-up in the offices of a former convent. Although whether this was done with the Church’s (or cognizant hierarch’s or hierarchs’) permission is another question, and whether the Church funded it in that early incarnation is another question beyond that. 

      But that ‘old-SNAP’ – if I may – didn’t go very far at all. 

      And then in the later 1980s (as D’Antonio describes) Blaine was made that offer by Anderson and she couldn’t refuse. (What Doyle thought of it is another question beyond that.) Thus was born what I would call the ‘new-SNAP’, operating as a front-organization for the torties and funded by ‘contributions’ from them (the monies derived from the swag hoovered up in the lawsuit settlements). And this is the SNAP we have been dealing with, which played so great a part in the Stampede. 

      Thus then – looking at the second paragraph of the comment – this new-SNAP is indeed “false-flagged”, but it is “false-flagged” by being a front for the torties and not for the Church nor funded and supported by the Church (which, if SNAP were its creature, rationally requires accepting that the Church ‘successfully’ masterminded a front-organization that has cost it almost 3 billion dollars). 

      Nor did anybody “pick” or have to “pick” Jeff Anderson. He is an enterprising tortie who saw how to synergize a number of various elements to support the age-old and ‘eternal’ tortie strategy of maximizing the payouts from settlements (avoiding whenever possible actual court trials of the allegations). Nor has it been established that any torties were actually then “hand-picked” by Anderson; once any minimally competent and alert tortie saw the surf rising, s/he would just toss the board in the water, perhaps hook up with the new-SNAP, get down to business, and let the good times roll.

      Thus then the third-paragraph’s assertion – delivered as if it were a rationally-derived conclusion from JR’s foregoing bits – that “it’s a tightly-closed circuit” may well be true, but it a) does not require the Church’s input at any point and b) doesn’t establish the Church’s control (a hugely problematic theorization all on its own). 

      And, once again, to accept the Abusenik theorizing here, one would have to accept the Church’s power and capacity to i) mastermind and control all the many powerful independent variables involved and ii) continue to preside over a gambit that has cost it billions, thus iii) creating and sustaining over a period of decades a ‘conspiracy’ effectively controlling politicians, courts high and low, attorneys, law enforcement, mainstream media, jurists, authors (such as D’Antonio), and as many other individuals or groups as JR may at one or another time insist are in on the conspiracy to make victims look bad. 
      (And for that matter: what’s to keep anyone from wondering if JR himself isn’t a tool of the Church, planted to make victims look bad?)

      And in the fourth paragraph we are given a revelation as to the actual Cartoon quality of this ‘theory’ of JR’s: it wasn’t hard to do at all and indeed “it was too easy”. 

       And why was this stupefying (alleged) demonstration of control so “easy”? Here the bit swings into the soap-opera script of Victimism: because – doncha see? – “victims’ isolation” made them “vulnerable to such manipulation”. What “manipulation”? Signing up for a whack at the piñata? Collecting the checks? Nor, after all this time, have any of them come back to deploy their settlement monies in the service of exposing this (alleged) thing. 

      What “isolation”? They participated in the preparation of multiple-plaintiff lawsuits (which in LA meant a crowd of 500 or so allegants). They were self-declared ‘victims’ in an era of American history (still on-going) where anyone who claims to be a ‘victim’ is lionized as a ‘heroic survivor’ – as we still see in so many venues and so much media-coverage even today. They had and have the internet and social-networking. What “isolation”?

      And the fifth paragraph gives us some reading of the tea-leaves from JR’s personal collection, working toward nothing but another epithet against the Church. 

      And the comment concludes with an assertion of what never had to be demonstrated: nobody here has doubted that SNAP as we know it now is a front-organization. 

      The problem with the theory is in somehow (and conveniently) shoe-horning the Church in as the mastermind of it all. And nothing we have seen here establishes that. 

  4. Jim Robertson says:


  5. Jim Robertson says:

    You, P, admit the "possibility" of the church's early funding of SNAP but we, victims, were never told of that "possibility". The church never admitted "helping" SNAP represent all it's victims world wide but that's what SNAP does do.

    SNAP is the only organization that has ever made raped children look bad. Quite the feat!

    Bartbra'ds letter in support of a kiddie porn collector. David's hiding his brother. SNAP's info on victims being kept in a stone damp basement at David's house. Fighting revealing victim info (not victim's names) all the way to the state supreme court in Kansas or Missouri. Individual victims posting here again and again their/our hatered of SNAP and it's bad behavior towards us. The very people they feign and deign to represent.

    SNAP has never denied it get's money from our lawyers. It's never said it's gotten money from the church. It's true founder and controller.

    The CNN or Frontline documentary "Holy Money" said the Chicago archdiocise is the largest landowner in downtown Chicago.

  6. Jim Robertson says:

    D'Antonio and jason Berry are both (one conciously Berry and the other D'Antonio maybe he knows maybe not. i don't know.)  apologists for SNAP. Jason Berry's been doing his shit job since the 1980's side by side with Doyle and SNAP.

    Yet victim after victim has had terrible relations with SNAP; and we've told you here about that. Explain that. No don't bother. You simply are incapable of telling or seeing the truth in all this.


  7. Jim Robertson says:

    Only 15 victims in L.A., TOPS, ever met each other. but you pretend we had 500 people cheek by jowel working here protesting? More lies from you.

  8. Jim Robertson says:

    Was the lying Tawanna Browley "lionized" when she was found to be lying about her victimization?

    Where are all us lying victims? You can not even give one name. That's why you are such a liar.

    • Publion says:

      Moving past the epithetical (yet, as always, unsupported) name-calling to the effect that I am a “liar” (scare-caps and exclamation point omitted), we proceed to the 12th at 1035AM.

      JR appears to think he has somehow ‘scored’ by my acceptance of the “possibility” that the Church might have funded the old-SNAP. Of course it’s a possibility; so is the possibility that the Stampede is right and accurate and true in every respect. They are possibilities; which means – it apparently has to be explained to JR – that for them to become anything more than that, much demonstration and explication would have to be provided. Which has not at any time been the case here.

      We have no way of knowing if – in the time of the old-SNAP, i.e. before Blaine cast SNAP’s lot with Anderson – ‘victims’ were or were not told. What difference, though, would it have made one way or the other? What is the significance of the point (unsupported as it is) that he raises here?

      I am not familiar with the specifics of the founding and early years of the old-SNAP: would or did allegants not come forward to see what it might provide them? Surely they did approach the new-SNAP, once the connection with payoff-producing torties became widely known.

      And for all we know “the church never admitted ‘helping’ SNAP represent all it’s victims world wide” (sic) because the Church didn’t help or fund SNAP at the outset. Or at any time thereafter.

      Thus then the second paragraph’s snarky assertion fails because we still don’t know if it was the Church that “made raped children look bad” or whether the abyssal problems present in the Stampede from the outset, having now started to come to light, have made the allegants “look bad”. And this would be an outcome that was latent from the get-go, simply awaiting the passage of time and the ability to actually examine what the torties did so much to shield from examination.

      The third paragraph simply gives us a repetition, from the shoebox, of various bits about SNAP and its leadership and be that all as it may. It does not establish in any way the Church’s masterminding of either the old or the new SNAP.

      And, indeed, it is clearly a possibility – if not an outright probability – that the torties embraced new-SNAP and its leaders the same way feminism back in the day accepted Teddy Kennedy: ignoring the abyssal problems with him personally in order to garner the fruits of his political clout. For the torties, SNAP’s value as a whole-hearted collaborative front-organization far outweighed any problems with individuals in the leadership.

      So, again, JR can carry on against SNAP (old or new) to his heart’s content. The core issue remains untouched: demonstrating rationally and clearly how the Church could be the controller of SNAP.

      The fourth paragraph tosses out more assertions: if memory serves, SNAP did not admit that it took money from the torties until that fact came out in Clohessy’s deposition, all of which was covered and discussed on this site when it all happened.

      But even if SNAP had, for the purposes of discussion here, admitted from the outset to all prospective allegants that it took money from the torties, then what do we make of the fact that allegants still flocked to it? Or did they think they were flocking to a Church-funded and Church-controlled organization? Or did they think SNAP was doing everything on its own with no funding from any source?

      And if SNAP took money from the torties and admitted it, then why would the Church continue to fund a gambit that quickly revealed its capacity to cost the Church huge amounts of money (or cost the Insurers huge amounts, which simply would have meant that the Church’s premiums would have shot up astronomically)?

      And what to do with the fact that structuring lawsuit cases in such a way as to force the Defendant to settle rather than go to court is a long-established tortie strategy?

      Thus that paragraph’s final assertion fails because it still has not been demonstrated either by evidence or any credible and convincing rationale that covers those points that are actually known.

      In the fifth paragraph, JR says that it was “a CNN or Frontline documentary” (he apparently doesn’t know which … had he not seen it?) that “said the Chicago Archdiocese is the largest landowner in downtown Chicago”. Did he not note whatever evidence was proffered by that documentary in support of its assertion? Did the documentary even proffer any evidence?

      And actually: the documentary “Holy Money”, first aired in the Spring of 2014, was put together by a European consortium of media, including Al-Jazeera America, although it was platformed by PBS’s “Frontline”  for US viewing, with its title changed to “Secrets of the Vatican”. It was discussed on the “National Catholic Reporter” site in the article “Vatican Sex, Money scandals subject of PBS documentary” by Dennis Coday, dated Feb. 25, 1914. 

      It is available for viewing on You-Tube and Facebook.

      Perhaps I missed it, but I couldn’t find any reference to the Church owning most of the land under Chicago. Nor, in the 132 comments – predictably mostly not-friendly to the Church – did any of those many commenters pick up on any such bit, although they did go on about many other things.

      (Of interest here, the documentary cited a number of only 68 claims of actual physical rape out of “10,000” and it pushes this ‘68’ number as being merely “a Vatican estimate”. But that ’10,000’ is suspiciously close to the number of allegations counted-up by the first Jay Report, and what we may well be seeing here is simply the actual number of allegations of physical rape of child among that 10,000 or so allegations.)

      It seems pretty much a sensationalist hatchet-job with no serious investigation or analysis but rather a compendium of assorted sensational bits (something on Maciel, a monsignor from the Vatican Bank arrested for money-laundering). It apparently caused much satisfaction in the NCRep readership and viewership, although it was touted as being either a PBS or the UK’s Channel 4 production (perhaps nobody wanted to imagine Al-Jazeera America as being the source of their yuks and happies).

      And – although we are getting ahead of the bits in JR’s comments here – Jason Berry was a co-producer. Berry, some readers may recall, is the author of two books that lustily went after the Church.

      On then to the 12th at 1042AM, which opens with – had you been waitttttting for itttttttttttt? – JR’s effort to include both D’Antonio and Berry as being among those who are also in on the conspiracy to make victims look bad as “apologists for SNAP”. Although this has to be an inference on our part, since the relevant sentence (the first in the first paragraph) doesn’t make sense as written, usually with JR an indicator that he hasn’t got anything clear to say.

      Which bit is quickly followed by a bit of scatology (“sxit”), which – again – is so often an indicator that JR is trying to distract with emotion from the weakness of his material.

      I don’t doubt that Berry (the still-Father Doyle is also mentioned in the comment) is pro-SNAP, but that of itself doesn’t establish the Church as being the puppet-master of SNAP. The same goes for D’Antonio, who, in trying to make a lot of the major Stampede players look good, let a lot of cats out of the bag (as was discussed at length on this site back when his book came out). 

      And in the second paragraph we are given merely an assertion that many ‘victims’ (“victim after victim”) have “had terrible relations with SNAP”, and who knows? Is this JR mistaking himself for the world again? Is he simply trying to dramatize his own issues as if they are widely supported among the allegant ‘community’? Readers may decide as they will.

      Then – in a rather ham-handed way – he then asks me to “explain that” (although we have nothing actually demonstrated, for which explanation is needed) but then immediately says “No don’t bother” (sic) because – have you been waitttttttting for ittttttttttttt? – the Wig of Diagnosis and Judgment suddenly declares that I (or the readership here generally) “simply are incapable of telling or seeing the truth in all of this”. Which, through the ever-wondrous workings of clinical projection, might well be seen as a useful self-revelation on JR’s part.

      On, then, to the 12th at 1046AM where we have nothing except more of JR’s (as always unsupported) assertions, this time that actually the Plaintiffs/Allegants in the LA case never “met each other”. Did the torties in that case not want them to get together? Did the allegants not feel moved to inquire about the many others in their project-group? Did nobody among them feel moved to network on social media? Even after the checks were cashed?

      And – addressing one of JR’s favorite bits – there is a difference between “pretend” and “lies”. Nor did I assert – “pretend” or not – that they all did or did not meet or network (which with the internet is even easier than getting together in one big room, “cheek by jowl” (correction supplied)). But the core dynamic here is this: given the number of howlers evident in his own material, JR has to come up with some sort of ‘equivalence’, at least to his own satisfaction. Thus since I “lie”, then it’s OK if he does … the same thing. See how that works?

      Be that as it all may, we are faced today with the fact that almost none of that happy clan of check-cashers has ever bothered to reach-out to anyone else in the clan. But – as I have said – if the check was the primary objective, and the check was safely and happily cashed, then why would anybody thus enriched want to draw any more attention to themselves?

      On, then, to the 12th at 1051AM:

      Readers may recall the Tawana Brawley (correction supplied) case of a quarter century or so ago. Readers may well recall that she – as was the Duke Lacrosse accuser of 2006 and the U/VA accuser of this year – was indeed very much “lionized” as a ‘victim’. Until the weight of evidence about the untruth of her claims, stories, and allegations became so clear and undeniable and un-spinnable that the media had to acknowledge that unhappy fact.

      Which, perhaps, should stand as a warning to the allegants generally.

      And it remains a fact that what happened so vividly in 1987-88 could happen again in 2006 and again in 2015, with the media pushing its Victimist soap-opera spin as hard and as far as it could, until the whole thing collapsed in a heap of non-veracity.

      And the bit concludes with – yet again – the only 3×5 JR has for this situation: nobody can prove that any of the allegants were less-than-veracious. But it’s a matter of Probability and readers may judge these stories and allegations and claims as they will.

      But – once again – this unripe bit then serves to platform the Wig of Denunciation’s claim that I am “such a liar”. Bringing us right back to the wonders of clinical projection.

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    You want to believe that the lawyer in charge, Anderson, is in charge of SNAP. . SNAP doesn't need Anderson. Anderson needs SNAP. SNAP knows even more than Anderson as to who victims are. They give him cases he doesn't give them victims.

  10. Jim Robertson says:

    Let's see if I get this right.? I'm a fantasist in knowing that Jason Berry is a part of a conspiracy? Really? just like 19 hyjackers creating 9/11 with box cutters isn't a "conspiracy" theory? I say Doyle and Berry are a concious part of the conspiracy that you call a victims/ survivors' movement.. That's 2 concious manipulators.

    With Blaine Clohessy; and Anderson there's only 5 conspiritors altogether to publicly control the victims for the whole world., 5.  Compared to 9/11's 15.

    Then you have the very young comparitively, leadership of SNAP who were handed family supporting jobs as a reward and as a control. We know both Blaine and Clohessy have little morality i.e. David's hiding his brother and Blaine's support of a kiddie porn collector. So you think these two are likely to quit well paying jobs over moral issues? Never. they don't need to be concious of a  church conspiracy in order to aid and abett one.

    If they found out they were part of such a false flagged event. Would they look at their children and say: in order to be moral for you and blow the whistle on SNAP; I cut you off from a safe middle class life by losing my job with SNAP?

    Not likely. plus Barbra's still such a big time catholic whose mother was a big time Chicago catholic., and David's from such a religious family; his brother's a priest.

    It's the nature of a false flagg effort to keep it's story straight. They say they care for victims yet we victims say they don't.

    You are either deeply stupid or deeply corrupt (or in your probably case both) if you think that victims don't dislike SNAP. Why would that be? Why would victim activists complain; and we do?

  11. Jim Robertson says:



  12. Jim Robertson says:

    Victims have written here, 2 others (Kay Ebeling; Dennis Ecker) if not 3, besides myself. What, you believe 2 SNAP leaders over 4 victims who've managed to find this site?

    Those odds alone should give you pause. If you weren't a strawman and really had a brain that is.

  13. Jim Robertson says:

    Michael Bauman, a victim who had a blog called: Off My Knees, has also posted here about his dislike and complete distrust of SNAP.

    That's 4 victims out of 6, who have ever posted at TMR,  who are very negative about our dealings with SNAP. Again the odds are with, my and other's analysis, that SNAP is a false flag (planned and operated by a midwest hyper reactionary and powerful part of the not so holy Roman catholic church) to benefit the church not it's victims .

    • Publion says:

      As to the 15th at 1025AM: readers may consider as they will the convenient 'call' from one Michael Bauman.

      At any rate and in any case: the 'call' does utterly and absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the Church is masterminding SNAP.

      I will go into this at length shortly. I am going to be putting up a series of shorter comments, rather than one large and long comment, in order to try to avoid what appear to be ISP-driven length parameters for this site. Please excuse any confusion if the comments don't go up in the proper order.

  14. Publion says:

    On the 14th at 225PM JR once again tries to reduce everything to a matter of ‘belief’ (“you want to believe that …”).

    But as I have said numerous times before: the issues here do not primarily reduce to merely differences in what one chooses to ‘believe’. Rather, what is at issue is the credibility and rationality of explanatory actualities or at least probabilities / that are derived from a) known facts (known in the ‘public’, third-party, objective sense, and not ‘known’ merely in the ‘personal’, subjective sense) and from b) the rationality and coherence and plausibility of explanatory theories or hypotheses proffered to explain the known facts.

    And thus the issue here does not reduce to merely personal preference or ‘choice’ as to what to ‘believe’: we have to be guided in our assessment by (a) and (b) above.

    But this, of course, is far removed from what the Abuseniks and the Victimist Playbook generally want to see happen. They want to see people sidetracked away from such a rational project and instead want people to be stampeded into emotionality (that “amygdalic rush”) generated by ‘personal truth’ narratives about which i) we have no evidence that they are accurate and veracious and about which ii) we have seen some rather spectacularly fraudulent instances exposed in the national media and about which iii) we know the torties have a long-established general strategy relying precisely on getting people to accept heavily-burnished ‘personal truth’ stories and claims and allegations as if they were ‘public truth’ and objective veracities.

    Nor did I at any point say that “Anderson … is in charge of SNAP”. The point I made was that – as D’Antonio has it – Anderson invited Blaine to allow SNAP to become for all practical purposes a front-organization for the torties and Blaine accepted the deal. Anderson is not formally “in charge of SNAP” – which is why I did not say he was.

    The last sentence of that paragraph doesn’t make sense as written, and who can be surprised? But if I had to connect the main nouns in some rational way it would be this: SNAP provides ‘victims’ (or allegants) to the torties, who then turn their stories and claims and allegations into lawsuit Complaints (made, we recall, under pains and penalties of perjury by the allegant).

  15. Publion says:

    On then to the 14th at 524PM, where in an effort to make snark, JR opens himself up to the perhaps amusing scenario where he is trying to get something right.

    Let’s see if he succeeds.

    We get a well-formatted, multi-paragraph comment here, which is not really his style.

    In the first paragraph (which also uses the rather advanced word “fantasist”) JR attempts to make light but rational sense of his assertion that Jason Berry “is a part of a conspiracy”. And how does he try to do this? By suddenly sailing off into the 9/11 realm, where – and the logic becomes rather confused here – apparently his bits about Berry are to be considered no more or less (take your pick) a fantasy than “19 hijackers creating 9/11 with box cutters” is a fantasy. Does he mean that the hijacker teams that flew the aircraft into the buildings were or are a fantasy? Does he mean that the hijacker teams that flew the aircraft into the buildings were or are not a fantasy? It’s impossible to tell from this pile here.

    But perhaps this incomprehensibility is not so much an indication of poor mentational capacities, but rather a deliberate attempt to have some pixels to toss onto the screen without actually saying or asserting anything at all for which JR could be held responsible.

    And his conclusory assertion in that paragraph makes little sense either, in terms of having any rational bearing on the points at issue here. Nor have I ever used the term “victims/survivors movement”.

    The second paragraph simply travels further into the swamp with more riffing on some sort of imagined connective relevance between SNAP and 9/11. And, yet again, we see this truly phantasmagorical bit about ‘victims’ being subject to ‘public’ “control”.

    Meaning – doncha see? – that all these hardy and robust ‘survivors’ who stood up to ‘come forward’ and get their checks cannot be expected to have known anything much about anything because they were ‘publicly controlled’ … by an ever-expanding congeries of interests and Parties, known and unknown, master-minded by the Church, in order to simply make them “look bad”.

    (Leading, so very nicely, to the conclusion that even in their check-cashing success they must be considered ‘victims’ … of being made to “look bad”  by both the very institution they accused and collected-from, and by the very professionals who helped them get their checks by burnishing their stories and whomping up the law-suits according to the Anderson Strategies-template.)

    And JR will have us accept that to consider the foregoing bits as irrational, phantasmagorical and non-credible must be nothing other than sociopathic, un-charitable, and most certainly not What Jesus Would Do. Readers may judge as they will.

    Thus, so far, JR has not only not gotten anything right, but has also provided some rather vivid examples of how mental trains can run off the rails, either through incompetence or deliberate intent.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Jason Berry looked at victims at the 2008 SNAP convention and sniggered at them/us. Sniggering at victims isn't what a real supporter of victims would do.

      Why has he never interviewed any victims who have real questions oabout SNAP's behavior TOWARDS victims? He's been on the road show pretending to care about victims since the 1980's but has never made one story questioning SNAP from critical victims pov. Who's paying him?

  16. Publion says:

    On then to the third paragraph:

    In this scene, JR poses a “very young comparatively” (compared to who?) “leadership of SNAP”. When is this scene supposed to have taken place? … has he imbibed no screenwriting capability from living in LA?

    And this “very young, comparatively, leadership of SNAP” (correction supplied) were offered jobs “as a reward and as a control”. I presume they were offered these ‘jobs’ by Anderson, since a) it was only in the new-SNAP era of Anderson that SNAP began to rake in real cash and b) such a use of jobs as both reward and control is pretty much how the game is played anywhere.

    And to presume that the Church offered these jobs, at the outset of the old-SNAP era, falls afoul of the fact that SNAP didn’t have enough funding and clout to offer anybody such cushy and remunerative jobs in the beginning, which is precisely why Anderson later had such an opening available to him, whereby he actually could offer the funding for such cushy jobs and so on.

    Then the paragraph goes on about the lack of morality of Blaine and Clohessy, against which I certainly won’t offer contest.

    But then the final sentence of the paragraph rather marvelously embodies the problems with the JR system: he tosses up some thought-inducing words (“conscious”, “church conspiracy”, “aid and abet” – corrections supplied) but won’t or can’t connect them rationally, so you wind up with simply a hash of emotionally-charged words that yet do not rationally cohere as a credible thought or thesis.

    If I were to make one key correction to that sentence, however, it would be to substitute “tortie” for “church”, and then I think the sentence would at least approach some level of accuracy and plausibility.

    Anyhoo, this rambling scene of JR’s rambles on further in the fourth paragraph, where now he simply drives the train away from rational consideration in order to paint some fantasized domestic scene, the bottom-line that he’s going-for being this: those with cushy SNAP jobs couldn’t blow the whistle on the “conspiracy” because they had to provide for their families. (So … does this not make the SNAP job-holders also – not to put too fine a point on it – victims … ? Such are the irritating bounces of the ball in Victimist game-play.)

    Ditto in the fifth paragraph, where the riff continues, adding into the bowl further ingredients: Blaine’s alleged still-active Catholicism (which demonstrates nothing but is one of JR’s vital ingredients to be baked-into his fantasy pie here) and Clohessy’s various bits.

     We recall that for JR’s recipe to work here we have to embrace the following chain of historical reasoning and causality: SNAP – and B-A – are run by people who are still active Catholics (accuracy and relevance undemonstrated); Anderson is a Catholic (ditto); therefore SNAP and Anderson are merely tools of a puppet-master Church that masterminded the entire Stampede (costing itself 3 billion dollars in the process) in order to ‘make victims look bad’.

    Does JR also have a used bridge in Brooklyn he’d be happy to sell on this site?

    And the sixth paragraph continues further into the swamp, adding further favorite ingredients: “false-flagg effort” (are we seriously to accept that JR cannot spell ‘flag’?) and – as so often – the sly attempt to shoe-horn himself into the picture with that “we victims” bit again.

    It apparently hasn’t dawned on him how vitally relevant it is – as he rightly points out – for any deception to “keep its story straight” (correction supplied). Which – and perhaps after watching his performance and experiences on this site – is why a number of successful allegants have wisely chosen to keep the cash and stay off the stage.

    And the entire performance wraps up – have you been waittttttttting forrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – with a JR victory lap of epithet, which – alas – is somewhat undermined by his actual performance in the comment. But – again thanks to the wondrous workings of clinical projection – we might want to review his material under the hardly irrelevant rubrics he here proposes: “deeply stupid or deeply corrupt (or …  probably … both”. I think that triad of rubrics covers the ground rather nicely.

    And where or when have I ever said or implied that “victims don’t dislike SNAP”? Yet again JR tries to wrench a point for which he has no proof or even rational plausibility, i.e. that the Church runs/funds SNAP, toward a point for which he has lots of 3x5s, i.e. that ‘victims’ (or at least himself as self-appointed Mouth of Victims) don’t like SNAP. (That ‘Mouth of’ phrasing is a literary reference; can he or his muses suss it out?)

    And the victory-lap epithet hoot-hoot is further undermined as he attempts (“Why would that be?”) to get readers to presume that I had actually opined that victims “don’t dislike SNAP”; I didn’t opine that and he just made it up for the convenience of his own eructations here.

    Ditto the slyly manipulative attempt to get us to presume a) that there actually are a number of “victim activists” out there (along with the myriads of unreported-victims, of course) and that b) he is – had you been waittttttting forrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – one of that numerous number.

    So … he didn’t get much right at all in the comment. But it was a thought-provoking performance and demonstration of many things anyway.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Young Snap leadership compared to the average age of the mass of victims world wide. A difference of 15 to 20 years on the average.

  17. Publion says:

    On the 14th at 536PM we get a one-liner that is apparently intended to neutralize the synergy between mainstream media’s need for soap-opera and Victimism’s reliance on agitprop ‘stories’ to further its agenda: JR declares – as if he had just discovered it – that I “believe” that there is a “conspiracy between the entire media world and victims”.

    And – had you been waitttttting forrrrrrrrrr itttttttttt? – he manages to get it multiply wrong even in a simplistic one-liner comment. I had said a “synergy” (not a “conspiracy”) / between much of the mainstream media (not “the entire media world”) / and Victimism (not “victims”, since the individuals might not be sufficiently aware of the nature of the synergies generating the wave which they are surfing; not every eager, Kowabunga surfer is a hydrographer).

    • Jim Robertson says:

      What part of the "media world" doesn't think child rape to be wrong?

      So because we were raped as children and the entire world media thinks child rape's wrong then we are all lying? You make no sense.

      "Victimism"? What a belief in victims whether we/they are lying or not?

      No body ever told you to believe a liar.

      Give a factual example of such a person. You must have someone you can name.

      What facts are too specific for you?

  18. Publion says:

    Oh well, then. On to the 14th at 535PM:

    The entire comment is scare-caps and exclamation points, which is always a sure sign: such histrionics are going to try to generate some sort of emotion in order to a) avoid the actual issues and b) give the Wig of Outrage a chance to take a turn before the footlights.

    In the first place, it apparently has to be pointed out to JR that ‘correcting’ is not the same as ‘insulting’ (although it appears to be so in his ‘personal’ dictionary).

    In the second place, the solution to him insulting himself with such incredible spelling and grammar ‘mistakes’ is to stop doing it.

    Nor is it – as he just now gets around to claiming – that the TMR site does not have a spell-check.

    Because there is no credible explanation as to the causation of the pattern (or non-pattern) of misspelling and grammatical error we see here; it cannot be other than deliberate and conscious (for whatever reason – perhaps, as I suggested before, to create an appearance of ‘damage’ caused (as if by a ‘magic bullet’) by the alleged tort, but far more plausibly an indicator of generally low performance in language-skills from the get-go long ago; nor does the ‘abuse’ possibility survive the complications created by the further claim that he was rapidly promoted to a supervisory position in his military hitch which required advanced competence in handling vital documents – and all in an era before there were computers and spell-check processors). All of which I’ve said before and none of which has received a sensible and relevant reply.

    But I think the triple-repetition of “shut up” certainly gives us a very fundamental glimpse of the actual JR.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Spelling has zip to do with language skills. i think I'm damnned good at telling you, you're an idiot, no matter how well your spell check works.

      In your case it isn't what a person says it's how well they spell it?  What a good man you are. You don't have morality or manners but you have spell check. Great!

    • Publion says:

      As to the 15th at 901PM:


      I have already dealt above with this bit. Spelling and grammar have a very great deal to do with “language skills” (in what universe could anybody possibly think otherwise?). But – in a gratuitous act of crystalline self-revelation – JR demonstrates just what his conception of language really is: it’s useful for telling people they are idiots in (pick one, several, or all: snarky, juvenile, scatological, epithetical, yukky, pretentious, histrionic) ways. So very impressive.


      And – since he has aksed : “in my case”: if a person won’t take the time and effort  to spell properly and grammatize properly, then s/he probably won’t take the time to think properly and will wind up inhabiting a mental universe exemplified by illogic, incoherence, irrationality, juvenility, and cartoon mimicry of adult mentation generally.


      And then in concluding sentences of the second paragraph, the ever-ready and histrionic JR retreat to the Wig of Victimization bedizened by the Wig of Morality: I have no “morality” because … I place great store in spelling, grammar, and clear thoughts conceived and expressed?


      And – in light of the voluminous evidence of juvenile scatology and epithets great and small – JR will, shifting to the Wig of Outraged Decency, say I have “no manners”. Let’s just leave that one up there to hang where it was put.


      And we note also that he seems to think that anybody who does spell properly must have Spell Check. Apparently, the thought that some people worked to achieve proper spelling and grammar (and thinking) does not even occur to him. Who can be surprised at this point?

  19. Publion says:

    And – finally – to the 14th at 535PM: it fails almost immediately since we are slyly manipulated to presume that “victims” have indeed “written here”.

    And the further effort – derived from God knows where – that seeks to claim that I would “believe 2 SNAP leaders over 4 victims” is, frankly, ludicrous. Where and when (with accurate quotation) have I ever said I believe anything said by any “SNAP leaders”? Once again we see the workings of JR’s either/or cartoon-creating mentation.

    Specifically: JR has whomped-up a single, simple, and simplistic Cartoon vision in which he is utterly and totally invested: SNAP is both a) not designed to work primarily in the best interests of ‘victims’ and b) a tool of the Church.

    The more complex possibility (which I consider very highly probable) – that SNAP is i) indeed a tool and a front but ii) of the torties rather than of the Church  – is by definition unacceptable to him because it is too complicated for his personally-preferred simplistic cartoonish effort to wrap up all his bugbears in one big convenient bundle.

    Thus we see the odd mixing in which his mind seems unable to distinguish between x) my noting the lack of any credible or plausible evidence or theory that the Church is the masterminding source here and y) his insistence that SNAP is not primarily interested in ‘victims’.

    Nor, therefore, has my repeated pointing-out that I am positing (x) while he is defending (y) had any corrective effect on what appears to be the inseparable fusion of the two in his mind: you are either ‘against’ SNAP a-n-d the Church as its mastermind or else you are ‘for’ both of them.

    And, further, we see that in order to preserve this phantasm, he has to include the torties (and just about anybody else who does not buy-into this phantasmagorical mental construction) as also being tools of the masterminding Church: torties, Anderson himself, DA’s,  judges and authors included.

    And we are further manipulated slyly by the bit about the “4 victims who’ve managed to find this site”.

    Thus that not many ‘victims’ comment here because the site in not find-able. JR will, I hope, understand why I perhaps would not believe that: there are very few sites anywhere that are dedicated to the analysis of the Catholic Abuse Matter as the TMR site is. Anyone looking for a site dealing with the Catholic Abuse Matter is going to wind up sooner or later at this site through any search-engine.

    Far more plausible reasons for the paucity of ‘victim’ commenters are that i) most allegant-payees aren’t really interested in the topic, and ii) most allegant-payees want to avoid further risk of exposure of their stories and claims, and iii) most Victimists are not interested in discussing or debating their dogmas but rather merely seek – via the Playbook’s agitprop options (themselves so amenable and popular in the lower precincts of the web and social-networking)– to distract or squelch any uncongenial thoughts or material and they may well realize, after looking at this site, that the Playbook doesn’t work here.

    And the final sentence of the comment refers to “odds” which actually haven’t been demonstrated to be either actual or accurate. But then we quickly see that the actual purpose for tossing up the almost utterly content-less “odds” bit was merely to provide a lead-in for more signature epithet, or rather two of them: first, that I am a “strawman” and thus second, that I don’t really have “a brain” – the reference, of course, being drawn – had you been waitttttttttting forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – from “The Wizard of Oz” movie. Yuk yuk. Let readers judge as they will.

  20. Jim Robertson says:

    Wow such a diatribe! Why do you assume former cathoic children are to some large percentage: liars and felons? It's illegal to falsely accuse people. It's illegal to gain financially through fraud. If the temptation to commit such fellonies is so great. Where's your proven fraudsters P? Can you find even one. If it's the system that doesn't allow you to find even one such fellon. I'd imagine, according to your line of "thought' millions of criminals would be willing to risk prison to say nothing of their own lose of morality by lying. But you can't bring up one!!!!

    • Jim Robertson says:

      loss. Damned lack of spell check :^)

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You can't provide a single example of fraud against the church. Just admit you have no examples to offer that would aid your theory. Not a one.

    • Publion says:

      On, then, to the 15th at 840PM:


      We open, as so often, with an epithet: my comment(s) constitute a “diatribe” (demonstrating only that a) he is unclear on the definition of diatribe and b) still remains ignorant of the dynamics of clinical projection).


      And the second sentence, as so often, creates something never said in order to have a more convenient target for plop-tossing: I do not “assume that former catholic children are to some large percentage liars” (correction supplied). My explanation of the probability of non-veracity given the dynamics of the Stampede is available above my immediately prior comment. So this bit is merely more rhetorical and histrionic effort at manipulation.


      But it does reveal the cartoonish mentation: JR looks at people as ‘classes’, i.e. the class of ‘victims’, the class of ‘child-raped’ persons, the class of “former Catholic children” (correction supplied). How charmingly Marxist. But then again, Victimism would be nowhere without the agitprop it appropriated from the fascists, and the Communists before them.


      He then lectures us in truisms: it is, he declares, “illegal to falsely accuse people” and to “gain financially through fraud”. So very true. Why would he even bother to raise such obvious points?


      Because there  is a method in the madness: the truisms give him a lead-in to retreat back to his abyssally faulty ‘logic’: if there are so many fraudsters, why haven’t they been exposed?


      To which I would reply: The very high probability of their existence has already been demonstrated / the Stampede was specifically designed to take advantage of the Victimist dogma that one cannot re-victimize ‘victims’ by questioning them or by investigating them for fraud / the long-established tortie strategy for burnishing claims in order to get money from lawsuits is well-established and functioning in a number of other venues such as asbestos and tobacco / there is now an increasing push-back from academics and professionals because of the skewed presumptions of Victimist legal initiatives (e.g. the 30 or so Harvard Law School faculty who wrote an open letter last year decrying the fundamentally un-Constitutional nature of that University’s attempted sex-abuse adjudication agenda) / from what we have been able to examine here, we have seen a great deal of material that emits the whiff of fraudulence in one way and another/ once the Victimist tide has receded sufficiently, then there will be more public tolerance of such investigations.


      To which I would also add the dog that isn’t barking here: out of all those thousands who got checks for their allegations and claims, only a tiny few (as JR noted here recently) have dared come back into the public forum.


      The paragraph then appears to trip over itself in attempting a victory-lap of ‘logic’: any reader who can suss out the sense of it is welcome to share it here and I’ll be happy to address it. But it makes a stab on a level of subtlety that is not JR’s, so perhaps he failed to take accurate notes or else his muse here is also deficient in the sense-making department.


      But I can at least take a partial stab at it: it is precisely “the system”, as I have always said, that has been deranged by Victimism such that it is presently considered hugely Not-Correct to hold ‘victims’ accountable for their own lack of veracity. Thus Brawley and the Duke Lacrosse accuser and the U/VA accuser are demonstrated frauds yet were never judicially sanctioned.


      Meanwhile, the best that can be done with the second half of the paragraph is to recall the proverbial madman’s insistence that his finger-snapping in Manhattan is what keeps elephants from roaming the streets and the ‘proof’ of that is that there are no elephants roaming the streets of Manhattan. Which the madman considers a triumph of logic and proof. And so on.

  21. Jim Robertson says:

    Regarding my manners. i start out hail fellow well met. It takes a lot of nastiness from you to change that outlook of mine. I now return in kind every insult and degradation you offer. You have never once behaved that way (Hail fellow, well met) NOT EVEN ONCE to anyone who has posted as a victim here. Have you/ And the readership is to believe that you're the real christian?

    You are just the judge who refuses to be judged. That's impossible, I'm afraid.

    After all, jesus didn't say it was a choice he just said the judger would be judged. it's like automatic.

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    Maybe David Pierre can show me how I can get spell check to work for me at TMR. I don't think I could have turned it off myself. I might have. I'm willing to learn how to solve my lack of spell check problem. Thanks.

    • Publion says:

      On the 15th at 912PM we simply get an indicator that JR also (allegedly) can’t spell “loss” (as well as “flag”, as we saw in a recent comment).


      On the 15th at 911PM JR will address the issue of his “manners”. One’s first impulse might be to imagine ‘this might be good’, but that would be premature indeed. All we get – and again – is JR’s effort to now claim that he is the very soul of propriety and “manners” (which already contradicts his image as maturely scatological and truthy truth-teller standing up to … (fill in the blank)).


      But – doncha see? – when confronted with the outrageous disrespect and diatribes and attacks and smears and being-made-to-look-bad that has been his lot here … well, he is simply overcome with juvenile scatological epithetical impulses which he simply cannot control but which, to his satisfaction anyway, are so very totally justified and good and righteous. Otherwise, though, he is the very soul of propriety, maturity, and manners – and clear thought as well.


      And readers are welcome to go back in the site archive to the very beginning of my commenting here to see just how far from veracity JR’s characterizations of his early (and allegedly fundamental) niceness really are. And they can, if so inclined, peruse the internet for samples of JR’s performance on other sites over the course of years (or did we really think he has been banned from most major sites simply because he is the ‘only true progressive’ and the only ‘truthy truth-teller’?).


      Readers may well wonder: if one were sitting on a jury, and confronted with this type of performance … what might one think?


      I have never put myself before the readership as “a real Christian” (correction supplied), whatever that may mean. Once again, JR creates material in order to have something to toss plop at.


      And in regard to the second paragraph: I have never put myself forward as a “judge” and most of my analysis results in questions (which are rarely answered substantively). And – as I have often said before – by commenting here I, like everyone else, make myself open to being “judged” by readers and commenters. Indeed, is that not precisely what so irritates the Abuseniks about this site?


      The trouble is that Abuseniks operate on the presumption that by quickly donning the mantle of ‘Victimhood’ they have made themselves somehow magically immune from being assessed, analyzed, and examined – while simultaneously they demand to be believed without hesitation or doubt or delay.


      And – to quote JR – “that’s impossible, I’m afraid”.


      And in the third paragraph – have you been waittttttttttting forrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttttt? – JR will lecture on “jesus” (sic), providing a bumpy and lumpy interpretation of a Gospel pericope. But if epithet is – as it indeed is – a form of ‘judging’, then where oh where does that leave JR? It’s a good thing he doesn’t really believe in “jesus”. As if that makes any difference to the actualities and Reality involved.


      On, then, to the 16th at 1213PM:


      JR will now try making an implicit excuse for himself rather than an overt one: perhaps DP can show him how to get spell-check to work for him on the site. The site does not have a spell-check function; the ISP apparently presumes that commenters already know how to spell (and grammatize). I would suggest a more workable solution: JR needs to dust off those skills in language that got him so rapidly promoted as a process-supervisor of vital documents during his two-year hitch in the Army. Would that not be the very thing?


      Or perhaps he could share with the readership the name of his word-processing system, and some sufficiently tech-savvy reader could offer some suggestion. But truly, as he says, it is highly unlikely that one can inadvertently turn off any modern word-processing program’s spell-check function. It would indicate misspelled words with a squiggly red underline or some such visual alert-cue. Perhaps he has noticed such cues from time to time. 

  23. Publion says:

    The JR comments, as one scrolls down the site-page, don’t come in chronological order and I’ll follow the order in which they appear.

    Moving right along.

    On the 15th at 918PM we are given merely JR’s take on how Jason Berry (long-time noted author of books of a pro-Stampede nature and most recently co-producer of the Al-Jazeera (et al.) documentary on the Church, “Holy Money”) “looked at victims” at the 2008 SNAP convention. According to JR Berry “sniggered at them/us”. Readers may judge this bit as they will; nor can we rule out a-priori the possibility that Berry looked at JR and “sniggered”.

    And nobody here to my knowledge – and certainly not me – has ever declared Berry to be ‘pro-victim’. I have said he is pro-Stampede and therefore mostly pro-SNAP, but that is not at all the same thing (except in JR’s Cartoon construction of things).

    “Why”, JR asks, “has he never interviewed any victims who have real questions about SNAP’s behavior towards victims?” (scare-caps omitted, correction supplied). This might well mean: Why has he never bothered to interview JR for his books? Be that as it may, this paragraph merely goes to demonstrating that SNAP is not ‘pro-victims’ – and that’s as it should be if SNAP is a front organization for the torties, who saw in ‘victims’ only ‘prospective clients’ and prospective sources of income for themselves. (Although, again, it appears that many allegants were more than happy to be thus assessed as long as they got their check, which perhaps was the object of their efforts in the first place.)

    “Who’s paying” Berry? Another innuendo question from the Abuseniks. Berry probably makes more than enough from his books, lectures, and other writing projects. Why would the Church pay him though? To help him help the Stampede and run the costs up over 3 billion dollars?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      No, simple one, to keep the costs to the church DOWN to $3 billion dollars. 

      There are only 5 "authorities " that ever appear in any documentary on the sex abuse subject regarding the churh. Blaine, Clohessy; Anderson; Doyle and Berry. That's right 5 "authorities" The same 5 for 30 + years. Why do you defend them so, as being what they pretend to be? One or more of those 5 have appeared in every film made on the subject more or less for 30 years. Not the reporters from the Boston Globe nor any other individual victim has ever been considered an authority.But Those 5 have appeared all over the world as THE authorities on catholic sex abuse. Their appointees on the local level are the only recognized voices for victims. Quite the miracle wouldn't you say?

  24. Publion says:

    On then to the 15th at 844PM:

    I still don’t see the relevance of the age-differential between the SNAP leadership and the (apparently mostly older) ‘victims’. What would the point be in this bit?

    On then to the 15th at 854PM:

    In the first sentence, JR again slyly tries to glom on something that was not the issue under consideration: I didn’t say that the “media world” “doesn’t think child rape to be wrong”. I pointed out, as always, that b) we don’t have that many allegations of actual child-rape and a) we don’t have evidence that the alleged child-rapes actually happened. To the Abusenik mind this is a minor point, but I would say it is a rather major point and is indeed fundamental to the legitimacy of the whole Matter.

    In the second sentence another sly bit: JR refers to “being raped as children” as if it were a demonstrated fact, which it is not. And – as I have observed previously – there is a difference between a “child” and a ‘minor’ in the sense that a ‘minor’ – though legally eligible under statutory-rape statutes – might be a legal ‘child’ on Monday and a weapons-bearing member of the military on Tuesday. That’s an inconvenient reality (to Abuseniks, anyway) but there it is.

    But the sentence continues with a crystalline example of JR’s cartoon mimicry of logic: Since a) “we were raped as children” and b) “the entire world media thinks child rape’s wrong” (so do I, while we’re on the subject), then c) (I am supposed to hold that) child-rape claimants are “all lying”. That illogical bit of plop-tossing does not accurately portray my position at all, and JR can put up accurate quotations from me in rebuttal if he has any. Otherwise his ‘logic’ fails here on its own terms, and also fails as purporting to be my position.

    But since he has raised the topic I would say this: since i) “the entire world media thinks child rape’s wrong”, and since ii) the Stampede has made it both lucrative and easy to claim ‘child-rape’, especially if it happened so long ago that any evidence might well have evaporated or died and if there is almost zero chance of being held accountable for lies told to burnish the story to get the cash, then iii) one cannot but conclude the possibility – if not also the probability – that “lying” is something that has to be considered, requiring then a careful analysis of allegations, stories, and claims. And that’s what I have been doing.

    Thus, JR’s comment here “makes no sense” – although this may come as a surprise to him. And who can be surprised at that?

    In the third paragraph, as if the topic has not ever been discussed and explained at length here, JR plaints about the meaning and existence of “Victimism”. Which he so very slyly defines as being merely “a belief in victims whether we/they are lying or not”.

    Readers may consider the profound and yet vividly obvious illogic that is revealed in that bit: a Victimist will entertain “a belief in victims” and will do so “whether we/they are lying or not”. There you have it.

    Just how any rational person is supposed to be believe in some class of persons “whether they are lying or not” is something I leave to the readership to consider.

    But my definition of Victimism – to repeat yet again – goes far beyond JR’s cheerible illogic.

    I would define Victimism as a presumptive predisposition to valorize anyone or any class of persons / who claim (without corroborative or demonstrative evidence) that they were ‘victimized’ / with the definition of being ‘victimized’ purposely left vague and plastic / and the presumptive predisposition to presume that the accuser-victim is always to be believed / while also that the accused is always to be considered guilty / regardless of the lack of existence of the aforesaid evidence / and that any laws or legal principles that impede or obstruct the swift punishment of the presumed-guilty accused or that work in any way to induce or permit doubt and questioning of the accuser-victim are ‘ipso facto’ bad laws and must be ‘reformed’ and can be ignored if necessary / because the outrage of victimization of any kind and however defined is so very great that no laws or traditions or legal principles can be allowed to get in the way of Victimism and the victim / and anyone who thinks otherwise is equally as evil and guilty as the actual presumed-guilty accused and deserves no consideration whatsoever.

    The fourth sentence is nonsensical as written.

    The fifth sentence demands “a factual example of such a person”, but – as always – JR has lost track of the reference: which “such a person” am I to give “a factual example of”? A ‘victim’? Some somebody who ever told me “to believe a liar”? Some somebody who didn’t tell me to do that?

    (And thus – getting ahead of things here – we see the vital value and necessity of proper spelling and grammar not only for effective communication, but also because in training oneself to write according to those rules, one also trains the mind to t-h-i-n-k according to rules (of rationality and coherence).)

    Ditto the sixth sentence, where JR asks “what facts are too specific for you?”: to what is he referring in my comments? Or perhaps this is simply a stab at snarky epithet that lost any connection to the issues under discussion.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Of course you don't see the relevance of the age difference between SNAP leadership and the age of the majority of victims. The odds of so many young, photogenic (more or less) leaders occurring naturally has to be 100,000 to one. And so many young women compared to the 80% of all the victims being male. More miracles than Lourdes. You are a fool.

    • Publion says:

      Then on the 16th at 714PM JR takes umbrage that nobody had read his mind about the ‘youth of SNAP honchos’; but – happily, I would say – this moves him for once to actually explain a point he has asserted.

      Apparently one of his SNAP 3x5s has to do with the fact that the SNAP leadership are all relatively young, female, and photogenic (one might also imagine ‘coherent’ and – within the parameters of the SNAP business model – ‘rational’), while (if we rely on JR’s description) the majority of SNAP’s adherents are male and old (the allegations, we recall, are best if the go a long long way back).

      Why would this be, JR wonders. He decides that it (somehow) proves that SNAP is i) a scam and ii) run by the Church. But it’s just PR 101: if you have a front organization and that organization’s leadership is going to be doing a lot of PR work with the media, then you want to have photogenic types.

      Are the spokepersons not really reflective of the membership they represent? So what? From the torties’ point of view the point is irrelevant since all the torties need and want is a nice burnished image to present to the public.

      And – it apparently has to be added – you most certainly don’t want people in front of the cameras who would most likely, as the Victorians put it so gently, ‘scare the horses’. Scatological outbursts, name-calling and epithet, a clear working unfamiliarity with logic and rationality … people, say, who would so easily toss-off “you are a fool” and consider it a good day’s work.

      And, as if on cue, JR proffers further pitch-perfect evidence on that very point on the 16th at 707PM, and readers may do with it what they will.

  25. Jim Robertson says:

    You are the lowest form of human life. Beneath contempt. You are the nastiest excuse for a human being I've ever seen. You are the antidote to Jesus. With you it's doubt your neighbor no matter what.  Over all, P,you suck. Keep up the bad work. You are the devil.

    • Publion says:

      On the 15th at 702PM we again get another element in JR’s ‘logic’ as to his cartoon about the Church being the puppet-master of SNAP. In order to somehow get around the fact that SNAP has helped cost the Church 3 billion or so dollars, JR says that the Church set up SNAP to “keep the costs down”, and thus that if it weren’t for SNAP the financial costs of the Stampede would have been far more than 3 billion.

      But for that to a) make any sense and b) be true then we’d have to have seen shoals of allegants making it to the torties on their own, while SNAP worked heroically to talk allegants out of going to the torties (for which, then, the torties would have gratefully shared their swag by contributing to SNAP?).

      And we’d also have to have seen SNAP succeeding swimmingly (with all that alleged Church funding) such that Anderson wouldn’t have wanted to muck up his game by getting mixed up with SNAP and SNAP wouldn’t have wanted  (or needed) to muck up its game by getting mixed up with Anderson.

      But that’s not at all what we saw. Instead we saw that SNAP was going nowhere and Anderson was hobbled by legal and professional strictures that prevented torties from going out to entice and groom their own prospective clients.

      Now – with the media’s help – once the idea was settled in the public mind that you could go to a tortie and claim abuse in the long-ago and pretty much have a clear shot at a check, then at that point SNAP might not have so valuable and necessary for bringing in the clients; but SNAP still played other important roles such as functioning as the ‘voice of victims’ to keep tight control over the spin and make sure that it had a pro-Stampede sound-bite ready whenever the media came calling.

      The second paragraph of his comment is just a radar-echo of JR’s abiding annoyance that nobody considers him one of the “authorities” about SNAP and the Stampede (and we can consider as we may why that might be so).

      And we also get this cartoon bit about my ‘defending’ them. In what way have I ever done that (accurate quotations necessary)? They are poltroons as far as I am concerned.

      But – and this apparently has not occurred to JR – his own material offers nothing at all to support his pipedream of becoming the nation’s go-to guy on the Stampede and the Catholic Abuse Matter. Thus, the fact that he has not achieved that status is hardly attributable to a “miracle”.

  26. Jim Robertson says:

    Every time you isagree with my/ victims' SNAP experiences and analysis of my/ our SNAP experiences you defend SNAP as being what it pretends to be.

    This is not about my leadership abilities or my ego. It's about fraud.

    • Publion says:

      In today’s episode, JR will proffer the vividly ludicrous thesis that in disagreeing with i) “my/victims’ SNAP experiences” and – not the same thing at all – ii) “analysis of my/our SNAP experiences you defend SNAP as being what it pretends to be”.

      In response:

      In the first place, I don’t simply “disagree”; I explain as carefully and with as much length as required just why I disagree. So this isn’t merely a matter of he said/he said. Rather, I put forward reasoned positions and JR – following the Playbook (although it is also his natural mode of mentation as well) – simply asserts and claims and distracts with no sustained or rational explanation at all.

      In the second place, I credit (i) as best can be done on the basis of the source of the stories. And ‘questioning’ is not the same as ‘disagreeing’, except in JR’s personal and conveniently self-serving codebook/dictionary.

      In the third place, (ii) is not at all the same thing as (i): if the “experiences” are based on dubious sources then the “analysis” is grossly under-supported and flawed, nor has there ever been any convincing rebuttal to my critique of the Abusenik ‘conclusion’ that the Church is masterminding SNAP and always has.

      The assorted front-organizations – SNAP being the primary – are fronting for the torties and have never had the interests of ‘victims’ as their primary objective or concern.

      However, we also have to consider that for the vast majority of the allegants that was more than good enough for them as long as they got a check, and most of the 10-12,000 have indeed gotten checks.

      As to whatever other persons (gratuitously characterized as ‘victims’) might feel or think about SNAP, and whether or not there are indeed myriads of un-reported ‘victims’ still out there somewhere … those bits remain merely speculations, and rather self-serving ones as fomented by the Abuseniks.

      And in regard to his second paragraph/sentence:  a) I think that there is more than a bit of JR’s “ego” involved in this whole thing.

      And b) for our purposes here – again – the problem is not “fraud” but rather: who is perpetrating the “fraud”. As fronts for the torties, SNAP and related organizations may indeed be fraudulent in their self-representation, but that in no way whatsoever establishes that it is the Church, rather than the torties, for whom SNAP and related organizations are fronting. And that’s the key problem here.

      And JR’s shoebox clearly has no material that can substantively address that problem by establishing with credibly high probability that the Church is masterminding the Stampede.

  27. Jim Robertson says:

    I say it's the SNAP's the church,because it is the church.

    Why else would fr. Tom Doyle O.P. suggest "secret committees" be formed by the church in his initial and major paper on priest sex abuse of children to the U.S. bishops?

    Why else would he say to the bishops that if the creation  of such "commitees" were to be found out that the church "would have a bigger scandal " than it allready had?

    SNAP and VOTF are those "committees" come to life.

    And (this should piss u off) they are what I say they are; simply because I say they are. Take an honest man's word for it.

    Here's the even lower figures of settlement SNAP has "helped" victims get world wide. Even lowere than I thought. Your church sucks.


    • Publion says:

      And in the current episode, JR (and muse) will try to mimic better format and style. Let’s see if the content is also susceptible to the mimicry.

      On the 24th at 1101:

      In the first paragraph, we merely get not only a repetition – yet again – of his assertion about SNAP being masterminded by the Church but also about SNAP actually being the Church. Although – in that vivid and familiar giveaway – the actual grammar of the sentence goes awry, always a sign with JR that there’s something not quite working in the assertion itself. But if we correct for the grammar, we get ‘SNAP is the Church because it is the Church’, or – put a tad more abstractly – ‘A equals A’.  Such logic.

      In the second paragraph, we merely get a repetition – yet again – about Doyle’s alleged suggestion (in his 1985 Report/Proposal) for the formation of “secret committees”, although the term does not appear in the text of that document at all. So the bit in the second paragraph fails because Doyle did not suggest the formation of “secret committees” in that document.

      In the third paragraph, Doyle is alleged to have said that the formation of the alleged “secret committees” would create “a bigger scandal” than the Church “already had”. Even if this were true – and JR gives us no text reference – yet in 1985 the Stampede had not yet gotten underway in its mature form (i.e. Anderson-plus-SNAP and a steady media connection) and the Church did not at that point thirty years ago have a “scandal” as was later fomented by the elements of the Stampede.

      However, since – when this topic was covered at great length quite some time ago here – I pointed out the various elements in his document that indicated that Doyle was indeed trying to shoehorn an employment  proposal for himself and his associates, then Doyle may well have been following the usual ‘proposal’ template of intensifying the ‘problem’ in order to justify the granting of his proposal.

      But it is certainly a possibility as well that Doyle’s lawyer associate saw clearly how the long-established tortie template for suing corporations for damages could be applied to the Church (which is precisely what did happen). And Doyle’s psychologist associate may well have seen clearly how the tide of Victimism was rising and thus – psychologically as well as legally – might be deployed against the Church (which is precisely what did happen).

      Doyle and his team, then, foresaw how developments in their respective areas of professional expertise could be combined into a perfect storm against the Church. And Doyle then used their insights to see if he could create a position for himself and his associates as the Bishops’ (well-funded) go-to experts.

      Regardless of what this or that Bishop may have personally thought of Doyle and his proposal, it was – I would say – very regrettable that the Bishops did not take the Doyle-team’s concerns more seriously.

      But then we come to the fourth paragraph, where we are informed by JR that “SNAP and VOTF are those ’committees’ come to life”.  Which fails rather spectacularly as an explanation since those “committees” – as JR himself had just said in a prior paragraph – were to have been “secret committees”, and neither SNAP nor VOTF nor B-A nor any other such organizations could by any stretch of the imagination be seen as “secret” groups. Indeed, just the opposite: they quickly sought as much media exposure to the public as they could get. And none of that publicity was favorable to the Church.

      Thus then to the sixth paragraph, where JR merely asserts and insists and declares that those organizations therefore “are what [he says] they are, simply because [he says] they are”.

      But clearly he has not established that they are and indeed the material he has proffered here has done little to improve the credibility of his theorization.

      And the paragraph concludes with a statement that for a moment I had to presume was deliberate self-parody, until I reminded myself that JR doesn’t do self-parody, at least not deliberately: we can “take an honest man’s word for it”. Readers may consider that triumphant honk as they will.

      As for the link he provided (without much explication): we note that its title indicates that after all this time the Irish version of the Abuse Matter has produced even less than the Dutch version (which at least – after a long while – produced a Report, although its full text has not to my knowledge been issued in English or any other language other than Dutch).

      And we also have discussed how the Australian government has placed a cap of sixty-thousand or so (in Australian currency) on any payouts for Catholic Abuse claims lodged through lawsuits. This may reflect nothing more than that government’s refusal to allow the tortie-fueled Stampede to start up in that country (because if it weren’t for the payout-aspect, coupled with a Victimist-provided near-immunity from serious examination of the claims, then the Stampede could never have and would never have gone as ‘viral’ as it did in the U.S.). Nor have the Dutch or Irish governments shown any strong proclivity to start up a Stampede in their jurisdictions.

      Thus JR’s concluding signature juvenile rant bit fails as well.

  28. Jim Robertson says:

    Sorry there's an extra "the" in my first sentence above.

  29. Jim Robertson says:

    P, you talking about "my" ego is a laugh riot.

    First, if I'm so wrong in what I'm saying about SNAP, why am I saying it?  I have my settlement. What good does it do me to keep telling the truth of SNAP here? What harm does it do SNAP here at TMR for me to put in the work I post here? I could be written off as a nut case but you've read me long enough to know that is not completely true. The readers can decipher the difference between disagreement and lunacy. (even if P can't)

    Secondly: SNAP's overall control of the victims' movement has done what good for victims? Show me what "benefits" SNAP has brought to victims,please. You can not.

    Therefore: Why should a victims' group that does no good and in fact harms victims, why it should be speaking "for" victims?

    Jeff Anderson doesn't need victims to have press conferences that he's not at. If he wants a press event he can easily have one. He doesn't need SNAP for that.

    He needs SNAP for victims names as possible clients and that's it. That's why he kisses SNAP's ass. And all SNAP does is have press events that simple re-enforce SNAP's representation of victims to the public (and inclusively there by, to victims) that SNAP is liked and good for victims. Which Is complete nonsense particularly when you have victims telling you, victims who've never even met each other. It's complete nonsense that SNAP cares for anybody but itself. So very much like P.

    • Publion says:

      On then to the 24th at 1125AM:

      In the first paragraph, we are given nothing but an epithetical assertion that JR’s “ego” is not involved in any way in any of all this. (Although I did not use the term; it was JR (the 22nd, 1107AM) who actually used the term – so what we see here is merely JR creating more material that is more convenient for him than facing my actual commentary material.)

      However, since JR has raised the point: I would say that it is far more than mere “ego” that is involved. JR has classified anyone and everyone who doesn’t buy his line as being ‘ipso facto’ in cahoots with the all-controlling Church (and that list get longer as time goes on, as we have seen). So to characterize his motivation as mere “ego” would be minimization to the extent of substantial inaccuracy.

      Thus then, moving further down this road, in the second paragraph, JR asks why would he bother to keep on saying what he says about SNAP (and the Church and so on). My answer to that question remains as I stated it in prior comments on this thread: he is rather fixatedly convinced that he, and very very few others, should be the go-to ‘voice’ of ‘victims’ and anyone who disagrees better get ready to be seriously plop-tossed.

      Nor does he refine or reconsider his “work” in the face of significant problems with his material and his theorizations and characterizations. He simply repeats his stuff.

      The second paragraph continues: Why does JR post here and what harm can it do to SNAP? This site is one of the very few of its kind on the Web, and provides thereby a unique opportunity. But also: this site is one of the few remaining sites that still allows him to post; sites with larger reach no longer permit him to comment (and his explanation – in, for example, the case of NC Reporter – is that such sites are not ‘truly progressive’ as he is).

      But then but then but then: the second paragraph continues with a truly sly bit of whackness: noting that he “could be written off as a nut case”, yet – addressing me apparently, but perhaps the entire readership – he then instantly rejects that possibility by – have you been waittttttttting forrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – trying to manipulate me (or the readership) into agreeing that I/we “have read [him] long enough to know that is not completely true”. Thus, that I/we know that it is “not completely true” that he is “a nut case”.

      Speaking only for myself here, I will say that to characterize anybody as a ‘total’ “nut case” would be invariably inaccurate. But beyond that, I would say that he has been far too generous to himself here in characterizing my assessment of his material.

      I do firmly believe that the readership here “can decipher the difference between disagreement and lunacy”. Which is why I always leave it up to them to judge.

      And then – had you been waitttttttting forrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttt? – his inveterate urge towards epithetical whackness gets the better of him: while he has just sought to imply that not even I consider him “a nut case”, he now has to get in a dig to the effect that I cannot distinguish between “disagreement and lunacy”. I rather think I can make that distinction, and stand by my assessments of his various proffers.

      The third paragraph merely brings us back to a point that is not at issue and that I have never made: SNAP’s failure to serve ‘victims’ well is not at all in doubt here (and thus the fact that I “can not” show how SNAP has well-served ‘victims’ fails on its own terms here). But the actual problem or question at issue is whether the Church controls SNAP, and JR has provided nothing to credibly demonstrate either the fact or the high-probability that the Church controls SNAP and other such organizations.

      Thus too then the fourth paragraph fails because nobody here is trying to defend SNAP as serving ‘victims’ well. JR is preaching to the choir here.

      And, of course, there remains the question: if SNAP shouldn’t be speaking for ‘victims’ (nor Doyle nor Berry nor D’Antonio nor Anderson nor much of the media nor (fill in the blank)), then who s-h-o-u-l-d be speaking for ‘victims’? And readers may fill in that blank as they see fit.

      On then to the fourth paragraph where JR rather conveniently forgets why the torties needed SNAP and other such front organizations: because the torties are prohibited by professional standards and by law from going out to drum-up and groom victims. And because if the torties even tried to deploy that familiar type of TV commercial where this or that type of tortie seeks to inveigle prospective clients to call the 800-number, then the Stampede would be far too obviously revealed for what in great part it is and always has been: the old tortie game of ‘ambulance-chasing’.

      On then to the sixth paragraph where JR breezes cheeribly over the hugely vital point that the torties most surely and definitely do need SNAP and such front organizations in order to get “victims names as possible clients” (sic). And there is no dismissive “that’s it” about it: this is the key and fundamental point and purpose of the front organizations, supported then by an ongoing PR presence by those organizations as the dedicated, stalwart, sad-eyed  ‘helping’ groups whom – slyly – the torties are themselves merely helping to help the victims’.

      And at the end of it all here, nothing more that in any way establishes the Church as the controller of SNAP (or of the torties or of anybody else).

      Instead, we get merely another epithet.

  30. Jim Robertson says:

    Should be a period after complete nonsense in my last post and then It's complete nonsense should be repeated as the opening to my last sentence. Not quite awake yet, here,sorry.

  31. Jim Robertson says:

    Wouldn't you think, that if SNAP really worked for victims, SNAP would be loved by victims? If the tort lawyers, all officers of the court by the way, were the "brains" behind SNAP why would they need to support a group that victims, save for a very few, hate?  Don't you think the lawyers would want  a friendly supportive front group to attract even more victims?

    If they were creating a front group why the need for that front group to be so arrogant and hostile towards the victims? The very people the tort lawyers would want a front group to attract.

    Why are democratic elections of leadership banned by SNAP? How does a dictatorship by SNAP help victims? Look at what I posted above about the little compensation SNAP has fought for victims to get in Australia; Ireland etc. If SNAP was only a tort lawyers' front group; why would they be so willing to settle for so little for their clients? You never hear SNAP demanding decent compensation for the people they feign to represent and "love" so? SNAP Australia lept at the first suggested offer on the very day of said offer. No bargaining. No fight.

    Does that sound like the behavior of a front group for tort lawyers?

    No it does not. What it sounds like, in it's hostility towards victims, is what SNAP really is: a false flagged black opp. created by the church corporate for the benefit of the church corporate.

    Why would I, personally be here trying to get the truth about the fr. Doyle O.P.'s "Project"  and it's manifestation,SNAP, out? What's in it for me? I only want fair compensation for the real victims of your church, your own raped children.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Tort lawyers can advertise for clients. They don't need SNAP to do that. SNAP's there to make victims and the public think that victims are "cared for"; that decent people are fighting for their needs,that SNAP is the place of saftey victims so desperately need. The exact opposite of what victims find, dealing with SNAP.

    • Publion says:

      On the 26th at 1106AM, we get – as if the subject hadn’t just recently been disposed of – JR’s continued tossing up of his 3x5s about SNAP not “working for victims”. For the umpteenth time even on this thread: nobody that I have ever seen comment here actually thinks that SNAP does “work for victims”. In regard to the material that has appeared on this site, this is a non-issue. But it’s all JR has in the shoebox, so up it must go.

      But then a new bit appears: why would torties “need to support a group that victims, save for a very few, hate?”.

      First of all: we really don’t know how many ‘victims’ do or do not “hate” SNAP and here all we have for corroboration or support is JR”s own assertion. So readers can judge as they will. As perhaps the torties – being “brains” – might already have done quite a while ago and why SNAP derives donations from them.

      Second: we note that telltale deployment of the archaic “save for” usage (used here in the archaic sense of ‘except for’).

      Third: we have no way of knowing if SNAP – functioning as the torties’ go-to front group – actually is “arrogant and hostile towards victims”. Again, all that we have to go on for this bit is JR’s own manipulative rhetorical insinuation here. And for all we know, SNAP – perhaps after realizing what they were dealing with – merely became dismissive and “arrogant” towards JR, who here mistakes himself for the entire universe of victimhood or at least presents himself as being that universe’s great Tribune.

      Fourth (and here we are once again getting into a repetition – yet again – of all of JR’s Against-SNAP 3x5s that we have seen before): no front organization is going to want to lose control of its message-discipline by holding “democratic elections”, especially if such “democratic elections” might provide a platform for persons who will somehow give the game away and perhaps even ‘scare the horses’. And if SNAP and the torties accurately read their demographic here, then many ‘victims’ might very well have signed on for the payout and are/were not interested in “democratic elections” in the first place.

      Once again, then, what we are seeing here may simply be a radar-echo of JR’s abiding irritation that neither SNAP nor the torties figured his was a ‘voice’ or vision that they needed to associate themselves with (a decision apparently reached, independently, by a number of sites on the Web).

      The rest of the third paragraph simply takes us down memory-lane again with a re-hash of some of JR’s favorite 3x5s in regard to SNAP and it is what it is.

      And thus, in regard to his question that constitutes the fourth paragraph: Yes, it all very much does “sound like the behavior of a front group for tort lawyers”. The objective is i) to bring in prospective clients (who themselves may very well be looking for a payout) and ii) to do so under the cover of a group whose public ‘face’ is that of a victim-helping group (and not simply a funnel to do the dirty-work that ambulance chasing torties can’t risk doing for themselves) that also iii) provides a ready go-to source of Stampede-friendly spin whenever the media come calling.

      Thus then JR’s effort in the fifth paragraph to manipulate our response (i.e. “No it does not.”) fails, as does his further effort at manipulation through the mere assertion that “what it sounds like” is “hostility to victims”. Which “hostility” also may be in the mix here, but does not at all detract from the objectives I enumerated immediately above (and also does nothing to demonstrate the Church’s masterminding of the whole thing).

      Then in the sixth paragraph, more repetitive bits about why JR might “personally be here trying to get the truth about” the Doyle 1985 Project (as outlined in his Report/Proposal of that year).

      First of all: JR has not really shown much interest in getting “the truth about” it, since – among other things – he has repeatedly proffered bits that are not supported by the text of the Report/Proposal.

      Second: what JR has really trying to do here is simply to insinuate and manipulate in order to present his personally-preferred spin as “the truth”, with very little evidence or rationally coherent theorizing to support the credibility of his preferred spin.

      And since he has asked (“What’s in it for me?”) I will venture, yet again, a possible (or probable) answer: what’s in it for him (his own check having been safely cashed) is the psychological and emotional gratification provided by the status (such as it may be) provided by the consoling vision of himself as being a truthy and spunky truth-teller and Tribune of Victims, especially as that consoling vision of himself would work to distract even his own mind from other, far less congenial, explanations for his present position and condition.

      If my above hypothesis is accurate, then JR has a whole lot of skin in the game here and there is indeed very much “in it” for him.

      And the whole bit concludes, then, with a summary repetition of some of his favorite themes and bits: “fair compensation” (for alleged torts whose cause cannot be credibly proven or demonstrated) / for “the real victims” (whose genuineness cannot be credibly proven or demonstrated) / “of your church” (whose role in the alleged events cannot be credibly proven or demonstrated because the events themselves cannot be credibly proven or demonstrated) / in regard to “your own raped children” (which phrasing, on top of everything else problematic as noted above, demonstrates the inveterate Playbook reversion to rhetorical manipulation in order to distract from problematic questions).

  32. Jim Robertson says:

    Hey shit for brains, I don't want to represent victims myself. I'd rather be spending my time doing theatre. I was elected "SNAP" leader by L.A. victims; and because that election was over ruled by SNAP, I do attempt to live up to those who voted for me. But i would gladly follow anyone who truely cared for victims.

    Have you seen anyone that really cares for victims? I haven't.

    You can pretend this is an ego trip on my part. (An ego trip that only gets me banned and attacked is not my idea of an ego trip. Some ego trip!)

      Aren't you on an ego trip of your own "saving" your hierarchs from the "Stampede"? When none have been even jailed for their crimes.

    • Publion says:

      On, then, to the 26th at 1125AM:

      The show opens – as almost always – with a juvenile and scatological epithet (intended, of course, to demonstrate the burly truth-telly creds of the mature and robust truth-teller).

      And this is bolstered by the Wig of Reluctant But Tasteful Heroism: JR would really – doncha know? – “rather be spending [his] time doing theater” … which, I have no doubt, is what he has been doing here all along (would they let him use so many of the Wigs in his collection in legitimate theater?).

      We are then given an odd bit: apparently, we are to believe, “the L.A. victims” elected JR “’SNAP’ leader”. Although that odd use of quotation marks around SNAP makes one wonder what actuality JR is trying to hide here. And would “the L.A. victims” actually be in a position to conduct a legitimate election for the leadership of the entire SNAP organization? And would SNAP actually have approved of such an election? And if not, then there is hardly anything suspicious about SNAP’s ‘over-ruling’ of that illegitimate election.

      Then JR nicely tries to soften the rather gritty edges of his self-presentation by assuring us that he “would gladly follow anyone who truly cared for victims” (correction supplied). Readers are advised not to postpone their next meal while waiting for the discovery – certified by JR – as to who on the planet might qualify for that position. Except  for  – tah dahhhhhhhhh! – himself.

      As he then immediately demonstrates with such nice clarity in the second paragraph.

      But then I would say that he has pretty much done my work for me here, when he then quickly raises the point about all of this being “an ego trip on [his] part”. I think the probability of precisely that characterization has been established vividly here, and by JR himself.

      And – since he has also raised the point – I would say that what has gotten him “banned and attacked” is not his purported good intentions but rather the content and style and tone and mentation evident in his comments. And – since he has constructed his own rigid and fixed and comprehensive explanatory system that enables him to a) ignore all of those problems and b) simply imagine himself as the world’s Tribune of Victims – then I would say that Yes, that’s quite an ego trip.

      And in all of that, the “pretend” element is not mine.

      And lastly, he then tries a variant of his signature I’m Not/You Are gambit: is it not I who am on an ego trip because I am “’saving’ hierarchs from the ‘Stampede’”?  I am not seeking to “save” anybody and the Stampede is demonstrably real enough not to permit of quotation marks. I am simply attempting to assess and expose an instance of ‘stampede’ that happens in this case to have been fomented against the Church (although I have given several examples  in recent history of other instances of the ‘stampede’ dynamic).

      But in best juvenile and revolutionary fashion, if I am not supporting the stampede, then I must be a) against the stampede-makers and b) for everything evil that the stampede-makers have claimed.

      And the bit concludes with another manipulative bit: we haven’t established the reality of the “crimes” that have been committed (and, I would add, it is precisely the purpose of any stampede to move people toward a presumption of the crime without the stampede-makers actually having to prove the crime.

  33. Jim Robertson says:

    I don't care what a sociopath "thinks" about me or what i do.

    If you, P, really wanted solutions; you would engage in a respectful dialog with victims; but you never have. Never once. You've attempted to smear every victim who's posted here and that's all you've done. It's in every post you've written here. You don't think the readership gets that about you? You're kidding yourself and only yourself. The rational see right through you.


    • Publion says:

      On then to the 26th at 1134AM:

      As he has in the past, JR now tries another familiar gambit: he doesn’t care (nor does he have to take into account, of course) what “a sociopath” “thinks” about him and what he does.

      No, he doesn’t. But so what? Because that’s not really the point. The assessment of his material remains for anyone and everyone to consider, and they can draw their conclusions as they may.

      And so far the only evidence of ‘sociopathy’ JR has proffered is that I don’t buy his stuff hook, line, and sinker. But if you don’t buy his stuff hook, line, and sinker then that is ‘ipso facto’ proof of being a “sociopath” … in the psychology text JR has composed for himself in his own head.

      And then, yet again, the sudden appearance of another old familiar gambit: If I “really wanted solutions” then I would “engage in a respectful dialog with victims”.

      To which I yet again respond:

      First, we can’t really get to “solutions” until we have established the true and actual parameters of the problem – which is something the Abuseniks most surely do not want to see done.

      Second, we have seen that JR’s definition of “respectful dialog” is nothing of the sort, and hasn’t been not only on this site but other sites where he once was allowed to comment. In his self-composed dictionary, “respectful” means buying all his stuff hook, line, and sinker, and “dialog” means agreeing with him.

      Thus then the Wig of Regretful Accuracy with the rhetorical (if not also vaguely histrionic) “Never once”.

      And thus then another old familiar gambit: to assess and demonstrate problems with allegations, assertions, theories, and material is merely to “smear”.

      And that bit is then continued with further riffing in the next sentences.

      Followed quickly, then, by another manipulative attempt to conflate his own preferred spin with the readership generally (“You don’t think the readership gets that about you?”) which phantasmagoric bit is then made to be the launch-platform for the further epithetical bit that I am “kidding” myself and “only” myself. And readers familiar with the marvelous dynamics of clinical projection may savor that bit as they may.

      And the while gooey bit then topped off with a howler of a cherry, to the effect that JR – here self-styled as “the rational” – do “see right through” me. And readers familiar with the marvelous dynamics of clinical projection may savor that bit as they may.

  34. Jim Robertson says:

    Think about it. $40,000 is the average victim compensation in Canada and in Australia it's $20,000. A far cry from California's average of $1.100,000 per victim. Snap testified here but the laws were right to fairly compensate. Jury award averages in CA were $3, 4, 5 million plus. That's why our settlements were the highest was my Canadian co victim or Australian less injured than us.

    Come on P tell me how a raped child's broken life is really only worth $20,000.

    • Publion says:

      On, then, to the 26th at 1152AM:

      As I had said, torties can nowadays “advertise for clients”. That was not always the case and in the beginning of the Stampede, now 3 decades ago, it would have seemed a risky thing for torties to do when they were going after the Church: the image of ambulance-chasers going after the Church was not in that era established as a normal occurrence in the public mind.

      And the special value of a front-organization such as SNAP was that it could quietly funnel prospective clients, while appearing to merely ‘help’ victims, thus creating the impression that the torties were not ambulance-chasing but merely helping SNAP to help ‘victims’. Thus feeding the impression that the torties were merely selflessly and heroically taking time out from their ‘business’ affairs to do what they could to help the ‘victims’ (much – it has to be noted – as JR claims to be doing). But, of course, as even JR has admitted, there was nothing ‘pro bono’ about it and the torties have amassed for themselves at least 30 percent (and probably more) of that almost 3 billion in settlement payouts.

      With that fundamental dynamic in place, then – of course – SNAP would want to do everything it could to burnish its (false) image as being primarily a helper of ‘victims’.

      And again, whether JR’s assertions about ‘victims’ is based on anything more than his own uncongenial experiences with SNAP is an open question indeed.

      On then to the 26th at 1236PM:

      As always, the gambit here is to start the play on base rather than with an at-bat: we really don’t know who is and isn’t a genuine victim, and therefore the whole matter of how much money is enough hangs in thin air with no foundational support.

      But – again – the Australian government (and perhaps others) have capped potential payout limits and I would imagine that their purpose in doing so is to avoid precisely the type of monster-Stampede or tortie feeding-frenzy dynamics that we have seen in the U.S.  It would be interesting and relevant to know if other countries regularly cap lawsuit payouts generally.

      Nor do we actually know nor has it often  been established that the alleged tort actually caused the alleged damage (indeed it is axiomatic in Victimist dogma and in the tortie lawsuit strategy that such direct causation analysis be avoided wherever possible). So the bits about who was more or “less injured” than whom also hangs in thin air with no foundation.

      And thus, then, also, the concluding question to me reveals itself to be nothing more than a launch-platform for the repetition of familiar scare-tropes: “raped child” and “broken life”. And, as always, very few actual raped-children figured in the allegations made even in the heyday of the Stampede.

  35. Jim Robertson says:

    Yawn! Allways talking about me in the 3rd person. Why confront when you can snipe and pretend you're "neutral"?

    I'm not neutral. I'm on the side of unrepresented and or mis-represented victims of your church's crimes.

    I'm not neutral when it comes to frauds and felonies that's why I'm against SNAP and Doyle and Berry. Know that I'd stake my life on that truth. That's how sure I am they're all frauds.