Falsely Accused Priest Finally Fights Back! Missouri Cleric Files Federal Lawsuit Against False Accusers, SNAP, and St. Louis Police

Lawsuit: Barbara Dorris SNAP : Rev. Joseph Jiang : David Clohessy SNAP

Rev. Joseph Jiang (c) punches back against the bullies at SNAP:
SNAP Outreach Director Barbara Dorris (l) and National Director David Clohessy (r)

Finally! A falsely accused priest has had enough and is not going to take it any more.

After being twice accused and cleared on wild charges of sex abuse, Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang has filed a federal lawsuit against his accusers, the lawyer-funded, anti-Catholic group SNAP, and members of the St. Louis police department for publicly accusing him of being a child molester.

Something rotten in Denmark

In both 2012 and 2014, Rev. Jiang was publicly accused of abuse charges which received wide media attention with SNAP breathlessly claiming that Jiang was a dangerous child molester on the prowl. Yet even at a glance the accusations against Jiang were clearly bogus.

In his lawsuit, Fr. Jiang sets forth a litany of facts which demonstrate just how crazy one accuser's claims were from the start:

  • The accuser's fourth-grade teacher has stated that it was "virtually impossible" that Fr. Jiang pulled the accuser "out of line" at school and abused him as claimed;
  • "The alleged victim had made previous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse";
  • "[The accuser's] fourth-grade teacher indicated that [the accuser] was a serial exaggerator to the point of being 'delusional'";
  • "[The accuser's] parents had a history of making unfounded claims against the Catholic Church for monetary gain";
  • "[The accuser] has never had any personal acquaintance with Fr. Joseph, and he could not identify Fr. Joseph's name when he made the allegation";
  • "[A parent of the accuser once] physically assaulted the principal of [a Catholic school] by choking him or her";
  • "The accusations were brought by a deeply troubled and unreliable 12-year-old boy at the suggestion of his abusive father."

As for his suit against SNAP, Jiang argues that the trial lawyer-funded group "conducted a defamatory smear campaign against Fr. Joseph throughout the case." SNAP published media statements which were "false and malicious" and "were extremely damaging to Fr. Joseph's reputation. They were calculated to inflame public opinion against Fr. Joseph, without any regard for the truth or the facts of the case."

The priest's suit also asserts that SNAP was involved with both the accusers and St. Louis police in a "conspiracy" against Fr. Jiang.

Indeed, one of Jiang's accusers who has filed a civil lawsuit against Fr. Jiang and the Church is represented by St. Louis trial lawyer Ken Chackes, who has previously admitted to donating money to SNAP and receiving client referrals from the group. (Not that this should be a surprise to anyone.)

Pot meets kettle

The irony in all of this is that while SNAP has for years claimed in the media that Church officials have never been held "accountable" for their handling of abusive priests in the past, it has been SNAP itself which has never been held accountable for its reckless statements against innocent priests, destroying lives and reputations without consequence.

We congratulate Fr. Jiang on his lawsuit, and we hope that a successful outcome will spur other falsely accused priests to fight back as well.


  1. Jim Robertson says:

    Can anyone imagine P as a child? You know happy? Fun? Playful? Joyful? Kind? Gentle? Instead of this ugly bitter; mean; rigid; judgemental twat that's been stationed at this sight.

    What he writes; how he writes is so UGLY. Well spelled but so ugly and vicious and his attempts at wit are, "WAAAAAIIIIITTTTTTTTTT FOOOOOOOR ITTTTTTTTTT", dull; repetative and booring. The exact opposite of wit. (The only other catholic spokes person I've seen be this nasty; ugly; mean; and stupid is Bill Donahue, the catholic League's fat mess.( And yes P is a catholic spokesperson here not one other catholic has offered a different position than P's here.)

    What is P here to do? Find truth? He doesn't care about truth only about the denial of the truth of what happened to us, the church's victims. With ZERO proof of any fraud. ZERO proof!

    He says "You have no witnesses therefor how can we believe you?"

    Fine don't. Don't believe us.

    I don't care what a dullard apologist for child rape thinks about anything. Thinking is not your strong point.( i swear my I.Q. drops every time I read a new post at TMR. Duh!)

    Has he,P, (He lives up to his initial) or any one here, looked at the hearings going on in Australia about institutional child abuse and the lies cardinal Pell's been caught in? These hearings have gone on for 2 years now. In the news, daily. I know i get google alerts every day on the subject from the australian media.

    Are we to believe that Australia's clerical and institutional sexual abuse of children is the exception to the church's behavior in the rest of the world?

    Can you show me any place where children haven't been set up for abuse by the church heirarchs? One city ,one country where protecting pedophile priests over catholic children, hasn't "miraculously" happened in this best of all possible faiths? You can't find one excemption.

    Is pope Frank going to do a tour of Australia soon? I doubt it. the Australians would be throwing rocks at the pope mobile.

    No Frank's coming to the U.S.A. because he needs to get MONEY. The U.S. is the biggest bankroll for the church and it ain't coming in like it used to.

    (You know Frank's calls against capitalism are only there to get the poor on the church's side by pretending that the church is on the poor's side. The one problem is the church is capitalism's bank. They have to be. they have all those centuries of wealth. What did they do with it all? The church is capitalism. They are the bully who takes a kid's own hand and hits him with it.

    The church's birth control "policies" create themasses of catholic poor. Look at the protestants and gay families too. No or fewer children makes more personal wealth. It's obvious. The church wants followers so it insists catholics make them and lots of them. (More children for the pedophiles.)

  2. Jim Robertson says:

    It's spelled darling, darling.

    • Publion says:

      As for the 22nd at 116PM, as JR trawls the bottom of the barrel in search of distracting come-backs: it would be pronounced ‘dahling’ by a certain type of character in a certain type of old movie, and remains quite apropos as far as I am concerned.

  3. Jim Robertson says:

    I went to Rome in the early 90's. I went to the vatican and st. what's his face had just left. (John 23.) For some reason I got behind the main altar the Swiss guards didn't notice me. and stood 4 ft. from the pope's throne under Bernini's bronze columns. The Swiss guards were very busy carrying out all the presents for the pope. Oil paintings and a huge Jeroboam of champagne. That was one afternoon; just imagine the wealth of millenia.

    And what do the rich do when they have lots of wealth? Why they open banks and Insurance companies. Are we to believe the church hasn't done what every other group of rich people have done? And you are whining about $1.5 billion paid to the tiniest percentage of your victims? While you spend untold tens of millions fighting having to pay any of your injured at all.

    Can we forget the attempt to block suits in Delaware or Rhode Island claiming the church could not be sued due to seperation of church and state.

    • Publion says:

      On the 22nd at 1041PM we are informed that JR had gone to Rome and the Vatican in the early 1990s, and “John 23 … had just left”. Readers are welcome to make of this what they will, in terms of accuracy and credibility.

      And we are given another story, this time about how JR managed to have a little adventure behind “the main altar” (of St. Peter’s, no less) and just a few feet from the Papal throne, where – marvelously, of course – “for some reason the Swiss guards didn’t notice me”. And it goes on from there: the Vatican, we are to believe, hides or stores paintings and “presents for the pope there” (sic), including – had you been waittttttting forrrr itttttt? – big bottles of champagne. Readers may make of it all what they will. There are, no doubt, precincts of the internet this sort of thing is taken for serious material.

      JR asks what we might imagine from this little recitation of his. As well he might.

      And if – for the moment accepting the story as true – after a Papal audience there are a number of gifts for the Pope brought by various people, are we to imagine that valuable oil paintings are part of that pile of gifts? And what about candy bars, little toys, home-made paintings or mementoes, and such items? I would imagine there are more of those than – as the Cartoon here would have it – valuable items more accurately imagined to be presented by visiting heads of state at formal receptions during formal state visits.

      And the rest continues the current favorite-riff about Church wealth and so on.

      But there is a method in this clear madness: while the Church has all this wealth (and champagne, apparently) yet “your victims” and “your injured” can’t get any of it easily at all. And we have been through all of this before: to pay compensation for a tort, one first has to establish the actuality of a) the perpetration of the tort, b) the responsibility of a demonstrated perpetrator, and c) the direct line of causation between the alleged tortious act and the alleged damage.

    • Publion says:

      On then to the 22nd at 1223PM, where the smoke-laying revs into overdrive (to mask the fact that we haven’t gotten, and most likely aren’t going to be getting, any of those “clinical studies” that JR has assured us exist).

      In the first paragraph, JR will pump out a fantasy as to me as a child. And that bit of his irrelevant personal fantasizing merely serves to ground a further extended epithetical riff on my being an “ugly bitter; mean; rigid; judgemental twat that’s been stationed at this sight” (sic; especially in regard to “sight” instead of ‘site’).

      Inquiring further into Abusenik claims, stories, assertions and allegations simply proves – to the Abusenik self-serving cartoon mentality – that the inquirer is all those nasty things. Might we imagine a performance like this on the stand under adversarial examination? Again, the tortie shrewdness in going for settlements rather than trials is demonstrated to a nicety.

      And – yet again – this bit about my being “stationed at this site” (correction supplied): this bit – doncha see? – proves (to the Abusenik self-serving cartoon mentality) that Abuseniks are merely simple and honest and innocent and truthy truth-tellers, who are being made to look bad by professional naysayers who have been sent for no other purpose than to make them look bad. Neat.

      The second paragraph will then continue various epithetical riffs (with, as always, no examples or demonstration or explication): my material is “ugly” (scare-caps omitted) and “vicious” and (with the Wig of Exasperated Intellectual Competence and Integrity) “dull” and “repetitive” (correction supplied) and – as so often – “boring”. Ah well: ideas will have that effect on some types of mentality. Not my problem.

      And somehow Bill Donahue is dragooned in here (with more epithetical opportunities taken).

      And the paragraph concludes with the utterly illogical conclusion that since “not one other catholic has offered a different position than P’s here” (sic) then I am “a catholic spokesperson”. I am a Catholic and I do speak (or write, actually) … but to then put the mere words together to come up with “catholic spokesperson” is nothing more than JR’s usual rhetorical block-playing.

      The third paragraph continues with the riff, this time going for JR’s signature innuendo bits: What am I here to do? As I have said before: I am here to examine material that is proffered and that – I will say – should have been examined quite a while ago in many other venues that failed to do so.

      And Yes … I am indeed here to “find truth”, and that task also requires inquiring into elements of proffered material that doesn’t quite seem to correspond to any demonstrable truth but is loudly and consistently proffered to readers here as “truth”. But – alas and revealingly – the erstwhile truthy truth-tellers don’t like it one bit.

      And – yet again – JR attempts to conflate and confuse “proof” and ‘probability’, although the clear and vital distinction between the two concepts has been pointed out many times before here.

      And – yet again – JR attempts to conflate and confuse (so-called) ‘personal truth’ and actual objective ‘third party truth’, although the clear and vital distinction between the two concepts has been pointed out many times before here.

      In the fourth paragraph he not-quite-accurately characterizes my position as being “You have no witnesses therefor how can we believe you?”. (sic) But that’s not quite right: not only i) are there are no witnesses but also ii) the stories themselves don’t cohere rationally and also iii) further efforts by the story-tellers and allegants to address that vital problem simply create more problems of rationality, coherence, probability and credibility. So – after all that – the question indeed does remain: how can we believe them?

      The fifth paragraph then agrees that we needn’t “believe” the Abuseniks. As he says: “Fine” then.

      That seemed a rather substantial acknowledgement and for a moment might appear rather (uncharacteristically) impressive. But in the sixth paragraph JR quickly reels us back in from any thoughts of his competence and integrity: he doesn’t “care” what I (or the readers) think  -doncha see? – because (and here we get a marshaling of some of the grand old Abusenik epithets) I am characterizable only as a “dullard apologist for child rape” for whom – marvelously – “thinking is not [my] strong point” (as contrasted, apparently, to JR and the rest of the Abuseniks who plop-toss here).

      And of course, no explication of quotations demonstrating where I have ever tried to justify or be an “apologist” for – had you been waittttttttting forrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – “child rape” (of which there was very little, even according to the first Jay Report, referenced here as an authoritative source by JR himself a couple of comments ago). And the misshapen Abusenik Ball bounces whackily and queasily on.

      And the whole bit then further buttressed by a further epithet to the effect that JR is certain (he doth “swear”) that his I.Q. “drops every time I read a new post at TMR”. Which assertion – among its other problematic aspects – simply indicates that JR is not familiar with the nature and dynamics of the Intelligence Quotient. Thus I cannot imagine that it “drops” much further, nor that it can.

      The seventh paragraph opens with a potty-time epithet, bringing us back to the realm of juvenilia.

      And has JR “looked at” “the hearings going on in Australia about institutional child abuse” and the efforts to entangle Cardinal Pell? Are those “hearings” at this point public record? Are there transcripts? I have not been able to locate any. We are back to the same problem we still face with those “clinical studies” he was on about (which, by this point, readers are not supposed to recall).

      And what can it mean that after two years the “hearings” are “still going on” and we have not even an interim report? And are they actually “in the news daily”? JR now claims to get Google alerts “every day on the subject from the Australian media” … yet he has rarely shared the results of such alerts (a function of Google, not the media sending JR personal advisories), although – if he is to be believed here – there are developments “daily” and there have been for two years now. Once again, a JR assertion and claim raises far more questions than it purports to answer.

      In the eighth paragraph JR will puff up his pinfeathers and inquire “Are we to believe that” … “Australia’s clerical and institutional sex abuse of children is the exception to the church’s behavior in the rest of the world?”.

      Well, not to put too fine a point on it: a) we do not even know if Australia has discovered all that much since we have seen no formal – even if interim – report after all this time.

      And b) since we don’t have any actual reliable information about (a) then we can hardly credit the conclusion based on (a): that what has been discovered by (a) is arguably an accurate indicator of “the church’s behavior in the rest of the world”. That conclusion fails because it is based on presently non-existent (certainly un-demonstrated) assertions.

      But this is precisely the Stampede Hall of Mirrors at work: a) make undemonstrated claims frequently enough that one can then claim that “the whole world knows”, and from that utterly gauzy and insubstantial and non-existent basis, then b) riff on to spin further ‘conclusions’ and stories and claims and allegations and assertions.

      So in response to the eighth paragraph’s question: No, we are not at all supposed to believe it. Not until we have some demonstrable evidence and reliable information.

      On then as this riff  expands almost histrionically (a muse’s hand and mind are here) in the ninth paragraph with a sly rhetorical question: “Can you show me any place where children haven’t been set up for abuse by church hierarchs?” (correction supplied). Actually, we are still waiting for demonstrable proof that children have “been set up” for actually demonstrated widespread systematic abuse. And no cases we have been able to examine here quite fit the bill at all.

      And the paragraph wends its way histrionically and rhetorically to its concluding declaratory assertion that “you cannot find one excemption” (sic). Readers may judge it as they will.

      On then to the tenth paragraph where the riff seeks to wander further afield with tea-leaf readings of the Papal visits here and there.

      And that continues into the eleventh with more rant-y bits utterly unsupported and remaining mere fever-vision assertions that readers may do with as they will.

      Especially where we are now informed by the assorted tea-leaf readers behind this comment that a) the U.S. is not contributing enough “money” (scare-caps omitted) and b) the Pope is visiting to get money. Which constitute nothing but more rant-y bits utterly unsupported and remaining mere fever-vision assertions that readers may do with as they will.

      And ditto the twelfth paragraph where the Church is now asserted to be “capitalism’s bank”(because, apparently, all those centuries’ worth of agglomerated “wealth”  is larger than any “wealth” possessed by any national governments or multinational conglomerates), and when we get to this level of fizzy ignorance about matters economic then we are truly hearing noises not from the cafeteria tables at the back of the school dining area but from the precincts of the day-room.

      And the thirteenth paragraph – as this excursus now careens even further afield in search of more plop to toss  – goes on about the Church’s “birth control ‘policies’” and how they “create the masses of the catholic poor” (sic). Ditto with this cartoonish and simplistic fever-vision of the relationship between population and poverty and wealth-creation. But these are not put forward here as issues of policy for discussion. This is merely a plop-tossing exercise on the part of the Abuseniks.

      And – had you been waitttttttting forrrrrrrr ittttttttttttttt? – not a single mention of those “clinical studies”. Even though JR apparently isn’t getting the error message now and can put up stuff.

      And the concluding rhetorically zingy connection between “more children” and “more children for pedophiles”(another classic Stampede buzzword) is just too much for ascription to JR’s mentation and surely bespeaks another mind and hand, and not an unfamiliar one either. Yet it remains repellently juvenile. 

  4. Dennis Ecker says:

    RACHEL ZOLL, The Associated Press
       Posted: Wednesday, July 22, 2015, 2:42 PM  

    NEW YORK (AP) – Two months ahead of his first trip to the U.S., Pope Francis' approval rating among Americans has plummeted, driven mostly by a decline among political conservatives and Roman Catholics, according to a new Gallup poll released Wednesday.

    Fifty-nine percent of Americans said this month they had a favorable view of the pope, compared to 76 percent in February 2014, Gallup reported. The share of Americans who disapproved of the pope increased from 9 percent to 16 percent in the same period. The changes were most dramatic among political conservatives, whose opinion of Francis nosedived by 27 percentage points to 45 percent. Among Catholics, Francis' approval dropped by 18 percentage points to 71 percent

    Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pope/20150722_ap_ad52d32f0f3a47f88f1a2af8ffb13ebf.html#kYD80j0jtKS7wmpZ.99

    • Publion says:

      On the 23rd at 1201AM ‘Dennis Ecker’ returns, true to form, with simply a quotation (without quotation marks) of some Associated Press item about the most recent popularity poll conducted in regard to the Pope.

      What are we to make of it? What does Ecker make of it? As usual, nothing.

      Apparently, “political conservatives and Roman Catholics” are not quite taken with some of the recent Papal proffers, such – I would imagine – as the recent climate-change encyclical, “Laudato Si”. That some disagree with the Pope’s scientific analysis or policy recommendations might indeed be true.

      And what would Ecker’s point be here? That “Roman Catholics” do not all think in lockstep with a Pope on everything he writes? So much for the abiding Abusenik cartoon that all Catholics are slavish serfs of the Papal mind in all matters whatsoever.

      I would say that all we have here is another too-tempting-to-pass-up opportunity for an Abusenik to plop-toss. That the significance of intra-Catholic disagreement with assorted papal thoughts precisely works against their own Cartoons would not occur to the Abusenik mind; the plop-tossy giggles are all that attract their attention.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hey Dennis, hope you're well.

      Somewhere a nunnery is looking for an escapee. Sister P (P for Pompous or maybe it's Perfidious).

      "It" seems to be lost between a cartoon of a high school cafeteria and a day room in a mental hospital. He keeps going back and forth between his own two delusions. Projecting his own damage onto me or onto any victim posting here.. If P represents catholicism then catholicism is in deep dooty. The idea of my I.Q. being judged by P is beyond laughable. Some where a villiage is missing it's idiot when P escaped. 

      Pope Frankie's coming to raise the dead, Dennis. the media will wet itself with pope worship just the way it dampens over royalty. I can hardly wait for the pope in Philadelphia. It'll be swell.

      Keep well Dennis. I can only hope there's a Hell where P can be justly rewarded for the lies he posts here.

  5. Jim Robertson says:

    Accumulated wealth not agglomerated. Wealth tends to grow/accumulate if it isn't spent.

    Where has the church spent it's wealth in 2000 years?

    Every church in California was paid for by it's parishioners with loans they paid for or there wasn't one. It was very much a pay as you pray operation

    • Publion says:

      On the 23rd at 922PM JR will sidestep his rather substantive economic-theory deficiencies by lecturing on the difference between “accumulated” and “agglomerated” wealth. And the gist of the whole bit depends on demonstrating that the Church has never “spent it’s wealth in 2000 years” (sic) – which JR has not in any way demonstrated and which flies in the face of the Church’s record – upon which even the Abuseniks and other assorted types rely – for building and for providing charitable services.

      But then there is an excuse to cover that uncongenial and problematic reality (at least in “California”): JR claims (without evidence, of course) that “every church” in that State “was paid for by it’s parishioners” (sic). Does this mean that when a donation is made to the Church or any organization, then the donated sums remain the property of the donors? That would be a howler indeed.

      But no, to sidestep that uncongenial bit JR further claims that the parishioners paid with “loans they paid for”. Oh, or if not that, then – nonsensically as written – “there wasn’t one”. And readers so inclined are welcome to consider (and even ‘judge’) the mentation underlying that bit.

      But – as so often in the realm of juvenilia – the grossly whacky illogic and incoherence is then wrapped up with a quickie cutesy one-liner: it was a “pay as you pray operation” … get it? Yuk yuk.

  6. Jim Robertson says:

    Maybe the gifts I saw El Papa getting was really not huge bottles of champagne or oil paintings maybe it was used parishioners toilet tissue molded to look like art and booze.

    You are the biggest dope,I've ever run across. If any one's a "plop tosser" here it's you. Them what smelt 'em. Dealt 'em.

    • Publion says:

      On the 23rd at 929PM we are back to JR’s ‘Tales of Myself’: as readers may recall, in a recent episode, the hero was conducting his best mimicry of James Bond behind the Papal Throne on the main altar of St Peter’s (where apparently, sometime in the early 1990s – according to this astute and utterly veracious and truthy and reliable and informed raconteur – “John 23” had just been sitting; perhaps JR was actually beneath the main floor, down in the crypt – and he saw “John 23” sitting there, rather than upstairs).

      And what of value does JR now proffer in regard to this particular ‘Tale’? Something about toilet-tissue.  And readers so inclined are welcome to consider (and even ‘judge’) the mentation underlying that bit.

      Then, apparently figuring that he can surf freely on the strength of that last bit, JR will indulge in his preferred pastime of plop-tossy epithets. Where he again deploys his signature juvenile I’m Not/You Are bit.

      And that’s all there is, folks.

  7. Jim Robertson says:

    Why would I lie about going to Rome in the '90's??? Why would I lie about anything?

    What a pathetic cur you are. P, the vatican's running mad dog. Sit up boy! Roll over Lassie! (Lassie was a male dog playing a bitch. So very very much like P)

    • Publion says:

      On the 23rd at 937PM we see the deployment – yet again – of the ‘Why Would I Lie?’ bit.

      Why indeed would JR “lie”? Readers are welcome to consult a) the voluminous record and b) the material presented by JR and c) their own assessment and judge as they will the answer to that question.

      And the comment then concludes with a string of epithetical bits that take us right back to the back tables of the cafeteria, a universe still so vibrantly and robustly real to a man almost 70 years old.

  8. malcolm harris says:

    On the 22nd at 12.31 p.m. JR makes reference to the Royal Commission in Australia. Implying that it has been going on for 2 years… and all that time has been looking into only the Catholic Church.

    Well by following media reports (generally biased against us) it is clear that only about 25% of their time has been on Catholic related matters, The rest of the time on other Churches and Institutuions. The two years claimed duration is probably correct, but they had to advertise in the national press.. for accusers. This was done against the expert advice (from psychologists) and at least one member of the Commission resigned in protest. Another resigned for unspecified reasons. Without the advertising the hearings would have wound up long ago. But this is an industry, like any other industry, and it pays to advertise.

    To imply that all accusers are naming the Catholic Church is nonsense. All religions, including the Jewish religion, has been accused. As for Institutions, even a child dance academy has been accused. There is a long list of alleged abusers.But as for objective proof (of the alleged offences) there is often little of that. It is really all about giving the accusers the opportunity to tell their stories. There does not appear to be any cross-examination or any need for evidence. A Royal Commission is not a court. They cannot find anybody guilty or sentence anybody…but it might pave the way for later police investigations.

    It is really about trial by media. The end objective being to stampede the Church or Institution into paying out a settlement… in order to avoid even more damaging media publicity.

    If they had any objective evidence then they, the alleged victims, would have gone to the police long ago. This is really a clever attempt to cimcumvent due process.

    And Publion is right about there being no official report from the Commission so far.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      I implied nothing about the church. I was being asked about clinical reports on the damages created by child abuse.

      Though I know the Australian commission hearings are'nt clinical and that their report on their findings is not officially in. Still it's reportage on what the catholic church has done against it's children and the extraordinary number of suicides of victims of all offending institutions was worth referencing. Victims' damages are seen in the Australian hearings. Any percentage of child abuse is unacceptable. But the whitewashing and transfer to new children by the catholic church of child rapists is exactly what has happened internationally. The wreakage of victims lives can't be made up and trotted in to get money from an innocent church. If that were true and pandemic you'd have far more than ZERO examples of such fraud. And if it were true we real victims would be condemning those crimes right along with you. Why? Because it injures all victims.

      I can only think about a comrade of mine who has a blog and was approached and offered $18,000 cash by a "victim" who said he'd lied and fraudulently recieved a settlement from the church and wanted to pay my friend to break this story on their blog. A blog that was for real victims!!!!!!!

      This is the low I.Q'ed level of the church's attack on victims. "Thinking"  we'd sell out all victims for $18,000 and why, if what the "fraudster" said was true, would he have to pay anybody anything to print his tale of criminal fraud?

      That's the level of the attacks on real victims.

      Who's doing these attacks if not the church and or it's minions?

      SNAP's behavior as well exemplifies church run bullshit.

      SNAP says: "Pity the survivors" but  somehow never (even after 25 YEARS!!) finds a way to help victims. We are commanded by SNAP to support what ever SNAP does in our names.

      That's how corrupt certain powerful elements in your church are. Millions spent to control victims; to pen us like sheep and have us bleat at SNAP's  comand but never any plan to help victims en mass. Never a plan by SNAP to unite us to empower ourselves.

      I've said this before: To think that catholic victims are so dumb and so greedy that we'd publicize a fraud perped in our name. That could only come from a church so corrupt and used to getting it's way without a murmer of protest That shows your decadence. You are so used to being obeyed. You have no skills but anger when things simply and justly don't go your way. You have no interest in justice or mercy for your victims. Only mercy and no justice, no responsability taken by yourselves and your pedophile priests.

      And you wonder why some of us find you immoral? You are immoral. You don't do the right things morally. And we're to believe your's is the one true faith? Why? How would any of your actions lead us to that silly conclusion? No one asks you to accept all victims without questions. We are questioned again and again and take day long tests and see shrinks to see if we are lying. So to pretend victims demand no questioning and that we are to be taken verbatum is spurious. When and where have you seen victims refusing to answer questions about the crimes commited against us? Never and nowhere.

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    Why, P, I'm beginning to think you don't like me. Awwww!

    • Publion says:

      Dabbing our eyes of distracting mirthful tears from the scenario in St. Peter’s, we proceed then to the 23rd at 1137PM.

      JR will attempt to ‘minimize’ (as the Victimists like to say) the problems with his material by – had you been waitttttttting forrrrrrrr itttttttttttt? – ‘personalizing’ the issue:  it’s not his material that’s the problem, it’s just that I don’t “like” him.

      In this he reveals another classic element of the Playbook: as long as you support whatever plop they toss, then they will consider themselves ‘liked’ and will gush and cluck over your material. Otherwise, they will consider themselves ‘un-liked’ (and – but of course – ‘re-victimized’ all over again).

  10. Jim Robertson says:

    You keep thinking Dennis and I weren't catholics. We were catholics and good ones too. Better by far than some who post here. I say that with no humility what so ever. I say it as fact.

    You act like we know nothing about catholic thought or procedures or rules or how catholics pose as compared to how thet are; what they do.. How many years did you attend catholic schools? I'm guessing none. Catholc nuns would have taught you better prose than the well spelled bullshit you write here.

    You act like you know more about the church than I/we do.

    You just are more obedient to nonsense that I/we are. You live to obey.

    Obey and attack: the true underbelly of catholicism. That and judge. Judge no matter what. Judge ignoring all evidence. Judge as if from on high. And condemn,  always condemn.

    Always look down on others never look up to them. You're one piss poor christian.

    You must get nose bleeds from the rarity of the angelic ether you deign to breathe?

    • Publion says:

      On the 23rd at 1157PM JR – addressing either ‘Malcolm Harris’ or myself – bleats and asserts that he and “Dennis” “weren’t catholics” (sic). Not so, quotha! As a matter of fact, we are informed that he and “Dennis” (he knows this about “Dennis” from the wayback?) “were catholics and good ones too”. Readers, considering the voluminous record, may consider and judge that bit as they will.

      And then, as if somehow on some inchoate level aware of the – how to put this nicely? – mirth-producing quality of that assertion, JR will attempt to lard on some further fortification: the duo were not only “catholics and good ones too” but were also (an assertion without any demonstration) “better than some who post here” (am I – according to the cartoon script here – to take a bow at this point?).

      But wait – there’s more.

      JR doth further declaim and declare that he doth say this saying “with no humility what so ever” (sic). How true, if rather incomplete, since he also doth say it with no ‘knowledge whatsoever’. But nothing new about that.

      But wait – there’s more.

      JR doth further declaim and declare that he doth say this saying “as fact”. Demonstrating once again that either Abuseniks are grossly misinformed as to the actual meaning of the term “fact” or else they manipulatively and deceptively deploy the term where they know it is not warranted.

      Then, in the third paragraph, JR continues his indictment: I “act like [I] know more about the church than I/we do” (that “I/we” meaning either JR-and-Dennis or JR-and-the-world or both).

      Does he think so? Well, let readers consult the voluminous record here and judge for themselves, starting with JR’s recent ‘report’ of John XXIII sitting up on the main altar of St. Peter’s in the early 1990s. This bit of JR’s is beyond parody.

      Thus to the fourth paragraph where we see another sly effort at distraction and confusion: It’s not that I “know” more about the Church, it’s just that I am “more obedient to nonsense” than JR and “Dennis” are. This assertion rather nicely demonstrates that “facts don’t matter”, but instead the truthy courageous truth-telling of the story-teller are all that really matter. The day-rooms of this world are full of people who insist the very same.

      The riff continues in the fifth paragraph as JR then tries – with his little toy mental blocks – to construct a structural connection between ‘obeying’ and ‘attacking’: since the Church – doncha know? – has instructed good Catholics to ‘attack’ JR and the rest of the truthy Abusenik heroes and if it weren’t for that then all their material would simply stand revealed as the brave and courageous and true-full truthiness that the Abuseniks say it is.

      Oh, and the orders also included the instruction to “judge” and to “judge no matter what”. Well, yes – judging is a vital part of what it means to be human and try to separate truth from … other stuff. This bit of JR’s here is a demonstration of the old 1970s attack on being “judgmental”, or – in other words – applying standards and principles in order to assess the quality of the many phenomena that arise in this world. That worked so well.

      Oh, and the orders also included the instruction to “condemn, always condemn” (the rhetorical sigh of the Wig of Exasperated Innocent Truthiness). Nobody has – alas for his cartoon’s script – ‘condemned’ the Abuseniks here. They may stand ‘condemned’ (if they prefer the term) by the frakkery of their own material, but that’s about it.

      Thus then the comment concludes with a sixth and seventh paragraph, each a one-liner. If you ‘judge’ then – personalizing the matter, as always – you “look down on” those who are trying to pass off their material as true. I deal with material and prefer conceptual material. Personalities are not my interest, unless they proffer revelations about themselves relevant to the material under consideration.

      And the seventh: merely another epithet. As so often.  Followed by an assertion which readers may judge as they will.


    • Publion says:

      Keep that Notebook handy.

      On the 24th at 1251PM in the first paragraph, JR will try to avoid a point ‘Malcolm Harris’ made in his comment of the 23rd at 1032PM: JR – doncha see? – “implied nothing about the church” (sic). Rather – we are informed – JR “was being asked about clinical reports on the damages created by child abuse”.

      Actually, it was about the damages created by child abuse by priests.

      And actually, JR was asked about his own assertion in regard to “clinical studies”, not “clinical reports” – which would be something else entirely. 

      And actually, we still haven’t seen any “clinical reports” supporting JR’s assertion.

      And actually, a government ‘report’ (which has still not been issued) is not going to be a “clinical study” anyway.

      In the second paragraph, JR appears to admit that he understands the difference between “clinical studies” and “clinical reports”. So it’s not simply a matter of the government not yet having released any “clinical reports” but rather that what he would need, and what the government wouldn’t conduct, are “clinical studies”.

      But having admitted – sort of – that he is aware of the difference between the two terms, JR then proceeds immediately in the second sentence to ignore the difference: “Still, it’s reportage”.

      In the first place, it would be “reportage” only if the government had issued a report, which it hasn’t.

      In the second place, again, “reportage” is not a “study”.

      In the third place, “reportage” – as we have seen in our long assessment of the Stampede –  has to be handled very carefully and circumspectly since so very often the claims and assertions and stories are presumed (very improperly) to be veracious without any further inquiry or assessment.

      As for “the extraordinary number of suicides” among “victims” (allegedly, of the Catholic clerical abuse), we face the same problem of Genuineness: a) we don’t know if the “victims” were genuine since the Stampede praxis is to simply presume any claim of victimization to be veracious; and b) we are faced with the problem that the many deeply-troubled persons for whom the Stampede provided an avenue for allegations may well have been on the road to suicide simply on the basis of their deep and many troubles and issues, which c) may well have pre-existed the (alleged) abuse.

      And “victims’ damages” are not established by those “hearings” for which – it will be recalled – there are no verified transcripts or reports. We face here the Causality Problem once again: were the damages caused by the alleged abuse, or did the troubles and issues actually cause the allegations?

      And while I would certainly accept that “any percentage of child abuse is unacceptable”, yet that is not the key point: the key point is to establish the extent of actual child abuse in order to have sufficient accurate information to formulate workable and effective prevention policies. And the type of “reportage” we have so often seen is hardly sufficient to that task.

      And while “the wreakage of victims lives” (sic) “can’t be made up”, yet – again – the key point is to determine whether that wreckage was caused by the abuse or whether instead the wreckage caused the allegations. (Again, this is a line of inquiry that the Abuseniks and torties completely sidestepped by taking the settlement route and avoiding the trial route.)

      And one cannot ‘trot in’ the mere presumption of genuiness and causality attributable clearly and directly to any alleged abuse. Rather than mere presumption, evidence is required; as could be provided by a properly run clinical study.

      And the “zero examples of fraud” – again – is simply the intended result of the Stampede strategy of preventing examination and substituting for that examination the mere presumption of genuineness and causality. Surely, such analysis as we have been able to conduct here strongly supports the probability that there are substantial and extensive Genuineness and Causality problems with Abusenik stories and claims and allegations.

      And while the paragraph concludes with a pious disclaimer and assertion that if genuine victims knew of fraudulent allegations they would be the first to blow the whistle, yet readers must judge for themselves if they find that disclaimer and that assertion persuasive and credible.

      The third paragraph takes us down the JR reminiscence road yet again, with another story that just happens to be spot-on in its support of the disclaimer and the assertion, yet readers must judge for themselves if they find that suddenly remembered story to be persuasive and credible.

      The fourth paragraph will attempt to continue the recent riffing on “I.Q.”, this time by asserting epithetically that the Church’s “attack on victims” is a rather “low I.Q’ed level” sort of affair. Readers may consider the voluminous record of Abuseniks submissions and proffers here, and judge for themselves where we indeed might find a low-level of intelligence, coherence, plausibility and credibility – as well as of that “I.Q.” element.

      And – again – we see the Abusenik effort to characterize any inquiry or examination as an “attack”.

      Thus the fifth and sixth paragraphs fail, since they presume that “attack” characterization.

      The seventh and eighth paragraphs dredge up all the old SNAP 3x5s again, although nobody that I can recall here has ever supported or stood-up for SNAP in comments.

      The ninth paragraph tries – again – to somehow connect the Church as being the puppet-master of SNAP, despite the numerous problems – so often pointed out over the course of time here  – with such a hypothesis.

      And – again – we do not actually know if there is any “mass” of “victims” out there. And JR himself has said in comments that there is probably nothing the Church can do for “victims” except for cash.

      And we note that in the Abusenik cartoon, the Church’s expenditure of large sums to defend itself from the various allegations is somehow characterized as an attempt to “control victims”.

      The tenth paragraph tries to insinuate the idea that “catholic victims” (sic) are neither so “dumb” nor “greedy” as to “publicize a fraud perped in our name”. This is an assertion delivered without any demonstration, which is rendered even more questionable in light of the Abusenik material we have seen here. Indeed – and again – it is very possible that with the exception of JR and perhaps a few others, it was precisely the desire of the torties and the allegants n-o-t to “publicize” anything, once the Stampede strategy successfully corralled the cash, so as to avoid having the inherent weaknesses of the allegations brought out into the light.

      Further, it would thus be a mistake on JR’s part to “publicize” the elements of the Stampede; the mistake specifically would revolve around the presumption that the usual Stampede script and dynamics could be maintained, i.e. that they could be proffered and would be accepted without doubt or further analysis. Which, of course, has not been the course of events on this site.

      Thus it would be the Abuseniks who presumed that they could run their Game “without a murmer of protest” (sic). Which, following JR’s point here, is an indication of the Game’s ‘corruption’ and “decadence” since Abuseniks, like the Victimists generally, are “so used to being obeyed” or to being presumed veracious without any further analysis. And thus also we see that under such analysis the Abuseniks can muster “no skills but anger” when the script “doesn’t go [their] way” and they are confronted – “simply and justly” – with analysis rather than mere acceptance.

      And the paragraph concludes with a bleat in the direction of “mercy and no justice” (which appears incoherent on its face) and against “no responsability” (sic) taken by the Church and – had you been waittttttting forrrrrrrr itttttttttt? – the Church’s “pedophile priests”.

      Thus to the eleventh and final paragraph, which fails insofar as it is based on the faulty groundwork laid in the preceding paragraphs. And the epithetical riff on “immoral” thus fails.

      But on the basis of all that insufficient and failed material, JR will then launch into a (familiar) epithetical riff as to how anyone is to “believe your’s is the one true faith” (sic).

      Thus too, it has hardly been established that “victims … are questioned again and again and take day long tests and see shrinks to see if we’re lying”. Indeed, it has been an abiding core objective of the Stampede precisely to prevent any such questioning whatsoever. And psychiatrists would not be appropriate for determining if anyone was “lying” – in any specific instance that should have been the task of investigators and adversarial examination under oath and juries. Which – again – was precisely the route the torties sought to avoid.

      And we have seen here for ourselves a) the problems with Abusenik material and b) the reaction of Abuseniks when they are questioned in even the most basic fashion.

      Thus it is not we who “pretend victims demand no questioning” but rather the “victims” who demonstrate here just how averse to any such questioning they fundamentally and viscerally are and yet “pretend” that they have established the accuracy and veracity of their material through the exhaustive processes of verification which actually they precisely avoided. .

      And the bit about “victims … are to be taken verbatum” (sic) makes no sense as written here, since it implies that we are to “pretend” … what? That they are n-o-t to be taken verbatim? And what would that conceivably mean here? It appears to be some effort to sidestep the uncongenial fact that if you take what “victims” proffer, and examine it as it is given, then you are somehow ‘attacking’ them  – and also that therefore JR should not be held “responsable” for the stuff he puts up; he simply has to be believed.

      And the final two sentences illustrate nicely the Abusenik and Stampede shell-game: so long as you only ask about “the crimes committed against” them, thus presuming that such (alleged) crimes are factual, then Abuseniks will be happy to regale you with their stories, allegations, assertions and claims. If, however, you actually seek to assess whether such “crimes” happened in the first place, then they aren’t so happy to continue the discussion at all. As we have so very often seen here. 

  11. Jim Robertson says:

    I was absolutely wrong about John 23 (a senior momen of course it was st. JP2 I miswrote. And i admit my error loudly and freely now. I WAS WRONG. JP2 had just left the altar. I got my papal saints confused. Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

    • Publion says:

      On the 25th at 327PM JR will attempt to make excuses for himself in regard to his multiply-revealing howler: a) telling the St. Peter’s story b) with John XXIII as the key player, up on the main altar in the early 1990s c) while insisting in the same spate of comments that he (and “Dennis”) know a great deal about the Church and Catholicism and indicting me for making it seem like they don’t (thus: they know a whole lotta stuff, it’s just that I make them ‘look bad’).

      Imagine an American citizen who insists that he is well-informed as to the nation’s history and in the process tells a story about being in the White House in the early 1990s and touring the presidential reception room just after Dwight Eisenhower had finished conducting a meet-and-greet.

      This is not simply a ‘historical’ error; few American citizens can name all the Presidents in succession. But here we have someone claiming to be knowledgeable, yet cannot even keep accurate the line of Presidents during his own lifetime.

      Ditto here with the Pope. We are not talking about some obscure Popes from centuries or millennia ago; JR is talking about a Pope who reigned during his own lifetime.

      This is more than just a “senior moment” (unless we are using a euphemism for an advanced mental debility); this is a demonstration of a clear lack of a) knowledge or b) careful attention or c) both.

      And readers may note the various rhetorical efforts to lard the excuse: i) he “miswrote”; ii) he now admits his error “loudly and freely” (no, he was called on the error and had to come up with something); iii) he tosses in a rhetorically exaggerated Catholic confessional phrase – and in Latin, doncha know? (but nobody accused him of committing a sin here in regard to this and his attempt to exaggerate his “error” into a sin here is manipulative and distracting: he revealed a clear insufficiency in a specific type of historical knowledge in which he insisted he was very competent).

  12. Jim Robertson says:

    Dippy, Since you know no victims; and since you "know" none of the facts of our rapes because YOU have CHOOSEN to ignore them when we've presented them; or discount them; or deny them; or pontificate on what MIGHT have happened to us as compared to what DID happen to us.

    What can be said? You're STUPID at best? And at worst you're the fraudster here.

    The reality is you're a self appointed (or worse) SPOILER. Not of fraudulent claims of abuse against your church but of all claims against your church. (You've stopped none nor have you provided any examples of any proven frauds to show us. Frauds that you claim to be so rampant. How these frauds can be so rampant with no examples to show; seems to be another catholic "mystery" or just one more fraud perpetuated by the church.)

    Yet, funniliy enough, you can still not provide one example of such frauds occuring. How can that be? Rampant fraud with no such proven cases? 

    All you have managed to "prove" is the POSSIBILITY that a fraud MIGHT occur if a claiment could run the gauntlet of professional truth testers provided by all the involved parties.

    The likelihood of masses of criminals getting through said gauntlet are next to zero; and as I've said before if a fraud or two does manage to fool all of the people all of the time? Well that's what you get when you've allowed the horror show of real child abuse on such a huge, international scale to exist. You all took your chances when you covered up and transferred known child rapists. So if you lose a little. That's just the price you have to pay for being the scum you've been.

    You P, are a whirling dervish.  Lost in the turns you've spun yourself into.

    You are here to discredit not illuminate.  You bitch about everything and provide nothing but dizzy SPECULATION. and unremmiting negativity no matter what.

    Why if you're from the best of all possible religions and defending THE church of THE god of love and THE creator of and ruler of the universe, why must you be, so constantly, mean and vitrolic? Don't you think your diety can handle things without you and your nasty lying?

    You are a prime example of why your church keeps losing sane people and instead caters and defers to the mad and the neurotic.

    Honey, You jest a big ol' mess! Trapped in the web of lies you've managed to spin for yourself.

  13. Jim Robertson says:

    I pity you. Your narcissisum won't save you. You've created your own perdition. What a waste of a human life! Your sociopathy has destroyed you.

    • Publion says:

      On the 26th at 1024AM JR will – again in a sort of blackface bit – attempt to channel Mr. T.

      And once again a psychological term (“narcissisum”) both misspelled and misapplied here. And again the thought comes that Abuseniks have merely kept all their own various (and often unhappy) experiences with clinical assessment on 3x5s for epithetical deployment against others who incur their displeasure (a gambit which would involve the actual dynamics of projection and displacement).

      And – marvelously – as if to pitch-perfectly demonstrate that thought and possibility, the comment then goes on to deploy “sociopathy” in much the same way. And I can only advise that “sociopathy” can indeed destroy, and those who have been informed about their issues in that regard should take such information very seriously or else one’s life pattern and history will indeed reflect such ‘destruction’.

  14. Jim Robertson says:

    As far as fr. Jiang goes how convenient that this is all taking place in MISSOURI AGAIN! Convenient for David Clohessy he lives there; and convenient too that all SNAP's trials wind up being in Missouri. This is the worst puppet show I've ever seen. What a pathetic joke!

    • Publion says:

      In regard to the 26th at 1031AM: We see a  few things here.

      First, the general manipulative gambit of innuendo: since this Fr. Jiang case is taking place in Missouri (scare-caps omitted) and David Clohessy also resides there, then … what? Again, the Abusenik mentality simply takes factoids and then tries to construct them into conspiracy theories of some sort, although – through laziness or sly avoidance of responsibility – the factoids are merely set forth and innuendo is relied upon to do the rest.

      But in what larger ways could the location of this Fr. Jiang case be plausibly construed as some sort of conspiracy or arrangement? On the part of whom? To the advantage of whom? For what purpose(s)?

      Second, in what way is this factoid “convenient” to Clohessy?

      Third, is it actually accurate that “all SNAP’s trials wind up being in Missouri”?

      Would the fact that Clohessy is resident in that State not indicate that lawsuits against SNAP that specifically involve Clohessy as a Party-Defendant might thus be filed in that State?

      Thus the only way it would be “convenient” to Clohessy is that he doesn’t have to travel far to get to the courthouse.

      We have seen that so much of what remains of Stampede court activity against the Church is taking place in the Twin Cities venue, the home stomping-grounds of Jeff Anderson and also the home stomping-grounds of the original old American Progressivism of the Upper Midwest. This is where Anderson’s remaining strength is strongest and where his legal connections are strongest and where there is a residual predisposition to some type of ‘progressivism’ and an established ‘progressive’ (as currently defined) presence and influence. So there’s nothing mysterious about it.

    • Publion says:

      As if his “error” comment had completely disappeared now that he has (to his own satisfaction, anyway) disposed of it with an excuse and so forth, JR will revert to form on the 26th at 1017AM.

      Pre-note: we are going to see a lot of scare-cappy deployment in this comment. As I have often said, this is a clear indicator with JR that he’s trying to compensate for lack of substance in his stuff by ‘shouting’ his stuff. I will, as is my practice, not repeat the scare-caps in any quotes I make.

      He opens with an epithet, but of course.

      The paragraph continues with the implication that he “knows” persons who are genuine victims. How might we credit that? Has he conducted investigations into each and every ‘victim’ he claims to “know”? Is it possible or probable that such investigations were ever conducted? Is it possible or probable that JR would be capable of conducting them? Is it plausible that any such allegants thus investigated would have either allowed it or been entirely forthcoming in it?

      Better to say that JR knows a lot of people who claim to be ‘victims’ or – if one wishes – who ‘self-identify’ as ‘victims’. As I said long ago here: what we have is simply a bunch of people who have come together, like tuning forks in a room, to tell each other their ‘stories’, and the unspoken agreement is that ‘I won’t doubt or question your story if you don’t doubt or question mine’ and on that basis they set each other off like tuning forks all vibrating more or less on the same frequency. And then the torties whose services they have engaged get to work and it’s off to the races (or the piñata).

      Thus the rest of that paragraph – with its familiar manipulative presumptions about “the facts of our rapes” fails as well. 

      And thus what also fails is the distinction between what “might” have happened according to anybody’s assessment and what actually “did” happen according to the Abuseniks’ telling: unless one (illegitimately) conflates ‘personal truth’ and ‘objective, third-party truth’ then we have no clear knowledge from any source. Rather, we must consider plausibility and credibility (or the original stories, of the further attempts to clarify them), and the general reliability of the story-tellers, and the possibility or probability of the story (and story-teller) being veracious. “Judgment” is required by the very nature of this task, as are rationality, objectivity, and a clear focus on events rather than ‘spin’.

      Nor have I “chosen” to “ignore them”. Indeed, wherever possible here I have paid a great deal of attention to them. I have found the stories, claims, allegations and assertions to be in many instances significantly flawed, raising the questions of plausibility and credibility, but I have not ‘ignored’ them. But to the Abusenik mind, if you don’t buy their claims, then they are being ‘ignored’ – which slyly shifts the focus i) from the implausibility or incredibility of their stories and claims and allegations and assertions to ii) their being (or – more accurately – ‘feeling’, or – more accurately – their claiming to ‘feel’) ‘ignored’ and personally attacked and re-victimized.

      The second paragraph, trying to build on the ‘validity’ of the material in the first paragraph, thus yields more epithet and then – had you been waitttttttttting forrrrrrrrr ittttttttt? – another deployment of JR’s signature and juvenile I’m Not/You Are defense.

      And then the third paragraph, riffing on the ‘conclusion’ based on the prior two paragraphs, yields further epithetical stuff to the effect that I am “a self-appointed (or worse) spoiler”. Now this is a revealing bit: by asking questions and pointing out problems with their material I am ‘spoiling’ the Abuseniks’ game. Ah well, that’s show-biz: you put your stuff together and you take your stuff up onto a stage and you are going to get ‘reviews’. You may not like the reviews, but if you’re in show-biz then reviews go with the territory you have chosen and the material you have chosen to perform.

      And the paragraph once again brings the old 3×5 about there being no ‘proof’ of ‘frauds’. No, given the available material (after so much was neatly hidden by the Anderson Strategies) there is no way to establish ‘proof’. But it works both ways: there is also no actual ‘proof’ of the veracity of the stories.

      Which leaves us – as I have always said – with the task of establishing Possibility or even Probability (the two concepts are not the same) and in that regard I would say that we have established the very real Probability of fraudulence, when all elements are considered.

      Nor is there any “mystery” about this situation at all: the Anderson Strategies and the torties who deployed it specifically sought to prevent serious public analysis of the stories, allegations and claims and instead sought the cash by the most propitious route, i.e. the (often multiple-plaintiff) lawsuits.

      The fourth paragraph simply tries to drive home the third’s faulty logic and assessment in order to repeat the faulty conclusions derived from the third’s faulty logic and assessment.

      Thus too the fifth paragraph’s gambit fails: I have not “managed to ‘prove’” anything about the fundamental veracity of the assorted stories and claims and allegations; but I have – contrary to the claim of mere “possibility’” – managed to demonstrate with extensive and exhaustive analysis and demonstration that there most surely does exist a very real Probability (and not a low Probability, I would say).

       And, for that matter, the Abuseniks have not “managed to prove” the veracity of their assorted claims and assertions and allegations and stories. (Although in matters ancillary to the specific actual claims and assertions and allegations and stories, the Abuseniks’ veracity and accuracy has indeed been demonstrated to be faulty and unreliable on numerous occasions now in the record here.)

      The sixth paragraph attempts to further bolster this cartoon presentation of JR’s by asserting (with no explication or demonstration, as usual) that there is a “next to zero … likelihood” of “masses of criminals getting through said gauntlet”. This is the old Victimist scam: having created all of the pre-conditions of a stampede, and having successfully initiated a stampede, the Victimists then insist that to notice the fact of this created-stampede and its constituent dynamics and tactics is merely ‘re-victimizing’ the fomenters and beneficiaries of the stampede and thus such noticing and assessing cannot be done (except by un-caring, un-Christian, un-loving, un-empathetic, sociopaths).

      Thus: while fully enjoying the benefits of the stampede they have created, they insist that no such stampede exists.

      With the sixth paragraph thus continuing its riffing along those lines, the seventh then pauses to refresh itself with a fresh epithet about my being a “whirling dervish” and readers can afford themselves the comic break.

      The eighth paragraph then seeks to continue the “spoiler” bit from the third paragraph: I am here “to discredit not illuminate”. Actually, yes, I am here to “illuminate” and in the process of doing so, it turns out that the necessary assessment calls into question (or does “discredit”) a lot of the Abusenik stuff. Whose problem is that?

      Disregarding the familiar scatology, the paragraph then claims that I “provide nothing but dizzy speculation and un-remitting negativity no matter what”. The necessary limitation of evidence (discussed above) leaves us only with Possibility and Probability – that is true.

      But there is a profound difference between mere “speculation” and the rational, coherent, exhaustive consideration of Possibility and Probability. Readers are welcome to consider whether I indulge in mere “speculation” or whether I make a significant effort to provide the rational, coherent, exhaustive consideration of Possibility and Probability.

      And if – alas – so much assessment winds up being ‘un-remittingly negative’, then that is the result of the original flaws in the Abusenik material that is proffered to us. Whose problem is that?

      Then the ninth paragraph segues into the familiar effort to characterize such analysis and assessment as somehow demonstrating itself as “mean and vitriolic” and un-Christian and un-Catholic (and, no doubt, un-caring, immoral, and sociopathic).

      But in addition to failing on those merits (so to speak), it then attempts to bolster itself by once again deploying the familiar accusation that I am “lying” – delivered as always without any actual quotations as to what specifically I may be “lying” about in any of these matters under consideration here.

      And that leads to another refreshing epithetical pause in the tenth paragraph that also – unintentionally, no doubt – provides actual occasion for mirth: it is my material that provides “a prime example” of why the Church “keeps losing sane people” (no doubt JR includes himself as a prime example here) and instead “caters and defers to the mad and the neurotic”. I will say this outright: I am becoming increasingly persuaded that the psychological epithets deployed by the (otherwise psychologically-uninformed) Abuseniks here are merely those clinical elements that they have encountered during their own experiences with psychological assessment. And whose problem is that?

      And the comment concludes in the eleventh paragraph with more epithet, trotting out once again the trusty gender-bendy stuff, with what appears to be some sort of blackface imitation. Vaudeville indeed.