The Meltdown Continues: SNAP Now Sued by Michigan Priest For Defamation [w/ Court Docs]

David Clohessy, SNAP : Matt Jatczak, SNAP Detroit : Jameson Cook, the Macomb Daily : Niraj Warikoo, the Detroit Free Press

See you in court for defamation! (l to r) David Clohessy, SNAP; Matt Jatczak, SNAP Detroit;
Jameson Cook, the Macomb Daily; and Niraj Warikoo, the Detroit Free Press.

[First reported at]

A falsely accused priest in Michigan has sued the group SNAP, SNAP's disgraced former director David Clohessy, the Detroit Free Press newspaper, and the Macomb Daily newspaper, claiming that they wrongly charged that he molested a 16-year-old girl in the 1970s.

Rev. Kenneth Kaucheck filed a lawsuit for defamation and libel in Wayne County Circuit Court in Michigan, on January 30, and now is the first to report the news. This is already the second lawsuit that SNAP has faced so far in 2017.

[**Click to read Fr. Kaucheck's lawsuit against SNAP and the press (pdf)**]

Seeking truth and justice

Rev. Kenneth Kaucheck

Fighting the good fight:
Rev. Kenneth Kaucheck

In 2009, after Fr. Kaucheck had served over three decades in ministry with a completely unblemished record, a lone woman came forward to claim that Kaucheck molested her over thirty years earlier, in 1976. Kaucheck has vehemently denied the charges.

According to the lawsuit, Kaucheck was placed on administrative leave after the allegation, but neither a civil, criminal, or canonical hearing has ever been held for Kaucheck to present his case and fight the false claim.

Yet the mere decades-old accusation – made by a woman who enjoys complete anonymity – did not halt SNAP and the media from hurling false statements about the priest.

According to the lawsuit, among the many false claims that were aired was that the Archdiocese of Detroit "determined that in 1976 he committed sexual misconduct with a 16-year-old girl." In truth, even though Kaucheck has delivered to the Archdiocese of Detroit sworn affidavits and other evidence to support his innocence, no such determination has ever been made about his case, and there has never been any kind of hearing allowing him to prove his innocence.

Fr. Kaucheck was also accused of "working with pregnant teens" at a shelter (Gianna House) "without the knowledge or approval of the Archdiocese." In fact, according to the lawsuit, Rev. Kaucheck has never had any contact with any girls at the facility, his role at Gianna House is strictly one for fundraising, and the archdiocese was very well aware of Kaucheck's work for the shelter since its inception.

In 2015, Kaucheck voluntarily submitted himself to a psychological evaluation by an expert in priest sex abuse. The doctor concluded that Fr. Kaucheck's history, psychological profile, and spiritual life are "not consistent with those who sexually abuse adolescent females" and that "Fr. Kaucheck is and always has been a psychologically healthy priest and he is not a threat to adolescent females or to women."

Not letting the facts get in the way

Yet the inconvenient truths about Fr. Kaucheck's case did not stop SNAP's hysterical former director, David Clohessy, from doing his usual smear job. On April 17, 2016, Clohessy and SNAP published a press release trumpeting that Kaucheck was "ousted because he molested a girl" and that the Archdiocese of Detroit should alert every parish in the archdiocese so it will be "harder for [Fr. Kaucheck] to assault another girl."

Surprisingly, SNAP has removed the offending post from its web site (see a screenshot). We are unaware of any other time in SNAP's history that the group has removed a press release from its site, no matter how incorrect or crazy. This sure appears to be an admission of guilt by Clohessy and SNAP.

As for the Detroit Free Press and the Macomb Daily newspapers, in the summer of 2016, a lawyer for Fr. Kaucheck sent letters to the papers which asked for retractions from the papers and provided evidence to support the requests. (The letters are attached to the lawsuit.)

What were the papers' response to the lawyer's requests? Both papers completely ignored them. And while both papers have gleefully regurgitated the false charges about Fr. Kaucheck over the years, neither paper has ever informed the public that Fr. Kaucheck requested a retraction and has now sued them. So much for transparency.

Kudos to Fr. Kaucheck for standing up to the crazy bullies at SNAP and in the media and for fighting for truth and justice.

Developing …

See also:
"SNAP's Clohessy Resigns In Wake of Lawsuit Scandal That SNAP Took Lawyer Kickbacks and Exploited Victims" (1/25/17)
"SNAP’s Leadership Suddenly Resigns Amid Lawsuits and Scandals" (2/7/17)


  1. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 24th at 458PM:

    The ‘Dan’ exchanges are a “sham” – doncha see? – while the readership is thereby distracted from the real “topic” which would be … JR’s cartoon about the Church running SNAP (and all the rest).

    “How surprising not.”

  2. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1054PM:

    The first problem – as usual – is that ‘Dan’ has already insinuated his own cartoon presumptions into his initial question, i.e. that it is a “fact” that “your church boasts mostly of visions of Mary”. There is a hefty corpus of visions extending back over the millennia and to say that they are “mostly visions of Mary” is an assertion in dire need of credible demonstration.

    But there is a fingerprint in this bit: the signature ‘Dan’-verse irritation over Mary’s role in Catholic theology and prayer resembles nothing so much as the familiar fundie objections to Catholicism, up to and including ‘Dan’s insistence that Mary is ‘worshipped’ and ‘as a goddess’ as that (the better, of course, to build the cartoon that Catholicism is simply another version of female-idol-worshipping paganism).

    Which also can be taken as leading to the possibility that ‘Dan’s successful presentations to other ‘churches’ means that he doesn’t encounter many objections to his stuff when addressing assorted fundie collectivities. And no surprises there.

    • Dan says:

      "Catholicism simply is another version of female-idol-worshipping paganism". There you have it folks. Right from the horses mouth, unless you prefer jackass. Readers may chose the appropriate name as they wish.

    • Dan says:

      Whoops. Sorry. "Catholicism is simply another version of female-idol-worshipping paganism". That's how the jackass said it, unless you prefer horses mouth.

  3. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1054PM:

    But wait – it gets better (so to speak): the reason for all these visions might be – doncha see? – that “the Creator, God of Miracles, just may be sending [Catholic] followers false visions” of Mary. So – doncha see? – this is just God playing nasty little ‘Dan’-like tricks just to tweak the “idolaters” and trick them even further.

    The healing events at Lourdes for which even non-Catholic doctors can proffer no alternative explanations known to medical science; the astrophysical phenomenon involving the sun at Fatima witnessed by these massed crowds … readers may consider to what extent the ‘Dan’/fundie explanation works in explaining-away those.

  4. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1054PM:

    And are we really to accept that since ‘Dan’ hasn’t come across any “vision of Christ” then that proves … what? That the Church is not Christian? That there have been no visions of Christ connected to this or that saint or believer over the past two millennia?

    But wait – it gets better (so to speak): ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – is being slandered by “lying creeps in this forum” who “want to make [readers] believe that [‘Dan’ doth] hate all catholics” (small ‘c’).

    Why – quotha – there’s “nothing further from the truth” (and alert readers will realize that as soon as ‘Dan’ starts going on about “the truth” then one must prepare oneself to confront cartoons). ‘Dan’ – perhaps – is only going on about those Catholics who a) believe in Mary’s role as defined by the Church and/or b) don’t buy his cartoon rants. But only those Catholics and not – if you can imagine the null set – any other Catholics.

  5. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1054PM:

    But wait – it gets better (so to speak): ‘Dan’ – font of innumerable consistently repeated epithets and threats and prayers involving God’s judgment and lakes-of-fire and Judgment Day – isn’t at all “interested in seeing anyone go to hell”. Again, one sees not only i) the fundamental mendacity and untruthfulness that must be necessarily foisted upon others, but also ii) the fundamental mendacity and untruthfulness ‘Dan’ must foist upon himself … in order to keep his FDS going.

    But – ‘Dan’ doth proclaim while clutching his pearls under the ungainly Wig of Exasperated Innocence – he doth “have absolutely nothing to gain, in telling others to read the Bible and find the truth”.

    Presuming, of course, that the “truth” they find in the Bible is actually only the point of view ‘Dan’ considers to be “truth”.

    And ‘Dan’ has much to gain with such a bit: a) he gets to play his favorite role as assigned to him by his FDS and b) he gets to publicly foist that whole ‘preferred narrative’ of his on anyone whom he can inveigle or verbally accost. That’s a whole lot of “gain” for someone like ‘Dan’. It’s his stock in trade.

  6. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1054PM:

    And that paragraph finishes up with a further bleat about God’s love and how God yet “gets no thrill from seeing His people lost and deceived by hypocrisy and liars”. But under that rubric – and as I have said – then ‘Dan’s only hope is that God accepts an insanity plea on ‘Dan’s behalf.

    The core method in the madness here being that those who don’t buy ‘Dan’s stuff (or who think he is seriously off the rails) are – conveniently – “the wicked followers of Satan”. So – doncha see? – when fighting “the wicked followers of Satan” then no holds are barred. That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

  7. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1054PM:

    And – yet again – ‘Dan’ tries to bring it all home by equating the Catholic role of Mary with the pagan worship of the goddess Astarte decried by Jeremiah.  And thus more bits from his voluminous 3×5 pile of Mary-worship stuff. That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

    ‘Dan’ is indeed “wrong” here: first because Jeremiah is referring to ancient Astarte-worship and not the Church and second because the Church does not “worship” Mary as a divinity. Mary, the human being truly Chosen by God to be the Mother of God’s incarnate Son, is revered as a human intercessor at the Throne of God – nothing more and nothing less.

    Mary is an intercessor and is not held to be divine (indeed, precisely the opposite). Were ‘Dan’ to perhaps pray to the patron saint of the unhinged (I imagine there must be one) then ‘Dan’ might grasp the difference.

    • Dan says:

      No, you are indeed "wrong". If Jeremiah was alive to witness the idol-worshiping that goes on among the hierarchy and blind sheep of your cult, then God's prophet and God's Word and wrath, would most likely have been much worse. Jeremiah's prophecy goes out to condemn any cult worshipping a goddess under the name of "Queen of Heaven", burning incense and making cakes in the form of the moon (hosts). You can make all the claims you want, denying catholic worship of Mary, but your cult's actions prove otherwise. Against Bible teachings, the cult claims Mary spotless, ever-virgin, immaculately conceived, sinless and assumed into heaven. All absolute lies and further proof of idolatry, giving Mary the attributes of Christ, proving worship of a false christ. Mary as intercessor, another lie, when the Bible clearly states Jesus Christ as the only mediator.

      "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5

      "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"  Romans 3:23

      "All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them." John 10:8

      So adore, honor and venerate Mary, and let manipulators and deceivers tell you how the church doesn't worship her. Hail her, pray tons of prayers and rosaries to her, and name many of your churches after her, and still believe that is not worship. Jesuits take on her name, wear hooded, dark brown capes like the Grim Reaper or Vlad the Impaler, and you still think this isn't creepy? Priests and bishops wearing silk, lacy dresses, and you believe this is normal? Greed, plagued with pedophilia and sexual immorality, cowardly blatant liars, and idolators, and you still think it is God's One True Church? Wow, you people are scary.


  8. Publion says:

    On then to the 26th at 218PM:

    Here – and with a sublime obliviousness – ‘Dan’ doth exhort one and all not to pay heed to anyone “who claims to be superior because of special visions”. Is not his entire claim here based on his special and “secret” ‘knowledge’ that he is indeed the Chosen  who doth ‘know the truth’ and so on and so forth?

    Indeed, so much so that anyone who doesn’t buy ‘Dan’s stuff doth “mock God”?

    I would also note that the “CEV” (Contemporary English Version) of the Bible is actually one of those editions of the Bible that – if readers recall my classification of type of Bible versions – qualifies as a ‘paraphrase’ version, i.e. the editor/compiler of the version uses his/her own ideas to render what s/he thinks to be the gist of the actual Bible text into more ‘relevant’ terms. It seems to be aimed at readers even less Biblically-informed than, say, the Good News Bible – which itself is a typical if not also classic example of a ‘paraphrase’ version of the Bible.

    This type of Bible version is catnip to those with axes to grind and their own ‘visions’ to impose.

    • Dan says:

      Good try, twister, manipulator, misinterpreter of the Lord's Word. You specifically quoted, "who claims to be superior because of special visions", and then you think you can squeeze me into that definition. "SUPERIOR BECAUSE OF SPECIAL VISIONS!!" Never have I claimed seeing special visions. NEVER! Can you understand the quote now or still do you refuse to see? Then you want to claim that I'm referring to versions that don't qualify, because they paraphrase. You're ridiculous. Here's the catholic NAB, from the USCCB -

      "Let no one disqualify you, delighting in self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on VISIONS, inflated without reason by his fleshly mind"  Col 2:18

      So the fleshly minded, spiritually lacking, publiar, thinks he can twist what obviously states as those who claim themselves "superior because of special visions", tries to make others think that pertains to me, is absolutely wrong once more. This pertains to catholic claims of VISIONS of Mary, "Queen of Heaven", believing they're "speshull" because their Goddess comes to give them advice. God hates idolatry, and if you want to believe that Mary is where you find your grace and mercy, then he just may let you see the stupidity you want to believe and depend on. The alternative may be that the cult made up these visions in order to bring financial wealth into their apostate kingdom. Ever see pictures of those 3 children of Fatima. Never seen such unhappy looking children in all my life. Maybe they didn't want to go along with the liars of the church. Now that just may be plausible, probable and possible. Lying, deceiving snake.

  9. Publion says:

    On the 28th at 1124PM ‘Dan’ doth assure one and all that I am “indeed ‘wrong’”. Let’s see how he backs that one up.

    Why, with a presumption of a course: “If Jeremiah was alive” … Well, that’s a problem right off since we are already off the road and into the swamp of conjecture (which is where ‘Dan’ doth dwell): Jeremiah isn’t alive and thus we don’t have Jeremiah’s actual thoughts on the Church. Perhaps Jeremiah has put in an appearance in the bathroom mirror, however. But that will still leave us in the Swamp of Presumption and Conjecture.

    However, having set the scene in just that way, ‘Dan’ is of course free to fill the vacant space that Jeremiah himself would occupy … with ‘Dan’-stuff, masquerading as Jeremiah’s opinions about the Church. This is what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

  10. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1124PM:

    Thus whatever ‘Dan’ claims about what Jeremiah “would most likely have” thought … is just so much more ‘Dan’-stuff.

    Neither Catholicism’s actions nor its words (we covered actual Church teaching quite a while ago here, as it appears in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, numbers 963-975) indicate any “worship” of Mary as if she were a divinity. She may be metaphorically “queen” in the sense that she’s the highest ranking female up there, but she is still human and not a divinity.

    And then ‘Dan’ drops more of his favorite fundie 3x5s, this time including a bit to the effect that the host is “moon-shaped” (and Astarte – doncha see? – was connected with the moon). But the Host has to do with God the Father and Jesus and not with Mary, who is not included in the consecratory core of the Mass.

    Thus ‘Dan’s victory-lap declaration that “your cult’s actions prove otherwise” only indicates that ‘Dan’ is not really clear on the concept of ‘proof’. And how can he be? Were he to rely on objective proof, derived logically from evidence and careful conclusions stemming from the evidence, then his entire FDS would collapse.

  11. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1124PM:

    “Bible-teachings” never really addressed the further issues of Mary’s nature and role. The corpus of that theology was developed much later, under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit that ‘Dan’ claims to get his Faxes from. So you can’t very well claim that the Bible – and especially the Old Testament – has a teaching on a topic that it never really considered in the first place.

    What “attributes” does the Church claim Mary to have that equate to the attributes of Christ that flow from His divinity? What attributes that somehow justify the claim that Mary is a “false Christ”? ‘Dan’ is very much off the mark here and his immediately following reference to “all absolute lies” recoils upon him here with a rather resounding thump and whack.

    Jesus is the ultimate Mediator between humanity and God. Mary – and to a lesser extent the saints and all the blessed – are intercessors on a much smaller and a more human scale: like having ‘friends at court’ (using the idea of a royal court, whose members have access to the Throne). Among those Mary is the primary or most significant, but remains a human nonetheless.

    She was taken up into Heaven to demonstrate – the Church teaches – that the bond between God and humanity is that fundamental and vital and strong, and that in the fullness of Time humanity will be gathered back to the Source, Who is God.

  12. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1124PM:

    The pericopes ‘Dan’ tosses up are thus not quite to the point at all.

    And the pericope from John 10:8 is vividly so: nobody here “came before” Jesus, and surely not the Church, so on its face the pericope makes no sense here. But there is the manipulative method in the madness in ‘Dan’s deployment of it here: he’s going for the emotional pizzazz of that “thieves and robbers” phrase, which the unthinking might be expected to transfer to ‘Dan’s preferred target, the Church, despite the conceptual incoherence involved in such a transfer.

  13. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1124PM:

    And then – marvelously demonstrating the ignorance embodied in his pile of fundie-like 3x5s – ‘Dan’ eagerly lards on a bunch more stuff: Jesuits do not “take on her name” (that Order is – it apparently has to be pointed out to ‘Dan’ – named after Jesus); nor does that Order “wear hooded, dark brown capes” at all.

    The liturgical vestments worn by clergy and hierarchs go back to the days of medieval academic gowns and even further back to the special clothing worn by various officials as well as clergy in the era of the Roman and Byzantine empires. But notice the sly “silk, lacy” bit, since mainstream Protestant clergy also wore – until quite recently – the same type of gowns, though mostly black in color, often set off by the classic white ‘preaching tabs’ often seen in paintings of the day.

    And the whole bit pitch-perfectly topped off by ‘Dan’s query as to what may or may not be “normal”.

    And – transporting the entire performance to the empyrean sublime – ‘Dan’s final epithet as to who is “scary”.

    More popcorn, please.

  14. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1255AM:

    ‘Dan’ now has to somehow separate himself (or Himself) from any claimed superiority due to special visions. He cawn’t allow himself to be ‘squeezed into’ “that definition”, doncha see? Alas, it’s already been done, and by he (or He) himself (or Himself).

    So the “special” and the “secret” stuff from the Beyond … don’t qualify as visions. What are they then? ‘Dan’ claims that they are merely “knowledge” and “truth”, but that’s just his FDS talking and not any demonstrated fact.

    And, as I have said, these visions of his (or His) also endow him (or Him) with that “special” and “secret” and “Chosen” authority, even to the extent that to question ‘Dan’ is to “mock God”. That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

  15. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1255AM:

    And then – again marvelously – ‘Dan’ quotes St. Paul, who in the pericope is precisely warning against those who claim authority from “visions” (i.e. bases of a claimed knowledge and authority known only to the one with the vision that nobody else can see). ‘Dan’ is not only a psychological textbook case, but a Scriptural one as well: Paul had already encountered ‘Dan’s type way back then.

    And yet ‘Dan’ winds up having to conclude by once again putting to readers that age-old type of question: ‘Who ya gonna believe – ‘Dan’ or your own lying eyes’? (Hint: you’re supposed to believe ‘Dan’ and bethump yourself for being so ignorant as to have questioned him (or Him)).

    And like any good fundie preacher, he writhes and gesticulates, stunned by the mulishness in the pews.

  16. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1255AM:

    And then a final bit, trying to evade the problem that Fatima poses to the ‘Dan’-stuff by simply noting how the three Fatima children are “the most unhappy looking children”, such as ‘Dan’ hath “never seen … in all my life”. Oh, my. Even more unhappy than the children he accosted in the schoolyard and wherever else he brought his act to impose on others?

    Now – ‘Dan’ then manipulatively declaims – his bits here “just may be plausible, probable, and possible”. Sure, about as “plausible, probable and possible” as ‘Dan’s being the speshully authorized and directly-informed Mouth and Mind of God.

    Readers may judge as they will.