Always On the Hunt For More Money: Crazy Jeff Anderson Issues His Own ‘Report’ On Abuse in Illinois

Jeff Anderson : lawyer

Carnival barker – lawyer Jeff Anderson

What happens when a money-hungry, publicity-seeking attorney starts running out of accusers to represent?

Well, in the case of the notorious Jeff Anderson, the dean of hateful lawyers who sue the Church, he issues a phony "report" of people only accused of abuse and holds a goofy press conference, knowing that media robots will slop it all up, turn it into splashy headlines, and generate more clients and money for himself.

Recycled information suddenly 'news'

Anderson's report purports to catalog the names of all individuals merely accused of abuse who were ever "associated" with the Catholic Church in Illinois.

However, even a cursory review of the report reveals there is almost nothing new here. It is old – very old – information. There are 400 individuals named in the report, but according to our analysis:

  • All but one of the individuals in the report are long out of ministry or deceased;
  • Of those whose living status could be determined, over 65% of them are long dead (and no longer around to defend themselves, of course) and that percentage is probably even higher;
  • All of the individuals were either already publicly known or reported to law enforcement.

Even though there was no real news here, all of the local Chicago media zombies still showed up to Anderson's high-theater press conference. And rather than ask any tough journalistic questions about the report or Anderson's well-publicized kickback scheme with SNAP, they all dutifully reported the same basic story line about things already reported and which happened many decades ago.

Kudos for fighting back

It has been far too common for diocesan spokespeople to remain silent in the face of such bogus attacks on the Church. So it was refreshing to finally see dioceses in Illinois forcefully respond to Anderson's bogus report.

The Archdiocese of Chicago in particular made officials available to answer questions immediately following Anderson's carnival show. This was a long overdue but very effective strategy. It is not sufficient to let Anderson set the media narrative and respond with only a bland statement that the Church is against sex abuse. Officials must appear in person to answer questions and call out the falsehoods spewed by thug lawyers.

So bravo to the Archdiocese of Chicago, the Diocese of Joliet, the Diocese of Springfield, the Diocese of Peoria, and the Diocese of Rockford for punching back against Anderson.

Sometimes you have to do that to a bully.


  1. peoples clown says:

    Excellent article on what's happening in Illinois. Comrade commissar Anderson up to his old tricks again, but a sucker is born every minute, as he snake oils it as a new thing. And yes, the media spews it as a dutiful salesman, putting "the hook" into whoever it can. The various archdiocese, and diocese, are at least resisting so that's good! The new Illinois governor, duly elected by many catholic votes, shows his gratitude, by doing nothing, other than to let the situation foment. Maybe Anderson, can go to Springfield, the capitol, next Christmas season, and stand behind, and wallow, in the satanic church display. Why fake it?

  2. LLC says:


    "duly elected by many catholic votes" = you are correct; there is a clear divide between our Faith imperatives and the election results. It is not limited to the Catholic vote, of course; it is amazing how many call themselves Christians and yet compromise their voting power in order to achieve some results on, let's say, economic policies, with complete disregard of moral issues, in primis abortion.

    Another site indicates the following five non-negotiable issues for Catholics:

    1 – Abortion

    2 – Euthanasia

    3 – Embryonic Stem Cell Research

    4 – Human Cloning

    5 – Gay Marriage

    Yet, I wonder how many Catholics are even aware of them. Society at large would enormously benefit by a Catholic vote unified behind these issues.

  3. Jim Robertson says:

    Anderson works for the church. He was picked by the church to be THE lawyer, victims are referred to.

    How many of us victims are there in the USA? tens of thousands? Yet a Minneapolis lawyer is the center for legal advise for victms. Why? When is the last time you've been refered to a anything in Minnesota? Let alone a single lawyer for an entire U.S. Church scandal. You say he races for the church's money? Well where are all the rest of the ambulence chasers? Anderson as king of the victims' lawyers is so odd I should have seen through it at the start but I didn't. I was love bombed (lightly) by the Catholics who came to support us, victims. The supporters were caring, anti church's behavior towards victims, pro you but  they were just there for show and control. And that's who Jeff is. He was anti Rico act being used. He picked our lead lawyers in Calif by funnelling the people who were harmed here, who called him cuz he's the only lawyer you see and he has demi-hero status. How is he the only one. Why is he more equal than ohers. One man from Minnesota? Not from NY ,Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Boston but from Minneapolis. How does that scenario look natural? Anderson is AstroTurf just like SNAP. Both a pair of church created control funnels

  4. malcolm harris says:

    Jeff Anderson is again trying to keep the ball rolling by using the media drones. People don't have time to think, so they absorb many things, like a sponge absorbing water. However just take one common accusation against the Bishops. That when an accusation was made about a priest….. that they covered it up?. This is harking back to the time when there was no mandatory reporting. But just imagine the consequences if the Bishop had gone to the nearest police station to report an accusation. The Bishop would have been told that the alleged victim and his/her parents must come to make a complaint, otherwise the police would be unable to investigate. So the Bishop's report (by itself) would not have triggered police action. What it might have done would be to make the police think that the accused  was even suspected by his own Bishop??. Thus harming the accused's civil right to be presumed innocent. Anyway there was nothng to stop the alleged victim's parents from going straight to the police??? So the media is deceiving the public…. by leaving out many relevant facts.

    • Dan says:

      Can you come up with anymore ridiculous excuses, Malcolm? Are you saying the bishops did the right thing by transferring the guilty pedophiles or pederasts to different churches out of the area so they could continue molesting children? How about the several you guys claim were laicized without public knowledge or oversight and set free to continue their perversions and malfeasance? Good job Catholic Church hierarchy. You did real well!?!

  5. malcolm harris says:

    Many of Dan's comments don't merit serious consideration. But sometimes he's only repeating a popular accusation against Bishops. Namely that they simply transferred the accused man to another parish.  Well… it rests upon presumption….that every accusation against every priest is always true. And therefore they are always guilty. So with this delusion firmly in place, the Bishops can be accused of moving child molesters all around the country. Neato!. But in reality we know that people can sometimes tell lies…. for various motives. However in my world, in contrast to Dan's world, I found Catholic parents to be as loving and protective towards their kids as any parents on earth. So frankly I am offended at the suggestion that these things could have happened… without the parent's action to put a stop to it, This is like the proverbial mole-hills being made into mountains… by moral panic…. on steroids.

    • Dan says:

      Wait a minute, Malcolm. You're the one who once again brought up your repeated nonsense, with more poor excuses as to why the bishops improperly handled the sexually immoral of your Church. Once again, I have to remind you of the truth, with which there are no excuses, if your bishops knew anything about using the Bible to help make their decisions. Instead they thought they could secretly protect the reputation of the Church, instead of handing over sexually deviant perverts to the proper authorities. If only the hierarchy was as "loving and protective of their kids" as you claim Catholic parents to be, then this problem may not have escalated into the utter mess your Church is now in. And parents went to bishops with their concerns and were turned away, claiming children to be liars or over-exaggerating, or threatening to excommunicate. Parents did not want to lose their membership in their wonderful Church and sometimes accepted the excuses of Bishops or denials of priests over their own children's word. Not the "loving and protective" parents you claim and not a description of some of the lying and accusing Catholic parents I've run into at your churches.

      I saw yesterday, one month after their big bishops meeting, that your pope says now they're going to start sending perpetrators to the proper authorities. They've been making those claims and not following them for almost twenty years. Are we now to believe this time he's going to keep his word. I sure as heck ain't listening to the empty promises of the leader of liars and deceivers.  servant of the Truth

  6. Julie says:

    Dan, What do the leaders of your church do when they are informed of a pedophile in thier clergy? 

    • Dan says:

      There would never be pedophilia among real Christians. Should there ever be a case, they would be sent to the proper authorities and prosecuted, jailed and never near children again, with the churches consent and assistance. Why do Catholics think it normal to have a Church plagued with child molesting clergy? Shame on all of you.

  7. LLC says:


    "There would never be pedophilia among real Christians" = classic True Scotsman fallacy. Would you say the same for, let's say, robbery? kidnapping? DUI? How about simply driving over the speed limit? The belief that Christian are perfect, this side of Heaven, is ridiculous and non-Scriptural, and only fuels anti-Christian prejudices.

    • Dan says:

      We are all sinners, but the question was regarding "pedophilia". There will be those in the church who are guilty of other sins in the past, present or future. If you're not working on purifying yourself from sin and changing your lifestyle with the help of Christ, once your in the church, then I would say that you possibly aren't saved or Christian. The fact that there is so much repetitive pedophilia among the leaders of your Church, and the way in which they handled those cases, is proof that your Church is not a Christian church. This is Biblical and I suggest you do a good study on the penalty of harming one of God's little ones, Matthew 18:1-7. This is Scriptural and does not fuel anti-Christian predjudices, though it may rightfully fuel anti-Catholic ones

      P.S. Maybe instead of Julie or the rest of you donating your money to your Church, you ought to be sending it to me. After all, I'm the one teaching you the truth. No, I don't need or want your money!

    • peoples clown says:

      LLC – yes, ridiculous , indeed!  So true, so true! Another example might be peter in the garden of Gethsemane, cutting off the temple guards ear. Putting Christians on pedestals DOES foster antichristian prejudice !

    • Dan says:

      peoples clown says, "Putting Chiristians on pedestals DOES foster antichristian predjudice !"

      I can't agree more. So why does the catholic church place the dead statues of their "saints" on "pedestals", as if they are lifted up to be worshiped and adored? Especially, as in the case of your Queen of Heaven, falsely believing that she was sinless and perfect, when she was only human and a sinner like all the rest of us. And worse than that, your favorite statues of Christ, who was perfect in every way, you prefer nailed and bloodied on the cross or a harmless baby in Mary's arms, unable to judge your sinfulness. Why all the lies, and yet you act surprised when your priests and bishops lied and denied while raping catholic children. You people even think your belief system is anything close to Christian? You've got to be kidding!?!

    • Dan says:


      You say, "The belief that Christian are perfect, this side of Heaven, is ridiculous and non-Scriptural", and yet you expect perfection from your opponents grammar or spelling? And yet you're not perfect in your grammar or spelling. Do you know how to spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

      P.S. And don't forget to criticise me for missing a period on 4/6 @ 1:19pm after "ones".

    • peoples clown says:

      Dan corner – "does not fuel anti christian prejudices, though it may rightly fuel anti catholic ones". 

      Christian = Catholic you can't have one without the other

    • LLC says:


      “…the question was regarding "pedophilia" = actually, Julie’s question, it seems to me, is more about the accusation than the actual sinful and illegal act. From your answer, your alleged church hierarchy would not even investigate if the rumors have any concrete foundation; they would, in other words, throw the poor soul to the wolves. No second chance, no possibility of redemption. But I think I’ve seen this scene somewhere in Scriptures already. Ah, yes, John 8:1-11, right. Aren’t those stones heavy to carry around, brother Dan?

      Regardless, “If you're not working on purifying yourself from sin and changing your lifestyle with the help of Christ” = Interesting idea, which begs the following question: what is your take on predestination? Or, more colloquially, “once saved always saved”?

      “The fact that there is so much repetitive pedophilia among the leaders of your Church” = it depends on what you mean by repetitive. If by that you mean that the rate of recidivism is high among pedophiles (and not just the few guilty priests), that is correct.

      “and the way in which they handled those cases” = while true in some (very few) cases, it is still synecdochally untrue.

      Finally, regarding the money, sorry, our prayers will have to do. Cheaper and much more effective.

      Au revoir, brother Dan.

    • LLC says:


      First, thank you again for not addressing the point in my post, i.e. the idea that true Christians are not perfect this side of Heaven, as you instead seem to claim. This is another reason why debating your (poor) theology is simply a waste of time.

      “yet you expect perfection from your opponents grammar or spelling” = if I may, “opponents” should be opponents’, or opponent’s. Regardless, if you actually read my post, I said “I expect the same courtesy”, i.e. trying to use the proper grammar and vocabulary; not perfection. Especially not from an ignoramus of your stature. Read on:

      “And yet you're not perfect in your grammar or spelling” = the “yet” needn’t repetition. Furthermore, if again we refer to my original post, I said “I fail at it, obviously, from time to time, but I always try”. I never claimed perfection. No matter. As repeatedly shown in your posts, you never allow facts and reality get in the way of a good, hallucinating rant.

      Your P.S. actually reminded me of a funny joke, but you wouldn’t get it. Anyhow, here it goes. If you really missed a period, it would simply confirm that the mother of the idiots is always pregnant…

      Given the futility of these exchanges, dasvidaniya, brother Dan. Got other, much important stuff to do.

    • Dan says:

      I addressed the point of your post on  April 6 @ 1:19pm, you're claiming I think true Christians are perfect this side of heaven. My response was, "We are all sinners." I further went on to explain that we, as Christians, should also be working on purifying ourselves from sin and changing our lifestyle, with the help of Christ. This is absolutely Biblical and you might want to try studying 1 John chapters 1-5 to understand this. Also Paul, in several of his letters stressed the need to live lives of purity and from a pure heart. Noting your problem with reading comprehension, I can fully understand why you would think debating "theology" would be a "waste of time", because of your total lack of Biblical knowledge. 

      John 8:1-11 = You may as well be comparing a grape to a rotted award winning pumpkin. She was an adulterer, not a repetitive child rapist and destroyer of innocence. Did you even read Matthew 18:1-7, or are you still having trouble facing Biblical "facts and reality"?

      Publion had the same reading comprehension problems and also the same need to criticize an opponents grammar. What makes you a hypocrite is the fact that we're not pointing out your mistakes, of which I've seen several, Grammar Nazi. I would be glad to end these exchanges with you, since you "Got other, much [more] important stuff to do." I am sure there has to be more important things for you to do than to make yourself look ignorant. I just don't think you can help yourself. Sayonara, brother from another Mother, Queen of Heaven.

    • LLC says:


      I see. You are under the delusion that just because you typed something, it did constitute an answer. Sorry to burst your bubble; it has to be relevant to the question, and coherent.

      Against my better judgment, here’s how you are fooling yourself (Proverb 12:15):

      1) Julie asked how the elders in your mythical church would address an alleged act of pedophilia

      2) you answered, verbatim, “There would never be pedophilia among real Christians”. Aside from being a non sequitur, this is what is known as a True Scotsman Fallacy. Wikipedia has a simple explanation of what it means.

      3) In my post, I then asked about other sins

      4) this is where you failed to address the True Scotsman Fallacy. By saying “We are all sinners”, you are contradicting yourself: a), pedophilia is a sin; b), all Christians are sinners, therefore there are pedophile Christians. Everything after that is a non sequitur. It doesn’t mean that’s not true (I wholeheartedly agree with the need, for Christians, to repent and change); it just doesn’t matter in this discussion. Furthermore, you also seem to believe that it’s not possible for those guilty of pedophilia to repent and convert; you claim, again verbatim, “but the question was regarding "pedophilia", as if other sins are somehow different (hence my subsequential post), and “There will be those in the church who are guilty of other sins in the past, present or future”. Other sins, meaning other than pedophilia. Is that correct?

      Now, I explained these things in hope that you’ll better understand why I threat your posts with satire. If you want to have a constructive discussion, please address these points and only these. If not, auf wiedersehen, bruder Dan.

    • peoples clown says:

      Dan corner – I, for one, will not criticize you for missing a period, on 4/6!

    • Dan says:

      And by the way, LLC, I got your joke. "… the mother of idiots is always pregnant." That would be the Virgin Mary you guys worship, always spilling forth more Catholics.

    • peoples clown says:

      Dan corner – see, I told you that you missed publion, as you consistently mention him!

      Cheerios the non,brathair Dan!

  8. Dan says:


    False Christians = Catholics you can't have one without the other, but True Christians can live without either.

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    Now girls, lots of fireworks and color in those exchanges.(Some damned fine writing, reasoning, honest. I'm obviously guessing here but LLC were u educated by Jesuits? Christian Bros?)

    Gosh a golly. can't we all just get along?

    Didn't people tire and walk away from the brutality of "Christians" towards each other (and everybody else)in the Age of Enlightenment? So why go back to the dark ages?

    You won't convert each other. So why fight?

    Jesus said not to. I actually think that was THE most important he said. (If he even existed).

    If Jesus said turn the other cheek he mean't turn the other cheek according to your faith. Haven't noticed much cheek turning here.

    Your contradictions are what drove people away from both sides in of this absolutely needless battle. That's why they called, in part, what came after the Reformation, the Enlightenment.

    Commonsense and experiment and truth grounded the after life and heavenly reward minded in the Enlightenment; but the superstitious will always be with us or at least for a good long while. Trying to drag us all back into the abyss? And greasing the skids with all that lovely love they are so known for.

    What do they call that, what you do ? Tough love? Far more "tough" ,to the point of murderiing the unsaved, than loving it seems.

    • Dan says:


      Whatever gave you the idea that I thought I could convert LLC, PC, Julie (aka Mother Theresa) or Malcolm, let alone converting you. Think I've already explained that Christians can't change a person, we plant seed, but only God decides whether the tree grows, It's nice that you know the loving side of Christ, but it would be most beneficial if you knew both sides. In Matthew 23 He mentions the WOES that will befall hypocrites, those claiming to be Christians, who truly practice the evils of Satan (aka "Wolves in sheep's clothing"). Jesus refers to them and I quote, "You snakes! You brood of vipers! Jesus entered the temple and in anger turned over the money changers tables. Matthew 21:12. In Acts 18 it says Paul debated, vigorously refuted or fiercely argued the Scriptures with his opponents. In Rev. 2:6, the Lord spoke to John, "You HATE what the Nicolaitans are doing, and so do I." These had some connection to idolatry and fornication, so I'll leave it up to you to guess who the Lord said He hated.

      I was debating today whether I even wanted to answer LLC, the epitome of "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." I must say it was a valiant attempt for you to try to enlighten us, but how about you look at all of Christ's teachings and not cherry pick what suits your beliefs, or should I say lack of belief. Also, from the majority of comments you've made in this forum, I wouldn't exactly call yourself the poster child of someone loving, kind or even caring. And I'm not saying that to be mean, but just telling the truth, something I prefer to do. Take care, Jim.

  10. Julie says:

    Dan, Now I know you are Dan Corner lol. In a way you are correct — the men in the priesthood who committed the abuse were not practicing Catholicism/Christianlty, now were they. And you are in denial about your own clergy. I guarantee you there is sex abusers among their ranks. Hope your friend is doing well. I am praying for him. 

    • Dan says:

      Well Julie, I must say you're very consistent. Wrong on all accounts. 1) I'm not Dan Corner. 2) Pedophile and pederast priests were practicing Catholics, in full knowledge of bishops and sometimes the Vatican, repeat perverts were still serving mass, now weren't they? 3) Our church is the gathering of true believers, so we have no clergy per se, and we most definitely don't allow perverts or sex abusers in our group. That's period! 4) My friend I take care of is a woman. 4 out of 4 wrong – 100% – Did your parents have to bribe the school to get you in college? LOL Have a nice evening. 


  11. Jim Robertson says:

    Or as Dorothy Parker once said when asked to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence: " You can lead a whore ta culture but you can't make her think."

    There are whores for religion too, you know. The ether of faith hides many crimes.

    As far as Protestant faiths having child abusers?

    Of course they do. in my cousins congregation they found out about a minister molesting children and immediately called the police. Then immediately announced to their congragation what happened and asked if anyone else was hurt. That's what good people do no matter their faith.