Philly D.A. Seth Williams throws a hissy fit after upbraided by appellate court
After a Pennsylvania appeals court unanimously overturned the landmark conviction of Msgr. William J. Lynn – a conviction which the mainstream media naturally loudly trumpeted – Philadelphia D.A. Seth Williams publicly attacked Msgr. Lynn, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, and even the appellate court judges to whom he is ethically bound to show due respect.
After Williams intemperately declared that the court's ruling was an "injustice," writer Ralph Cipriano reports that Lynn's lawyer, Thomas A. Bergstrom, believes that Williams' conduct was "unbecoming of his office and position as the city's top law enforcement officer."
Rather than dutifully discharging his role as simply a publicly elected law enforcement officer, Bergstrom adds, "All of a sudden he [Williams] is now judge, jury and executioner, and he's still railing about this man (Msgr. Lynn) being guilty, and he's innocent."
A focus on facts, not emotion
Columnist Christine Flowers :
Putting truth before emotion
Christine Flowers is not only a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News but also a seasoned lawyer.
After following the lengthy legal proceedings of the last three years, Flowers recently wrote an eye-opening article in the Daily News, in which she rails against D.A. Williams and others for their hypocrisy of seeking justice for abuse victims from decades ago by "embracing injustice."
While blasting last year's court proceedings against Msgr. Lynn as a "show trial," Flowers also attacks the "vindictive persistence" with which Williams pursued a "priestly scalp" in the form of an illegal prosecution of Lynn. She also slams Williams' insistence that his case against Lynn was legally sound despite the appeal court's decision and all of the evidence to the contrary.
Writes Flowers:
"Seth Williams says he's 'disgusted' by the Pennsylvania Superior Court's decision reversing the child endangerment conviction of Monsignor William Lynn …
"The fact that he was 'disgusted' with the Superior Court ruling indicates that he either severely miscalculated the effect of that 2007 amendment or felt that public outrage and a communal sense of misdirected vengeance overrode the legal technicality known as due process."
A judge for the prosecution
Judge Teresa Sarmina : A setback in her quest to convict
an innocent man
Numerous times during the trial of Msgr. Lynn, Sarmina blatantly betrayed her partiality with a number of shocking moments which showed that she had prejudged the matter in favor of the prosecution.
For example, early in the trial, Judge Sarmina confidently ruled that Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, the former archbishop of Philadelphia, was able and "competent" to give testimony at the high-profile case. However, barely 36 hours after her ruling, the cardinal died in his sleep. The ailing prelate, at 88 years old, was already suffering from lengthy battles with cancer and severe dementia, yet Sarmina ruled that this man should appear and testify in public at one of Philadelphia's most publicized trials in history. Unbelievable.
Even though, after Sarmina wrote a rambling, 235-page brief defending her erroneous conviction of Msgr. Lynn, the appeals court unanimously ruled that her conviction was illegal and that an innocent man had just spent 18 months in prison for a crime which he did not commit.
Enter Christine Flowers again:
"I once clerked for the Superior Court. It is not an easy thing to get three of its judges to agree on what to have for lunch, let alone a legal decision … But in the Lynn case, they were unanimous and of the same mind in finding that the lower court essentially blew it, calling Judge Teresa Sarmina's decision to convict 'fundamentally flawed.' Since Sarmina had flatly rejected defense arguments about the unconstitutionality of retroactivity, the Superior Court essentially told Lynn's defense team that, yes, they were right."
Following the appellate court decision, Msgr. Lynn's case was returned to Judge Sarmina. And at that point, the honorable thing for Judge Sarmina to do would be to apologize to Msgr. Lynn for illegally incarcerating him.
However, apparently acting out of nothing but pure spite, Sarmina only reluctantly agreed to release Msgr. Lynn from prison on bail, and only under a host of ridiculous conditions more befitting John Gotti. In addition to having Lynn post a bond of $250,000, Sarmina has ordered him to wear an ankle bracelet, not to leave his residence, and to report to a parole officer every week.
Sarmina and D.A. Williams claimed that Msgr. Lynn might somehow "flee to the Vatican," a wholly preposterous idea that only over-heated bigots would buy.
In the end, however, Msgr. Lynn received justice, even if he had to spend 18 months illegally incarcerated, thanks to the vendetta launched against the Church by Williams, his staff, and their willing accomplice, Judge Sarmina.
And kudos to Christine Flowers, the first member of the mainstream media to publicize Williams' witch hunt against the Catholic Church.
Can Lybb sue Williams and/or Judge Sarmina to get back the 18 months of his life?
He should.
Philadelphia Archdiocese prolongs its own suffering
Karen Heller, Inquirer Columnist
Posted: Wednesday, January 8, 2014, 2:01 AM
Monsignor William Lynn descended five stories Monday from the courtroom to freedom, only to be met by a scrum of cameras and foul-mouthed hecklers. But he is also 80 pounds lighter from 18 months of exercise and prison grub, so perhaps incarceration wasn't all bad.
The day after Christmas, a three-judge appeals panel overturned the former archdiocese secretary's conviction of child endangerment in protecting pedophile and defrocked priest Edward Avery. The laws then on the books, the court ruled, applied only to direct supervisors of children, not people supervising those supervisors.
While overturning the conviction, the judges noted that the monsignor was all about shielding his seniors. Like many successful bureaucrats, Lynn managed up.
Lynn's "first priority in dealing with sexually abusive priests appeared to be the protection of the reputation of the archdiocese," the judges wrote. "His second priority appeared to be protection of the reputation of the offending priest.
The sex-abuse scandal has cost the Philadelphia Archdiocese an estimated $12 million in legal defense. It does not appear to be over, at least to District Attorney Seth Williams, who took his second-term oath the day of Lynn's bail hearing. He said his office most likely would appeal the court's ruling.
Williams characterized the decision as "disappointing and puzzling." He excoriated the church's decision to post Lynn's $25,000 bail: "It is disgusting that they would pay to free this man."
In turn, Lynn's attorney, Thomas Bergstrom, called Williams "out of line" for "denigrating the court and denigrating the archdiocese." Bergstrom says he plans to file a complaint against the district attorney with the state Bar Association and Disciplinary Board of the state Supreme Court.
So, now it's about the lawyers.
Forgotten in this mess are the abused, the children.
The District Attorney's Office under Lynne Abraham launched a 2005 grand jury investigation into the archdiocese's treatment of child-abuse allegations – or, more precisely, its decided lack thereof – and decided not to charge Lynn. The child-endangerment statute, according to the report and cited in the judge's ruling, was "too narrow to support a successful prosecution of the decision-makers who were running the archdiocese." In 2007, the definition was broadened and would have extended to Lynn, but the law, as we know, is a beast.
Williams proceeded and charged Lynn. The New York Times called him "the avenging altar boy."
But only up to a point. Lynn kept his collar. He lost his weight. Everyone remarked how good he looks. The archdiocese found him a home in the rectory of St. William in the Northeast, though it's unclear if Lynn will return to active ministry.
"All of the church's wounds are self-inflicted, a festering tumor growing from within," Abraham told me. A second 2011 grand jury report resulted in the suspension of 26 priests suspected of sex abuse or misconduct with minors, more than half of whom have since been removed.
Last month, the archdiocese suspended a priest who had been allowed to work for almost a year after multiple accusers alleged he had abused them. The church refused to release details. This came the day after the archdiocese released the fate of seven suspended priests facing abuse charges.
"The archdiocese is and remains firmly committed to protecting children and young people," said a church spokesman in December. "It has taken various steps since 2011 to strengthen and reinforce those efforts."
In other words, since the second damaging grand jury report because one did not prove to be enough.
That self-inflicted wound still appears to be festering.
Dennis you LOST.
Deal with it!
http://mobile.philly.com/video?videoid=239037061
The thoughts from citizens about Lynn. Short but good video.
Dennis, do you want to be tried by a lynch mob?
You can be sure that Wiliams is doing all of this just because he knows the slavish liberal media will give him great PR for attacking the evil Catholic church and boost him into a better job than as as a scummy city DA.
HUGE setback for hin now,
Perfect!
Norris,
Please tell me what I lost.
The only people losing here are the parishioners and neighbors of St. Williams Lock-Up.
However, they are one step ahead of the parishioners of Our Lady of Calvary parish.
People of St. Williams knows there is a person who does not care about the safety of children amongst them. Those of OLC were kept in the dark.
But your church " is firmly committed to protecting children and young people"
What f&*#ing liberal media?
The "liberal media" that backed Bush's illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq without question? An illegal invasion and occupation that has bankrupted the American people? Do you ever stop lying to yourselves?
There's no liberal media there's only a corporate capitalist imperialist media; doing what those entities want.
Thanks for your opinion Jim. However, i am not sure if you are qualified enough to speak for the city of philadelphia or the legal dog and pony shows that have been going on there for the last 2 years.
From “Dennis” (the 8th, 859PM) we get a new stylistic twist: apparently formatted to support the appearance of analytic competence (the heading of the comment’s text identifies an article and Inquirer author), yet there is no use of quotation marks, and thus it is impossible to know where the report ends and “Dennis” begins. Or perhaps “Dennis” has found so simpatico a reporter that the text of what he has put up here is all from the reporter.
Whatever the case may be, there is some useful material for the Notebook.
Desperate to glean the merest moiety of desirable (i.e. anti-Church) spin out of the Lynn conviction reversal, the text sniffs about Lynn’s physical condition (he has lost 80 pounds) and – repellently – tries to go for the idea that “perhaps incarceration wasn’t all bad”.
Then, while noting accurately that Lynn’s case was “overturned” (it was unanimously overturned, which in legal affairs reaches another level of significance altogether), the text goes on to assert that “the judges noted that the monsignor was all about shielding his seniors” [italics mine]. I have reviewed the Court’s decision and I cannot find that italicized term at all; nor can I find any comment by the Court that might support this (rather juvenile) linguistic characterization – whether this queasy bit is from the reporter or from “Dennis” is uncertain; it is a serious indictment of the quality of the reporting at the Inquirer that such doubt could exist.
Nor is the term “managed up” easily understandable and it is not clear what it means here.
And while the text then goes on to accurately quote what it does quote from the Court, it omits the Court’s immediately subsequent remarks to the effect that Msgr. Lynn’s priorities – whatever they might have been – were not relevant to the legal issue before the Court.
Whether the DA will actually appeal the Lynn reversal to the Commonwealth’s Supreme Court remains to be seen. A sober public practitioner, faced with so unanimous and so strongly-worded a reversal from the Superior Court, would have to give very strong and serious thought to simply (and perhaps thankfully) letting the matter go.
But Williams seems susceptible to other considerations not so often encountered among public legal practitioners: a) the fact that he brought the case at all indicates a lack of prudential legal judgment if not also legal competence; b) the way he prosecuted it indicates a brassy self-assertion, which may reflect i) his own personal and immature or unripe predispositions, or ii) a calculated playing-to-the-peanut-gallery, or iii) a confidence that unassailable political influences behind the scenes will shield him. Or all three. And c) at this point it is now possible that he has no option except to Keep The Ball Rolling or else invite the (perhaps at this point already unavoidable) possibility of his own professional performance being called to account.
Additionally, if Williams finds the carefully-explained and clearly-stated reversal “puzzling”, then he is either dishonest or incompetent. Whether he will actually follow-through with the appeal of the reversal is yet to be seen; but given his track-record so far I would not be surprised if he does, unless quietly read the Riot Act by other large if unseen political influences who realize that at this point such stubbornness will risk far more than it could possibly gain.
Thus defense counsel Begrstrom’s intention to file a complaint with the Bar Association and with the Disciplinary Board constitute the proper use of these options, especially given the legal import underlying the intensity and unanimity of the Superior Court’s analysis.
Thus too we see once again the Abusenik Playbook standard procedure deployed in the slippery attempt to dismiss all of the foregoing with the bit about “So, now it’s about the lawyers”. Followed immediately – but of course – by the reference to “the children”.
As I have said several times before, we see playing out before us a) the Playbook’s conflation of the personal and the public and the legal forums and b) the use of “the children” as baby-harp seals to generate the emotional oomph to lubricate a convenient slide over the complications created by (a).
Once the i) personal claims of individuals are brought to ii) the public forum and then – with the addition of another order of magnitude of complexity altogether – brought to iii) the legal forum, then one cannot simply wander back and forth across the three forums as convenience or preference may incline. And while the personal and public forums offer somewhat more latitude in this regard, the legal forum does not (and, if it is to retain its integrity and legitimacy, cannot) allow such invertebrate and breezy latitude.
Nor is it at all sufficient to try to dismiss the prior DA’s awareness (that the 2007 EWOC law amendment would not support any pre-2007 Charges) as being attributable to “the law, as we know, is a beast”. The law, conceptually, is supposed to be the coherent fencing that keeps “the beast” of human nature constrained by the possibility of prosecution and conviction while simultaneously keeping “the beast” of untrammeled government power from simply going-after whatever target it prefers with impunity. Apparently the author of this bit of the comment’s text does not “know” that.
What we have seen in this case, however, is a hardly-unpredictable playing-out of the consequences that flow from trying to turn the law from a fencing/boundarying structure into an active hunter: in the excitement of the chase, the guardians of the law become beasts themselves. This was the danger in Abusenik and Stampede and indeed in all Victimist law ‘reforms’ from Day One.
Nor does the author of this comment offer any alternative to the fact that “Lynn has kept his collar”. On what basis, pray, would he not be able to keep it? As it stands now, he is un-convicted of the Charges against him (nor was this on the basis of any mere ‘technicality’; the Superior Court found (and expressed) enough wrong in Judge Sarmina’s professional performance to merit serious re-thinking about her fitness for the Bench).
The author of this comment then tries to go for the idea that Lynn is somehow the bad-guy for having lost weight in prison, keeping his collar, and (although this was required by Judge Sarmina) being given residence in a rectory in the AOP. Apparently – the conflation of the three forums again – Lynn didn’t play his assigned role by ‘suffering’ enough; the fact that he was not-guilty of the Charges against him can be ignored – according to the Playbook – by shifting from the suddenly-uncongenial legal forum back to the personal and public forums. This is a form of the old shell-game street-scam, where you could never be sure under which overturned nutshell the scammer was going to hide the bean from one minute to the next.
And the author of this text also refers to the Grand Jury Reports – especially the second – as if they were some sort of credible investigation and assessment. But in terms of their factual flaws they have already been dealt with at length on this site and the Big Trial site.
Again, there is no way of knowing where the Inky reporter ends and “Dennis” begins, although – as I said – it appears that there’s not that much difference between the two competence-levels in the first place anyway.
And everyone thought things were bad under Mayor Rizzo; that Piladelphia is the City of Brotherly Love; William is rolling over in his grave and Franklin is totally beside himself that the country has come to such a pass as this.
Mr. Manos,
Since you thanked Jim for his opinion, I will thank you for taking time out of that very busy career to add your comment today.
I think Jim is more than qualified to speak about what is happening in Philly. Archdioceses all use the same playbook. I don't live in St. Paul but I know alot of the problems there.
Because Jim does not know what street to drive on to get a good steak sandwich or what is the best club on Delaware Ave. should not disqualify him.
Dog and Pony show. Is that original ? I would like to use it if you don't mind.
Sue,
If this lynch mob is made up of people like you I have nothing to worry about. I have over time seen people like you come and go, and all the time me and people like me remain. Its no longer only the victim/survivor fighting back against your abusive clergy and those who do not know the difference between right and wrong but its victims brothers, sisters, parents, spouses and neighbors.
Now I don't know what set you off to join our little debate here, maybe it was because Lynn was released from say a traditional prison but is far from being in a better place, but I welcome you to stay. I always welcome a challenge.
Who knows you maybe that great female hope for abusive clergy members.
God knows they need it.
On the 9th at 715AM we are treated to yet another version of “Dennis” – the Wig of Much And Long Experience. He has “over time seen people like you come and go” while he and the rest of the “victim/survivor” (again with the queasy Holocaust filching) demographic – and fortified now by all their friends and their relations – will continue “fighting back against your abusive clergy”.
The Lynn case was then an example of this “fighting back” – demonstrating clearly, I would say, just what happens when the Playbook falls into the hands of law enforcement and judicial types for whom the law books take a back-seat to the Playbook.
He then refers to “our little debate here”, although – in his universe – debaters don’t have to deal with material they don’t like. And then, to put another nail in the lid of this gambit, he declares that he will “always welcome a challenge”; but – as with so many English words deployed by Abuseniks – that doesn’t actually mean what it says, since he doesn’t like to deal with challenges that – not to put too fine a point on it – actually challenge his material.
Nobody should ever have to face a “lynch-mob”; the principles of Western justice were formulated specifically to prevent such regressive goings-on. But Victimist law ‘reforms’ and the Abusenik Playbook itself actually enshrine the dynamics of the old lynch-mob, gussied up as ‘reforms’ that yet weaken the principles of law and make it so easy for that regression to take place that in Philly we actually see a lynch-mob led-by a DA and a trial judge.
But in light of this week’s developments in Manhattan (discussed in my comment of the 8th at 1026AM on this site’s recent ‘Best Articles of 2013’ thread) “Dennis” may yet experience something of an experience-expanding moment. What happens when taxpayers find out that they have been taken for a very expensive ride by numerous persons criminally gaming the system through false claims?
The adventure continues.
The concluding bit – if it is to make any sense at all – raises the thought that “female” influence in the Church would somehow reduce or eliminate the “abusive clergy members” problem. Given the fact of female-teacher abuse (possibly even ‘statutory rape’) of students, I am not convinced of its potential efficacy as a solution. Surely Judge Sarmina – being a female – did not bring any improvements to the administration of the law; quite the opposite, actually, and so much so that it incurred so outright a rebuke in higher-court review. And in the Twin-Cities we still await some rational outcome to the highly-dubious matter that was recently kicked-up by the female head of the SVU in the police force there, somehow including the involvement of the female former Archdiocesan Chancery official. Nor does Ms. Dorris of SNAP impress with her complaint about how the Archdiocese is housing Msgr. Lynn during the possible-appeal-window now ticking away, awaiting the DA’s actual decision on what he’s going to do next.
So the female-influence thought takes its place, I would say, with the old thought about a married clergy being the solution to the abuse problem – when actually ecclesial polities with married-clergy have abuse-problems of their own.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/video?id=9383971
Looks like a beat down old man, holding his head down in shame. With nothing in those eyes.
This folks is what a victim looks like. Only difference is its not a child's face.
And what was williams on in the picture for this article? Your dreams of justice and suppor of victims is dying slowly each day with williams, sarmina and ceisler being called out on their incompetence and "fundamentally flawed" interpretation of the law.
Dennis, the media is owned by corporatists and profiteers who are also liberals.
No contradiction there my friend.
I still say this Philly show, from the D.A. to the Judge to dufus at Big Trial are all part of a mob connected false flag dance. But it's not taking hold with the sane public at all. It's going to have to be a bigger effort than turpsicary out of backwater Philly to change the tide against sex abuse enablers. You've lost. You will always loose. You are like the old South. you will not rise again.
~~" Your dreams of justice and suppor of victims is dying slowly each day".
I will assume the victims you speak of are children of sexual abuse by clergy since this blog is about catholic sex abuse ?
Meltdown.
"Fundamentally flawed."
Fundamentally, anti-Catholic bigots.
Mark,
If I admit I am a "anti-catholic church hating bigot can we let it go ?
Dave,
Please place on your blog banner that Dennis Ecker is a anti-catholic church hating bigot !!
No need Dennis: all of us regular readers are well aware of your vartious biases and hatreds.
Don't bother, Dave. Everybody knows it already.
I will be proud to be addressed by my new title as long as every clergy member goes by "LITTLE MONSTER"
Who is going to tell your clergy friends over at C4C of their new titles?
Yawn.
FHFCM,
When you think no one is paying attention you see something like your new title. I luv it.
I was angry at first but for me its only something else I will gain strength from.
At the end of the day it still won't set free Lynn, Avery, Engelhardt and Shero.
In case those who forgot who Fr. Hermley OSFS of Father Judge H.S. is. He is the animal who raped me.
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/chicago-archdiocese-prepares-release-historical-files-sex-abuse
Another very sad story of the standard operating procedures of the catholic church here in the United States. Another sad story of how the catholic church wants everyone to believe they are doing everything to protect children. Another false claim of how it is safer for children today then it was years ago.
Good move by Cardinal George. Not a "defensive" stance at all but one of transparency and setting-the-record-straight (but this is the Reporter, after all, which needs to be read with antenna up and filters on. The Register is the more balanced).
Big clue in first line: HISTORICAL files. 70s and 80s. These are cases that took place years ago and many of the priests involved are dead. And many of the accusers are liars. But they will never be exposed (in this world) due to the understandable but regretable and ill-advised rush to settle by the archdiocese.
There are the usual naive statements like "According to the abuse-tracking website BishopAccountability.org, McCormack has at least 23 known accusers." The bar for credibility in priest accusation cases has been set so low you'd need excavation equipment to find it. And BishopAccountability.org is notorious for the unreliability of its information.
For what it's worth, MacArthur sounds mentally unstable. One point to note is that at least his first accuser was willing to make his own name public. Of course, that in itself proves nothing, and most post-2002 abuse accusations are bogus. But putting his own name out there makes the claim a tiny bit more credible. Unlike Daniel Gallagher in Philadelphia – oh, sorry, I keep forgeting, Billy Doe.
Now, coming out of history and right up to the Church's situation today: the Church has long since put its house in order, and the measures it has taken have been described by Elizabeth Yore, Oprah Winfrey's child protection attorney, as "state of the art." That's why they are being emulated by other religious organisations (which have a far bigger problem with child abuse – TODAY). But don't take my words for it; look at the numbers. How many priests had even remotely credible allegations against them in 2012 (of anything from physical abuse to inappropriate language)?
Six.
Out of 40,000 priests.
The RC Church has put its house in order. Now, how about the rest of society?
Mark,
You asked such a great question. What about the rest of society ?
If the catholic church IS doing such a good job dealing with sexual abuse how come the rest of society is following suit with your template ?
Continued cover-ups and continued protection of abusers is not putting your house together. Much of society is watching the mistakes the catholic church is making.
Please tell me the other religious organization that have followed the catholic church example. I am not questioning your claim I only want to know and any documentation I may read.
On the 12th at 1211PM “Dennis” makes no sense yet again: in response to ‘Mark’ (the 11th, 1136AM) he asks why, if the Church “is doing such a good job with sexual abuse”, yet “how come the rest of society is following suit with your template”? [exaggerated formatting omitted]
There are two options here: a) assume that “Dennis” has put up a thought that he intended to put up; or b) “Dennis” wasn’t paying all that much attention and left out a vital ‘not’ in there between “is” and “following”. If (a), then the thought is nonsensical; if (b) then we see again a mentality that either isn’t being serious (for whatever reasons) or else has some problem with vital elements of expressing thoughts accurately.
I’m going to presume that (b) is accurate, to the effect that the comment text should read “how come the rest of society is not following suit with your template?”.
And thus the following thoughts come to me. First, since the media do not cover very much of the sexual-abuse issues in other venues and organizations, then we don’t really know much about how other organizations and ecclesial polities are adapting the Church’s approach to their own situations.
Second, given the rather unique and ground-breaking nature of the Church’s achievements in creating a sex-abuse-prevention climate organizationally, then it may take quite a while for other organizations to muster their resources accordingly.
Third, few other ecclesial polities are so organized that they can easily implement top-down measures (which is not to imply that even the hierarchically-organized Church can easily and thoroughly and rapidly implement the new approach).
Fourth, having watched how the Stampede has turned the Church into a pinata, many organizations may fear opening themselves up to the same type of Stampede against themselves. Although, I think that as the Stampede’s energy wanes (perhaps as more of its dynamics are exposed) then other organizations may feel more free to address their own sexual-abuse issues without creating a fresh version of the Stampede for themselves.
Thus too, the sly insertion – as if it were a demonstrated fact – that “continued cover-ups and continued protection of abusers is not putting your house together”. Which also ignores the point ‘Mark’ had raised about the extraordinary paucity of fresh and non-historical claims, stories, and allegations against priests. And also brings back the point made by federal judge Schiltz (in material “Dennis” himself provided) that the “secrecy” covenants included in so many of the Stampede settlements were demanded by the torties and allegants and not by the Church.
Which also then takes us to the newly-brought Manhattan (NY) case where the hitherto sacrosanct disability-claims of firefighters and police are now being examined in the process of the criminal case brought by that DA. Readers might wish to contemplate the possibility that at some future date the currently-secret allegations and stories and claims from the Stampede, that the torties had figured to have permanently locked-away from public examination, might themselves be opened to the light. Now that would be some interesting “documentation” indeed.
And perhaps “Dennis” can actually list the “mistakes” that the Church “is making” (present tense, please, as in the comment text itself) and which such “mistakes” so “much of society is watching”.
Thus then too, the sly mimicry of competent inquiry and analysis: “Dennis” wants some “documentation [he] may read”. He’s demonstrated himself such a stickler for “documentation” in the record here, and has demonstrated such a competence in accurately comprehending such material as has been provided or even that he has – occasionally and from time to time – provided himself. My surmise: based on the record here, by the time any “documentation” goes up we will be facing another “Dennis” – or at least another Wig – and will be back to square-one.
How dare you, Dennis, tell the truth about that liar, Lynn, and the Archdioces that has spent millions shielding him. As he shields their child raping priests. This thing is far from over.