Church-Suing Lawyer Garabedian Apoplectic As Diocese of Fall River Stands Firm Against Unfounded Abuse Claim

I would also ask of ‘Another Mark’ (the 19th, 952PM) the same question that ‘Mark’ asks (the 20th, 652AM): why trust this lawyer (hereinafter: ‘MG’)?

Readers may recall my mention of a Boston attorney in D’Antonio’s book who was involved in various bits of quite possibly prohibited and unlawful skullduggery in helping the Boston Globe get its series published in early January 2002 (D’Antonio is pro-Stampede and sees MG’s activity as sort of charmingly enterprising). That attorney D’Antonio was discussing was none other than MG. And MG is certainly a prime candidate for inclusion among those torties who have taken the Anderson Strategies into the big-time.

And on what basis are we supposed to credit ‘Another Mark’s (hereinafter: ‘AM’) unsupported and global assertion that “the church HAS allowed the wholesale abuse of children”? [giveaway exaggerated formatting retained]

Which is then followed by snark to the effect that MG “must be doing something right now that David Pierre must attack you”.

Which also includes the classic Playbook legerdemain of presuming that the reporting of a historically and actually verifiable fact (i.e. MG’s publicly stated ire at the Diocese of Fall River) constitutes “an attack”.

And then a mere epithet about it being “laughable” that MG treats the Church as “a trip to the ATM”, also a juvenile bit from the Playbook that has been seen here many times.

And I would add that where the Church asks (as many organizations do) for “donations”, it does not try to take potential ‘donors’ to court in order to obtain vast sums from them on the basis of legal charges almost completely unsupported by any evidence.

Then a blunderbuss blam of a bunch of (otherwise quite rationally explicable) Church decisions in regard to “closing churches” that had been built – we see the smarmy heart-string pulling manipulative bit from the Playbook here – with “your hard earned heartfelt donations” from “you and your parents”.

Then a fresh paragraph with more Playbook stuff.

First, to the effect that “David Pierre acts as if every victim is a money sucking leach” [sic]: if anyone deliberately tried to bring a lawsuit against you, alleging acts from the long-ago for which they have no evidence but merely a story, and publicizes the whole thing highly, what would you consider such a person to be?

But then again: DP has never said any such thing as “money sucking leach” [sic] and I can’t recall any commenter using the term either.

But then again: in the Abusenik Playbook, if you don’t totally buy the script, then you are ‘attacking’ them. (The Abusenik objective here is to distract you from the fact that they may well be involved in something characterizable as the activity of a “money sucking leach”[sic]  and therefore try to quickly get you (the reader or hearer) to focus on the (merely alleged) victimization of the whole thing.)

Second, we get – yet again – the mere but utter presumption of “the damage done” by alleged acts the nature and even the very existence of which has never been demonstrated. And I would also recall here the recent material here discussing the cautious use of “potential” in the statements of various scientific papers and research results. ‘Potential’ is not synonymous with ‘certain’ (and so even some phrase like ‘an absolutely certain potential’ would not move things forward at all in this regard).

Third, the Wig of Bemused and Honest Innocence with that “sadly”.

And then fourth: the use of the presumed “attacks” (discussed above in this comment of mine) to cluck condescendingly that “such attacks [do not] somehow support our church”. Would that be “our” Church? And is it not ‘supportive’ to point out how the allegations are unfounded and highly dubious and seriously improbable?

And in regard to “responsability”: did so many Abuseniks go to the same school of misspelling? There seems to be a pattern here.

And then fifth: the old “enabler” trope, right from the Playbook.

And then the next paragraph works toward whistling-away the profound and abyssal evidentiary and veracity problems with the Stampede and the Abuseniks: “simply because no one came forward while the priest was alive does nothing to prove he did not abuse during his lifetime” [correction supplied]

No, the fact that “no one came forward while the priest was alive” does not provide conclusive evidence that the alleged abuse never happened. But it also a) provides no evidence that the alleged abuse did happen and b) provides an element of increased-probability that the story was concocted opportunistically after the priest died, in order to cash in on the Stampede piñata game.

And it also provides some grounds for doubting the conceptual chops (and perhaps good faith) of anybody who would try to pass off such a conceptual misch as if it were clear and pristine logic, upon which he might base his assertions with no further need for explication.

And if the Church’s paid investigators “found no evidence” – although the Church (or Diocese, here) must know that it would very likely have to rely on those investigative findings in a public forum – then the same can be said for any investigators the tortie might engage (although, as we know, given the now-established dynamics of the Anderson Strategies in the Stampede, the tortie might well expect that his client’s claims and allegations and stories would never be required to face public and objective scrutiny in the first place anyway).

Abuseniks “really do see” us as “dumb blind sheep”, but “fortunately” – and especially through the work on TMR – that is not the case.

Which is what moves the Abuseniks to toss up the type of stuff we see here in the AM comment.

Josie don't just hit and run. Why would anyone take your word as to who is or is not personally dysfunctional here? R U practicing medicine here sans licence? Did you get your doctorate at the same school of magic that P got his from? Hogworts perhaps? Or did god just give you the insight as to other peoples dysfunctions? Gee and if we're a bit fucked up; therapy was going to just fix it easy; peasy; no problem? Huh?

You know god's been giving me some pretty clear thoughts about those who run to religion because religion offers them EVERYTHING (after they die, the greedy little bastards) Religion: the pen-ultimate lottery. An all or nothing proposition Yet nobodies returned from that distant shore to tell us: it's even there.  Jesus (And he supposedly came back) never talked much about what was beyond the pale.

TMR, And Garabedian's a bad guy; why? Because you say his clients weren't abused? How do you know that's true?

Let us gently pass by the unremarkable ketchup-splattered Playbook bits by ‘LDB’ and ‘Rondre’.

On the 21st at 627PM JR asks ‘Josie’ if she is “practicing medicine here sans licence?” [sic] We recall JR tossing “sociopath” around as if he had one. I don’t recall JR having told us where he got his license – or perhaps he just got his photo taken with somebody who had one, or maybe once upon a time he walked on the grounds of Johns Hopkins or some other med school, or has a relative who has one. The possibilities are endless.

However we do see something that is not unfamiliar to clinicians: certain types of afflicted don’t seem to see the symptoms in the mirror that they claim to see out in the world all around them.

Then we are informed that “god’s been giving [JR] some pretty clear thoughts” … and this doesn’t set off any alarm bells?

Readers are welcome – once again – to weigh the probability of Abusenik stories and allegations being true. Since their torties have hidden those stories and allegations behind a wall of secrecy that they required as part of the settlements, probabilities are all we have to work with.

Then on the 20th at 636PM we are let in on JR’s ‘personal reality’ in regard to his awaiting some attention from SNAP, as if there were any substantive reason for SNAP to indulge him in this matter.

A mano-a-mano in the ring between some SNAP-ster and JR: now that is something to imagine.

Adolescents are children by law. Anyone under the age of 18 is a child. Their brains haven't finished growing. Legally they don't have the ability to choose who they sleep with, particularly and definitly adults. Hence statutory rape laws. (Remember Johnny Carson's old high school girlfriend, Jeanna Statchitori?)

I “pretend” nothing and if there’s an accurate quotation from my comment to the contrary then it can be put up here. Once again, either deliberately or through some cognitive difficulty, JR creates material that doesn’t exist in order to avoid less congenial material that actually does exist.

Thus the bits about adult responsibility in regard to children and minors are accurate but do not contradict or even follow-from anything I actually wrote.

But while I am no expert on adolescent sexual preferences, I would say that it is definitely inaccurate to imagine or assert that “17 year olds” only seek to “find sex within their own age group” (however “age group” is defined). And even the 938PM comment on the 25th says as much: “Maybe some do”.

Well, I think a point on process is now unavoidable. I have noted before the odd discrepancy in JR’s posts: at times they are juvenile plop-tossing, and yet at other times they seem to come from a different mentality in many respects, in terms of format and diction and tone and also content (we recall in one recent post of JR’s that he appeared to have forgotten in the space of a day or so that he himself had directed attention to “page 80” of a certain book, and then seemed to wonder a day or so later why I was so focused on “page 80”. And I had also wondered: if one can put up relatively well-constructed comments, then why toss juvenile plop at other times? And if one can only toss juvenile plop, then where are the relatively more well-constructed comments coming from?

And then on the 26th at 449PM we got “I’m a very special person and so, frighteningly, are you” – which is simply far too rhetorical and stylistic a usage (that “frighteningly” is a dead giveaway) for the mentality that produces the usual comments from JR. (Although the fact that he is somehow very speshulll certainly seems close to some sort of truth.)

And now we get two on the 28th (at 1012AM and 1029AM).

In regard to 1012AM: We had dealt with non-Abuseniks being ‘apologists’ before – and recently – and yet here we get it as if JR didn’t recall that at all. And “I couldn’t help but notice” is again not a JR usage at all. And then the bit about the “secrecy” bit in the Doyle Project – and that too has been dealt with before. And in all of these cases, we got nothing responsive back from JR – and yet here the points are raised as if they are brand new and have never been addressed.

In fact the second paragraph simply raises again the exact same points some JR comments had made, to which response was made and JR had nothing to say – and yet here we have the points merely raised again.

And readers who follow comments will quickly see that all of the material in this 1012AM comment has already been dealt with.

The thought comes to me that a) we are not getting material from JR at all, but simply cuts-and-pastes from other sources for whom JR (as he once did some months back for “Dennis”) is simply fronting the use of his screen-name. And that b) this or these other source(s) have failed to read the sequence of comments back and forth and thus we get this odd phenomenon of a commenter ostensibly failing to recall his own prior material or the responses to that material.

That being said, there is absolutely nothing in the 1012AM comment that hasn’t been dealt with before. And all we have here at 1012AM is a repetition that takes the whole thing back to square-one.

So I suggest to whomever is the source of the 1012AM comment that s/he go back and catch-up on all the material that has already been put forward on this and prior recent threads.

Or, in the alternative – if JR were to insist that everything that goes up under his screen-name is his own – then can we get an explanation as to both a) the discrepancies (that I have just outlined above here) and b) the fact that instead of making any response JR has merely gone and repeated the same questions all over again?  Because at this point that is the “riddle”.

And then again in the 1029AM comment: We merely get the same question to which answer has been made (and never rebutted) numerous times here: before “victims” can be ‘paid’, it has to be determined just who is and is not a genuine victim. And the question which JR (or any of his possible sources) has never answered remains before us: How does one determine a genuine victim from one otherwise classifiable?

Ditto the bit about being “sure” that “our claims are false”. To repeat what has been said numerous times: in cases where there is almost no corroborating evidence, and where the ‘stories’ have been placed under secrecy by the agents of the storytellers themselves, then we only have probabilities to work with. And whose fault is that?

And surely the mantra about ‘doing’ “the right thing” is not the Church’s but JR’s (or some other source’s).

Then the same old illogic yet again that presumes precisely what has yet to be proven: i) who knows and ii) how to know just who is a genuine victim (the “children” trope merely tossed in here to distract with emotion from the core illogic of the question itself)?

And then and then and then: “situational morality” – this is a rather technical term for the mentality we know as JR’s. Additionally – regardless of the source here – the observation fails on its face because the ‘situation’ has been improperly defined to begin with so we can’t proceed to the next phase and assess the ‘morality’.

Ditto with the “hypocricy”[sic].

So that’s all we’ve got here at 1021AM and 1029AM on the 28th.

Well I'm banned at NCR again.

It's amazing to me how Catholics run from the truth if it doesn't fit their self painted portrait of  their own idea of "decency".

Telling the truth is decent. Hiding from it is shameful.

If NCR bans my writings, my thoughts;  they are afraid of what I say. That's a start.

From the cornucopia of D-Day and late-WW2 documentaries being shown in the lead-up to the June 6th anniversary, it also comes to me: readers familiar with the history will recall a certain self-sure Boss ranting and raving at his supreme headquarters that he is stupefied, outraged, feeling let-down, and – yes – amazed that the plans he concocted from running his fingers across maps on his personal map table don’t seem to be having the effect they should have. And that the fault – but of course – must be with all those who have let him down and failed to implement his genius.

What has all that war done for us and to us?

On the 2nd at 947AM [edited by moderator] JR asks me “how would you know about combat terrors in the military?”. I will simply say that my military experience extends – as I noted in a prior comment on this thread – beyond sitting on my tent-pegs at a desk in the Canal Zone “counting the days” until my oppressive enslavement by the government came to an end when my draft-hitch was over.

But in any case, the issue wasn’t with my familiarity with the experience with “combat” in the first place; the issue was and is with JR’s attempting to bethump other commenters on the basis of his lack of experience of “combat terrors in the military”. I do not either a) proffer and insist-that my material must be accepted on the basis of ‘experience’ I only claim but cannot demonstrate (indeed, some might say that JR so often demonstrates exactly the  opposite in regard to his claimed ‘experience’) nor do I b) declare other commenters wrong or uninformed on the basis of such claimed ‘experience’. And in those ways I differ greatly from JR’s usual modus operandi.

And then there’s the “free speech” argument, isn’t there? And as it applies to JR he can make whatever claims and assertions and tell such stories as he wishes and even – since it seems to be enjoyable for him – “lecture”. But he cannot expect that his demanding that we take his stories and claims and assertions at face-value as true or probably-true is part of his constitutional rights.

And readers may realize that this entire modus operandi is actually deployed rather consistently by JR in regard to matters-Abusenik.

If “Adolph was created in catholic schools in catholic Austria” then wasn’t JR and weren’t so many Abuseniks also similarly “created”? Who is to say that Hitler decided he didn’t like any of the Catholic formation and turned elsewhere for his existential grounding and amusements? Just like some Abuseniks who have reported doing precisely the same thing.

Also, we note the Argument from Similar Words: since “catholic” [sic] appears as a descriptor in Adolf’s life-history (he was baptized) and in his schooling and in the country of his birth and then in Bavaria, then the Catholic Church created him.

And the Protestants (at least nominally) who joined the Party and went on to rank and status in the Reich? And the nominal Christians and even Jews who joined the Bolsheviks and then went on to become ranking Soviets – can it seriously be claimed that Catholic Christianity or Protestant Christianity or Judaism “created” them and thus – in another juvenile linkage – “created” Communism as well as Nazism? Is that the gist of today’s “lecture” here?

And what about the fact that when Hitler tried to pull off his Putsch in Munich (in “’catholic’ Bavaria”, I suppose it has to be pointed out) the government fired on his group and arrested him? And what of the Catholic (and Protestant) Christian officials who in the 1920s took steps to stop him? Not a few of whom were then murdered during the Night of the Long Knives.

And this 937AM comment then concludes – as so often – with JR reasserting his “lecture”-level grasp of “reality”.

And the concluding zingy about “death and disneyland” [sic] that nicely captures the nature of the misch at the core of JR’s various cartoonish conceptions.

Then at 955AM JR wants me to shut-up (almost too nice a rhetorical bit about “a backwater Bob Hope” – the alliteration, doncha see?) because I am not “the M.C. here”. I never said that I thought I was (nor ever demanded that readers participate in any such delusion simply on my say-so). And I’ll continue to exercise my “free speech” rights, thank you.

But I would say that it is the knowledge that “the readership can form their own opinions” here that is irritating JR and other Abuseniks: the whole idea of the Stampede is that readers and hearers not form their own opinions but rather be manipulated toward the Abusenik opinions. And – as I have stated before in comments – my deployment of the ‘readers may’ usage is not so much prompted by a need to remind the readers as it is an effort to remind the Abusenik commenters as they roll along with their assorted attempted manipulations.

And perhaps the Abuseniks are thus irritated by the fact that readers may actually be forming their own opinions – which is not a process that the Playbook seeks to foster.

Shepherds (JR here demonstrates his ignorance of shepherding as well as so many other things) do not use the subjunctive when dealing with sheep; they are directive and imperative and demanding towards their sheep. Which is precisely the style we get from the Abuseniks, by the most amazing coincidence.

Thus JR will have to consider not me but himself as qualifying (or not) as a “good shepard” [sic].

Then at 957AM – in a hasty one-liner from either the 3×5 shoebox or a cut-and-paste from somewhere else – JR tries to drag Freudian categories into a blunderbuss blast that would require a very serious amount of explanatory analysis: “satan” and “the evil adolph” [sic] are both i) “two monsters from the Id” and ii) created by “your church” and then iii) that “your church” has made a lot of money by “creating both” of them.

Readers may consider the cartoon or lecture quality of this bit as they will.

And but yet once again, avoiding any substance, JR creates a non-quote and takes issue with that material that he himself just invented: “everyone” does not mimic me – nor did I ever say or suggest that they did. But there are a couple of Abuseniks in the immediate vicinity that appear to be doing that.

But mimicry is no substitute for the real thing and style cannot of itself substitute for substance (or the lack of it).