Together against the Church: St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editor-in-chief Gilbert Bailon (l)
and David Clohessy, National Director of SNAP (r)
After years of haranguing the Catholic Church over its alleged "lack of transparency" in its handling of abuse cases, David Clohessy, the national director of the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP, is again not only defying a federal judge's orders to hand over important documents in the case of a falsely accused priest, but he is also now orchestrating a fraudulent media campaign about it.
As we have reported before, Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang has filed a federal lawsuit against his accusers, SNAP, and members of the St. Louis police department for publicly and wrongfully accusing him of being a child molester.
After SNAP openly defied two court orders directing them to turn over important documents in its possession, Fr. Jiang's lawyers are now asking the court to sanction SNAP for its contumacious refusal to obey the court's discovery orders.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch promoting SNAP's lies
Bravely fighting back:
Rev. Joseph Jiang
In truth, there is no "painful, intimate details" or "suffering" in this case, and SNAP knows this.
Clohessy is desperately trying to dupe the public into believing that the court's order seeks to publicly divulge the names of abuse victims and violate their privacy. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Jiang already knows the names of his accusers, and he has already proposed to redact any unrelated third-party names in the documents.
And the obvious reason that Clohessy does not want to reveal SNAP's communications is that they would likely uncover the fact that the abuse claims against Fr. Jiang are completely bogus and that SNAP knowingly defamed Fr. Jiang. They would also likely uncover the sordid relationship between SNAP and plaintiffs' contingency lawyers.
So in its effort to avoid complying with the court orders against them and sway public opinion, SNAP turned to the always-willing media to advance its phony story line. Naturally, the bleary-eyed gang at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch were more than eager to oblige.
[***Click to read Fr. Jiang's motion to sanction SNAP (court docs)***]
Kowtowing to SNAP, the Post-Dispatch's Joel Currier and Valerie Shremp Hahn published apologia articles (1, 2) for SNAP's refusal to obey the law, and then the paper's editorial board chimed in with a painfully biased editorial that dutifully echoed SNAP's media talking points.
It was obvious that either SNAP itself or SNAP lawyer/contributor Ken Chackes – or both – provided information to the paper's editors for its attack on the Church and Fr. Jiang, as the editorial, with its one-sided presentation of past cases and events, read more like a press release from SNAP than any kind of even-keeled analysis. And upon the editorial's publication, SNAP then seemingly petitioned a bunch of its wild-eyed "members" from around the country to flood the paper's comments section to cheer on the group's cause.
Yet what was most notably absent from all of the Post-Dispatch's biased reporting was even a scintilla of information from the mountains of evidence that Jiang has obviously been falsely accused. For example:
- "The alleged victim had made previous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse";
- "[The accuser's] parents had a history of making unfounded claims against the Catholic Church for monetary gain";
- "[The accuser's] fourth-grade teacher indicated that [the accuser] was a serial exaggerator to the point of being 'delusional'";
- The same teacher has stated that it was "virtually impossible" that the abuse took place as claimed;
- "[The accuser] has never had any personal acquaintance with Fr. Joseph, and he could not even identify Fr. Joseph's name when he made the allegation";
- "[A parent of the accuser once] physically assaulted the principal of [a Catholic school] by choking him or her";
- The accusers already have 2 liens and 16 judgments entered against them in other cases, they have avoided service of process, and still other process servers are trying to serve them with even more legal papers.
In other words, the mob at the Post-Dispatch has zero interest in justice and truth in the Jiang case, and it certainly does not care that SNAP's Clohessy – a lawyer-funded zealot who has a long history of bigotry against the Church – is flouting court orders to shine a light on SNAP's activities while perpetually berating the Catholic Church for not being open enough.
SNAP's hypocrisy is off the charts once again.
Same as it ever was.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It wouldn't surprise me if SNAP were funded by George Soros, as well.
It is a left wing lawyer group calling itself a rape center.
Hilarious.
Good job Post Dispatch.
U.S.District Court Judge Carol E. Jackson may not be inclined to 'turn the other cheek' when she reads the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Namely their unfair reporting concerning her court orders against SNAP. The newspaper totally misrepresents these court orders, and the protection they already contain for third-party privacy. Yes….'trial by media' has worked effectively against the Catholic Church. But this time SNAP is directing the same tactic against a Federal Judge. Not a good idea? This could get very interesting?
SNAP is was and always will be a false flagged creation of a conservative element in the Catholic church in the Mid-West. It was founded by right-wing Catholics. Sponsored by nuns, who illegally let SNAP use their, the nuns, non-profit number till SNAP got it's own. Headquartered SNAP in a former convent in Chicago that is still Catholic church property. The church has even chosen the lead lawyer "against" them, Jeff Anderson, who in turn has chosen lawyers who become lead lawyers for victims who can sue. in various states and nations. (I only wish his was a bad dream I was having but it's the truth)SNAP like it's owner, the Catholic church, is "universal". It has created similar organizations world wide that commit the same fraud SNAP does. Every chance SNAP gets to make victims look bad it takes by SNAP doing something lame. example. Like refusing to testify or pretending to be a "rape crisis center" (Which it is not because it has no professional rape therapists on it's staff nor has it ever claimed to be such a center to any victims attending it's rigidly controlled meetings) SNAP takes every "opportunity" to weaken victims and our cause in the public eye.. (Victims,who never chose SNAP to speak for us. know SNAP was handed us by our own church picked lawyers) SNAP always takes the wrong path for victims needs, because that is what SNAP was created to do. How convenient cost wise AGAIN that this latest fiasco all happened, along with SNAP's founding, in St. Louis Mo. David Clohessy's home town. The cheap church has to save money. Why pay for David's transportation and hotels, after all? Just have the priest and his suit be close to home. Your church in part at least (along the Mississippi from Louisiana all the way to Chicago) is a Germanic (in the Nazi sense) wet dream. If there are any moral intelligent Catholics reading this. I'm telling you the truth. The usual clack here are paid to be here ( paid either on earth or in "heaven") to confuse obfuscate and support the myth that SNAP represents victims interests when the exact opposite is true.
Jim Robertson, on the 5th, jumps aboard a favourite hobby horse…. re SNAP"s origins and motives. Well he can ride it as much as he wants, but he has lost me. Because SNAP has, more than anybody, been responsible for the witch-hunt against priests, and bankruptcy of many dioceses. So how on earth can it be an instrument of the Catholic Church??.
But getting back to the real topic, David Clohessy…the guy is actually running true to form. He previously defied court orders about 4 years ago, in Missouri, in a separate case. He was almost charged with contempt of court, for failing to obey court orders, to hand over relevant documents. He was only saved by the contingency lawyer… withdrawing the suit. Surely an act of desperation to save Clohessy, the boss of SNAP. However this time it is different, the suit can only be withdrawn by the plaintiff, and that happens to be the same guy whose reputation SNAP has mercilessly trashed. So bad luck David Clohessy.
How many churches haven't gone bankrupt that should have that haven't due to SNAP's not taking them on? Only 15% of victims compensated (if that according to the John Jay report 2 (I think)
Why are you so naive to think that a church that attempts to regulate the sex life of adult humans would have any problem cheating for their own financial gain? Their morality is so out of whack but they make big bucks on their deceptions that instill guilt where there is none naturally that "sinners" might "try" to buy their way to heaven. These are the people you trust? The same people who covered up the abuse and enabled known priests to continue fucking kids? These are your moral arbiters? Of course, they would want to control victims our families and even the lawyers we "choose" Money is the real doctrine of the church.The smallest Catholic child knows that. All the other "doctrines" are there to enable the cash flow. One must sin to be forgiven of sin. How convenient for priests.
If SNAP is being put on the line. It's because it's need as the control mechanism for the church's victims is through; and / or maybe too many questions are being asked about what SNAP has really done to victims as compared to the little it's done for victims. SNAP has to end on an unctuous note for victims. That's SNAP's real job. It's to fail badly at unnecessary trials. Trials brought on by stupid SNAP accusations. Accusations meant to fail. Watch and see.
And isn't it amazing? How much an Australian Catholic living in Australia presumes to speak as if he knows that SNAP is what it pretends to be. You've had at least 3 victims post at this site their hatred for SNAP and their sure knowledge that SNAP's the church. A man in Australia knows that SNAP is what he 's never seen; compared to victims who've dealt with SNAP, daily, for YEARS. There's a disconnect of the first order. Always believe someone who's never even been to a SNAP meeting over Catholics who were molested and have gone to SNAP for help. Sheeeesh!
Jim Robertson, on the 8th at 1.40 a.m., is up to his usual tricks, trying to muddy the water and obscure the facts. Long-time contributors to this site have become a little exasperated with his propoganda tactics. That is…. he repeats over and over assertions that are unsupported by facts. Perhaps many others have simply decided they don't have the time, or inclination, to continue to argue with him. As for myself, I am retired and have few demands on my time, so I can continue to engage in debate that is relevant to all Catholics, no matter where they are living. What JR tries to obscure is the fundamental right of all citizens to a good reputation, and also due process. The United Nations has proclaimed that all peoples should be protected by…. Universal Human Rights. One such right is the right to a good reputation, and nobody should wrongfully take away that reputation. This witch-hunt against Catholic clerics is a wicked attempt to remove that universal right. And it is all motivated by bigotry and greed. JR himself tells us he was given a settlement of one million dollars. For what?. Allegedly for being groped by some sicko religious teacher, many decades before. The legal system has really lost it's sense of proportion…due to bigotry and greed.
My question is this: Why hasn't TMR ever published anything in support of its' own Catholic victims? Why has TMR from its' inception taken the line that the church is being cheated and or pilloried in the media for no good reason? When in fact, your bosses hid child molesters and transferred them to rape, at will, again. the victims have all too rarely been compensated at all by the church. (15%) You keep backing the wrong horse and the only victories you've been handed have been by SNAP's willful fuck ups. Nobody could be this stupid, neither you nor SNAP. Cui Bono? Certainly not the 85% of victims unhelped by you or SNAP. Please try thinking. Why has SNAP never demanded Federal hearings? Why has SNAP never published the story about so few victim compensations if money is all they are after. SNAP's not doing those things shows you who they really work for. Think about all the contradictions between the needs of victims and the needs of the church; and who SNAP is really helping. I have faith you can do this analysis honestly, that's if you have any morality at all.
LMFAO! I didn't set the boundaries of awards in California. Juries did. Juries were/are awarding victims between $3 and 6$ million dollars. The church settled with 550 Catholic victims for an average of $1 million each. That's the cost of fucking your own children, Father Harris.
Your own Australian govt. has been holding hearings for 3 years now. Evidently they care about damage done to children, even if you don't.
And everything I and other victims have said about SNAP's fraud is true. Just because you refuse to see the facts I've posted here. doesn't mean those facts aren't true.
Jim Robertson, on the 9th at 2.59 pm, suggests that I refuse to see facts. Well his facts are something to be looked at with great scepticism. For example his calling me "Father Harris" is not a fact, and never has been. But his intention is to associate me with the accused party, and imply that I am just an advocate. Well perhaps I am an advocate for justice, something that we all should aspire to. In my country we like to think that we believe in a "fair go". Sadly not always the reality… and I am convinced that Catholic clerics are not getting a "fair go".
They are being railroaded. And the motive is not new, this has become a money-driven cottage industry. Note those sums that JR refers to in his own post…..really big bucks!.
Saying accused priests haven't had a "fair go" ("fair dinkum" I think is also the phrase.) is not a fact. They have had chance after chance to molest again and again. You are also "convinced" that there's a life after death and a reward system in that afterlife without one scintilla of proof. So it seems if you feel" or would like or believe something to be true like: "They are being railroaded" it is true. Well sorry but your fantasies are simply your fantasies not fact.
According to your logic: Since juries award damages to people who sue; ALL cases seeking reparations would be false simply because money is used to ameliorate the harm done. That dog won't hunt.
"They (priests in general) are being railroaded" by whom? Judges? Juries? Police? Self-admission? All of the above? The media simply report accusations; investigations;arrests; sentences and awards and/or settlements.
Have I ever asked you or anyone else here not to examine my facts? Have I asked you to take what I say to be true without investigation? No, I have not. Dismissing what I say without examination is prejudice. Accepting what you say as fact based on your "faith" is not fact but fantasy. It's time to grow up, Sunshine. "A wish may, according to the song, be a dream your heart makes" but wishing that some priests weren't; or aren't; or have never been child molesters is just that. Your child like "dream".
Your own Royal Commission hasn't only been investigating the Catholic church, now have they? Anglicans; Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews the state etc. have all failed at protecting children. Investigations have brought similar crimes to light committed in other "faiths" in our country as well.
Every claim you make is based on your feelings, not on facts. Therefore, your opinion can not, and should not, be taken seriously.
I called you "Father Harris" because you always and only take the clerical side in this argument. Washing them all clean bar none. That's a fact based stance according to you? I also called you "Sunshine" does that make you "sunshine"? Have a little wit.
Kind of reminds one of the 1950s and the days of the Lawyer's Guild, a communist front organization that engaged in all sorts of legal abuses in order to promote the party line. They were a thoroughly disreputable bunch but like all of their ilk caused considerable turmoil before they faded away. SNAP is certainly in good company.
America's done so well since it silenced American Communists in the 40's and 50's.
If you still had a real left, do you think Trump would be the republican nominee? Do you think Hillary would be the Democratic nominee?
The McCarthy era is gone, but the Nazis still rule.
Religion is for frightened idiots.
This topic re SNAP'S boss, David Clohessy, and his apparent resisting of court orders, is significant and important. Too important for us to be sidetracked by JR's bag of tricks. Our nature as human beings is to continue with patterns of behaviour that worked well before. So Clohessy was virtually on automatic pilot when he handed out, to media buddies, slanderous accusations against Rev. Joseph Jiang. Clohessy, based on past experience, never expected to have to show proof of these slanderous assertions. He never anticipated court orders. But now he must put up or shut up. Or be shown up as an irresponsible fabricator. My bet is that he said something along the lines of there being several accusers?.
But now he will have to prove they actually exist?. Gee…what tangled webs we weave………..?
As has been the case for years, there is no progress to be made with JR’s submissions: he has his little pile of dog-eared 3x5s, they go up, and after a while, they go up again as if for the first time ever and everything goes back to square one.
There is one difference this time around, although it is in Style rather than Content: in the current crop we see relatively well-formatted and even multi-sentence paragraphs, which is not his signature style at all. However, the whole is sprinkled with enough of his ‘signature’ epithetical and snarky stuff to establish his ‘presence’ in the material.
That being noted, we proceed.
On the 5th at 1113AM we simply get again JR’s Frankenstein-stitched theory that he has fabricated to cover all the bases he wants to toss plop at:
SNAP is a tool of the Church / run by ‘conservatives’ and “right-wing” Catholics (SNAP, then, isn’t connected to the ‘liberals’ in the Church) / Jeff Anderson, tortie extraordinaire, is also merely a tool of the Church (along with fill-in-the-blank numbers of other torties who have scored big off the Stampede) / since the Church is “universal” then this SNAP scam – run, you have to recall, by the Church – is therefore also “universal” / SNAP is a “fraud” / SNAP is a fraud because it always takes “every chance … to make victims look bad” / and “victims … never chose SNAP to speak for us” (so it isn’t ‘democratic’, either) / SNAP “always takes the wrong path for victims” / it was soooo “convenient cost-wise” to sue SNAP in St. Louis where Clohessy lives / the Church in St. Louis and all along the Mississippi basin is a “Germanic (in the sense of Nazi) wet dream” / and “if there are any moral intelligent Catholics reading this” then they can be very sure that JR is “telling you the truth” / there is a “clack” (no doubt he was going for ‘claque’) commenting on this site that is only here to “confuse obfuscate and support the myth that SNAP represents victims interests when the exact opposite is true”.
Quoting me is, probably, the only time you've come near to telling the truth here.
‘Malcolm Harris’ was correct in noting that some commenters here are not retired and have other things to do, but I’ll make time in the schedule later today and address the points in the 1113AM JR comment of the 5th, along with the others.
In the meantime, regular readers can refresh their familiarity with all of JR’s old 3x5s.
We have here another opportunity to deal with this dog’s breakfast of the usual bits tossed up to make the Stampede seem like a good thing.
"dog's breakfast" ? "3x5s"? You'll "make time in the schedule" "and address"? JESUS WILL SPEAK! JESUS WILL "ADDRESS". I was hoping you were dead; but no such luck. Just proves there is no god. Not if he lets lying sacks of shit like you go on lying.
The GREAT SNOB's going to speak! Halleluia! He's going to insult his victims. He's going to never mention any of the crimes committed by his church leaders or question their rule.
Let me start taking you on with the same tone you address victims.
How can you possibly even imagine an unnamed liar would be defending pedophile priests and their enablers while pretending to be morally superior to Catholics who were fucked by priests as children? Priests who were protected by their bosses when their Catholic victims weren't.
How can it be possible that a liar who invents a false supposition of a media conspiracy out to "get" an innocent church, with literally no proof of such a conspiracy existing, dares to feign the "moral high ground"?
P has but one 3×5 card that he reads from and it says one word: "stampede". A description for a fantasy he's invented.
Australia's been having Royal commission hearings on sex abuse of children in all institutions and it's been going on for 3 YEARS in the Aussie press daily. Yet America's having a "stampede" without a single governmental hearing on the issue of the U'S' child citizens being fucked by a tax free institution?
I'd love to know how many Catholic morons are buying his P lies.
Dave Pierre, how many hits do you get at this crock shop?
What does P's busy schedule consist of? Taking kids to amusement parks? Buying them toys, ice cream? Long drives to a cabin? You need to name yourself P so that we can protect the children you're most likely diddling.
Malcolm, how hard is it to investigate charges brought against a priest? Did David do that? Was David Clohessy set up to believe the accuser? Why does SNAP have a problem with obeying court orders? Are they afraid victims names might leak out from under their control? Or are they being advised by the same people I claim are working for the church, not for victims?
SNAP's errors are always made to make victims look bad. What are the odds have those "mistakes" occurring naturally? Name one victory SNAP has initiated for victims??? Just name one. Can't do it can you? Now, name all SNAP's errors that made victims look bad. That list goes on and on.
I don't know if Fr. Jiang is guilty or not. I do know SNAP's history is a litany of screw-ups that hurt victims.
Turd bucket P will now take each of my words and start mocking. That's all the asshole's capable off. No adult conversation between equals here. Only P's ROYAL pronouncements. Even sheep like religious people can see through his degradation of Catholic victims. That's why the CLAQUES been created. The church's peanut gallery for consensus. Paid affirmations for things that don't exist. 15% of your victims compensated in 25 years of SNAP's rule. Some fucking stampede!
How does my asking people to look at my evidence (which I've posted here) equate to my having a "bag of tricks"?
No evidence is good as far as you're concerned, but looking at factual material is bad?
You are all a moral backwater. Your morality stinks. You get an F in decency. That's a pretty poor showing for believers in the "true faith". Or are you just carrying on the one, really true, Catholic tradition of lying to protect money?
On, then, to JR’s of the 5th at 1113AM:
Regular readers will see that many of these points have been covered before but with JR’s stuff there is no yesterday (except for his claim of abuse, which is – of course – eternal).
In regard to SNAP: Its original history may have begun as a victim-focused organization under the auspices of some formally-recognized Catholic religious group. Whether that group of nuns was “right-wing” or not has never been demonstrated, although this assertion fits in nicely with JR’s overall strategy of stitching together all of his bêtes-noires into one convenient cartoon masquerading as a true and accurate historical narrative.
Whether SNAP used that organization’s tax number and whether that was done “illegally” has never been demonstrated and remains merely an assertion.
Whether SNAP’s headquarters remain on “Catholic church property” has never been demonstrated and remains merely an assertion.
To the contrary, Michael D’Amato revealed in his book Mortal Sins that it was in the late 1980s that Jeff Anderson had coffee with SNAP leadership and offered that then-ailing organization a new role: as a front and funnel for torties who were barred from actually going out and trawling for allegants.
It was at that point that SNAP – reborn as that front and funnel for the torties – began the far more high-profile existence we commonly know as SNAP today.
It was at that point, I would say, that SNAP became the “false-flagged” organization (to use JR’s term) it is today: it does not primarily exist for ‘victims’ but rather to trawl for allegants who can be passed on to the torties. SNAP’s false-flagging serves the torties, not the Church.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1133AM:
The assertion that the Church had somehow “chosen” Jeff Anderson as “the lead lawyer” defies rationality and no evidence for the assertion has ever been produced.
Anderson – as D’Amato reveals – went to SNAP on his own with the proposal (which would no doubt include contributions to SNAP from the torties once the game was up and running and the cash had begun to flow).
It cannot be rationally assumed that the Church would ‘choose’ a tortie who would demonstrate the capability to cost the Church billions in settlement monies.
Nor can Anderson be called “the lead lawyer”; he is not the primary attorney of record in all Catholic clerical abuse lawsuits. Rather, he was the first to see that the time had come to offer SNAP a vital role in starting up the long-established tort strategy of amassing so many plaintiffs that no defendant corporation would opt for trial rather than settlement.
Once he had done that, any enterprising tortie could rely on SNAP to provide the allegants for whatever lawsuit a tortie would choose to put together.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1133AM:
In this sense, then, SNAP’s presence might be construed as “universal”; but not because the Church is universal, but rather because the legal process of tort-action is universal (in the West, anyway).
However, it is interesting to note that while the US legal system’s comparatively broad tort-law opened many possibilities for the torties to bring lawsuits, yet the US Stampede result has not occurred in any other Western country.
I would say that this lack of replicability of the Stampede is the result of several factors: other nations’ tort-laws are not so broad and set a higher bar; other nations’ mainstream media do not have the influence that the US media have to help foment a Stampede; other nations’ governments may realize the dangers in loosing a Stampede template into their political, legal and cultural affairs – especially the creation of a precedent for lawsuits against any large and “deep-pockets” corporate entity, private or even public (and even in the US we have seen how carefully – and sometimes blatantly – legislators try to pander to Victimism by reducing Statutes of Limitation in regard to religious entities while carving out an exemption for public entities (schools, hospitals, etc.).
One wonders why – if Statutes of Limitation are actually as obstructive of justice as the Stampede claims – state and federal legislators don’t simply abolish all such Statutes across the board in the entire legal system forthwith.
Other nations may be owned by the church, just like this one is. They, the hierarchs, got off scot-free here. In Catholic countries, Ireland etc,and even in non Catholic countries like Australia, the state was/is a codefendant in liability. Because the state let the church have control of the children. The church and the state! A tag team from Hell. Hence lower settlements. You are so upset because a few victims were compensated? No jail time for Bishops and Cardinals. No over view of the crimes,and the enabling criminals and no counting of victims by the media and no follow up. No BIG PICTURE, nation wise, let alone no world view. And this is the "stampede" of which you imagine? Why can't you people tell the truth?
As par for the course, like your cult's repetitive prayers, such a multiplication of words with so little valuable content. Must it always come down to everyone elses fault rather than your own. It's "mainstream media". No, it's that "Stampede". Oh, no! It's "tort lawyers". Maybe it's 'bigots', 'catholic haters', 'witch hunters' or those 'haranguing' our spotless, pure clergy and hierarchy. You cherry pick the few cases that you think you can twist the facts and somehow turn the table on everyone else. If your cult wasn't so rampant with flesh starving perverts and pedophiles, than there would be absolutely no reason for the opposition you've received. "You reap what you sow." Very clever for you to "wonder why" – "legislators don't simply abolish Statutes of Limitations", when you're well aware that your cult's corrupt lawyers and lobbyists do all they can keep these rules in place, knowing it saves their buts large convictions and payouts. Your church's malfeasance is slowly but surely becoming exposed and brought to light. Wake up, catholics, don't go down with the ship.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1133AM:
JR would then (and yet again) have us believe that it is SNAP that works to “make victims look bad”, which is then to be taken as proof-positive that SNAP is merely a tool of the Church.
Thus: if a ‘victim’ does or says something to “look bad”, then the only explanation for that can be that SNAP (and the Church) are evilly manipulating appearances to “make” that ‘victim’ “look bad”. Neato.
But perhaps the ‘victim’ does “look bad” simply because s/he was exposed for doing a bad thing (such as spinning such a web of claims as we have seen exposed in the Philadelphia Doe cases). In which case it is neither SNAP nor the Church that has made the ‘victim’ “look bad”; it is, rather, the web-spinning ‘victim’ him/herself.
Surely JR’s own recent exposure in regard to his long-bruited claim of child-rape cannot be ascribed to SNAP or the Church. He himself dug his own hole and strode right into it.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1133AM:
JR will then claim that “victims … never chose SNAP to speak for us”.
Leaving that slyly manipulative “us” aside, then JR’s plaint here should be taken up with the media; it is the media who (as perhaps Jeff Anderson also shrewdly foresaw) have chosen SNAP to be their go-to source in their long-running soap-opera of ‘victims’ vs. Church.
JR himself went to SNAP and even worked for it, he says. Readers will recall that after a while SNAP and JR parted ways, apparently because SNAP somehow didn’t recognize his genius and his warrant.
Hence its place on his personal plop-list. JR’s real beef with SNAP is not that it is false-flagged, but simply that it didn’t respectfully dip its (false) flag to him.
As for the myriads of ‘victims’ not-well-served by SNAP: they appear to nobody but JR, upon the veracity of whose claims we must rely. Readers may consider as they will.
Anyone who misses my "genius" is a fool. I count you as one of them.
My warrant came from the fact of my abuse. Something you've always denied.
Even after I accepted your definition of statutory rape. you've cut me no slack. Why? because you're a liar. You must invent a wrong done. even when I admitted my mistake in phrasing. Given I thought all sex interaction with those under the age of consent was statutory rape. I changed how I talk about my abuse. I never claimed to be a lawyer. No matter. You have to blacken my name because you love Jesus so much.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1133AM:
JR then will introduce the St. Louis lawsuit as some sort of proof of Church strategy: by bringing the suit in Clohessy’s home town, then – doncha see? – that helps Clohessy because he saves on bus or train fare to court.
The law requires that a lawsuit be brought in a cognizant court; the court in St. Louis is legally cognizant (one or more Parties reside and/or conduct business there); and that’s the reason why the case is in St. Louis.
But then JR proceeds from the ridiculous to the sublime: he riffs on the “Germanic” (as in “Nazi”) “wet dream” (always with the sexual stuff) that is the Mississippi Valley culture from Louisiana to Chicago. Readers may consider it all as they will.
And yet from there JR proceeds to the stunningly sublime: on the basis of the prior two silly bits, JR puffs up his pinfeathers to address “any moral intelligent Catholics reading this”. Yes, let moral intelligence apply itself to considering the Germanic/Nazi “wet dream” of the Mississippi Valley and Clohessy’s bus fare.
Maybe if I hadn't had my hand forced down my teacher's pants, you stupid asshole, I wouldn't use sexual references so much.
Since you and your fellow perpetrators broke me. You don't get to complain that I'm broken. You are so deeply evil. Never a kind word to anyone. You're a sociopathic dick
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1133AM:
And JR then insists that he is “telling you the truth”. About himself, perhaps, and more than he might wish.
And his accusation of others here being in a claque to “confuse [and] obfuscate” has to be contemplated alongside his own recent exposure in regard to his claim of child-rape.
And then, to wrap the whole bit up, JR does more confusing and obfuscating: nobody here whom I can recall has ever asserted or claimed that SNAP represents ‘victims’ and thus that it not the point in question.
The core question is: whose purposes does SNAP actually serve? And the answer to that, I would say, is that SNAP has served the torties and its own organizational interests since at least that meeting almost 30 years ago between Jeff Anderson and SNAP.
Just whose interests JR serves remains food for thought and a subject for any “moral intelligence” one might wish to apply.
Ahhh! Yes. We're all waiting with bated breath for one of your wonderful assessments. I thought you had gone away, but apparently you still think way too much of yourself.
On the 8th at 141AM JR tries to build some sort of accusation on the bit about only 15 percent of the victims having been compensated.
That percentage – he slyly and even sleazily bleats – comes, if he recalls correctly, from the second John Jay Report, he doth “think”.
But that point was taken – as any regular reader knows – from a long outdated Wiki article that was by its own admission a partial accounting even when it was first put up.
The only thing that John Jay did was to tally up the number of formal allegations, and nothing more. Were any allegations that were formally made then rejected? Were 85 percent of the allegations that were formally made then rejected? It seems very improbable; and surely such a massive turn-back of formally lodged legal claims would have received attention in the media, which have hardly been ‘friendly’ to the Church during the Stampede.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 141AM:
He then tries to connect – with that sly implication of any unconvinced reader’s being “naïve” – the Church’s teachings on sex with JR’s assertion of financial gain. There is no logic in it; whatever force connects these two disparate elements in his own mind is surely not logic.
As for the Church’s morality being “so out of whack”: readers may consider as they will whether JR is any judge of “morality”. If he wishes to explicate how – to his mind anyway – the Church’s teachings on sex are “out of whack”, then he can do so. If he can.
And as usual, he tries to distract from the weakness of his point by tossing in some juvenile scatology. And among whatever “kids” were ‘fxxked’, we now know that JR is not one of that number, contrary to his long-held insistence.
Readers may consider as they will JR’s further riffing in the attempt to reduce the Church’s mission to merely “control” and “money”.
And his further effort to make it seem that even when they signed onto lawsuits allegants were being ‘controlled’ because – had you been waitttinggggggggg forrrrr ittttttttttt? – all of the tort attorneys involved in these abuse cases were actually tools of the Church all along.
As to what “the smallest Catholic child knows” about the Church (i.e. that it is all about “money”), readers may find that JR here delivers more revelation about himself than he does about the Church.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 141AM:
He then tries to insinuate this bit: if SNAP (already a tool of the Church, in JR’s cartoon) is now being brought to court by a priest of that Church, then that’s only because SNAP is no longer needed as a “control mechanism” for the allegants. Why would that be? JR doesn’t bother to say.
Or perhaps – as he tries to pin another possible tail on the donkey – “too many questions are being asked” about SNAP’s activities. But if that were true, then SNAP could defend itself simply by pointing out in open court how it has been a tool of the Church and how it has been “controlled” by the Church. Surely the Church would not put into open court an organization that – if JR’s cartoon is accurate – has so much evidence implicating the Church as the ultimate puppet-master of the Stampede.
No, what we are seeing here – and all that we are seeing here – is simply a recitation of the whackjob bits JR tells himself in the mirror to try to keep his own cartoon going.
And he tries to make his way off the stage to the wings by delivering the ominous and self-important line “Watch and see”. Given JR’s many insistences and assurances over the years, readers may prepare themselves for further developments as they may.
JR is back on the 8th at 149AM:
Now he’s going to try something a lot closer to his usual level of operating: he will attack ‘Malcolm Harris’ as being from Australia and therefore – we are to presume – hardly in a position to be talking knowledgably about SNAP.
This is myah-myah sleaze right from the back tables of the high school cafeteria.
How about if we try it this way: ‘Isn’t it amazing? How much somebody who has been shown to have lied about his own child-rape presumes to speak as if he knows that SNAP is what it pretends to be’ … ?
And now we know what JR pretended to be all this time … and wasn’t.
So that then reduces the number of “victims” posting here by at least one, and that presumes that any of them were genuinely the victims they claim to be at all. That’s a relevant reality “of the first order”.
“Sheeeesh!”.
On the 8th at 227PM JR is back with another familiar bleat: “Why hasn’t TMR published anything in support of its’ own Catholic victims?” (sic)
And my answer to that would be – yet again: Because this site has tried to examine the Catholic Abuse Matter and is not therefore simply just another of those sites that presumes the utter veracity of all the claims and then proceeds on that basis. (Which, in JR’s case, has proven itself to be a rather wise stance indeed.)
And when JR then bleats “Nobody could be this stupid”, one is moved to consider JR’s own stuff and wonder. On what legal basis could SNAP – even as a front for the torties – ‘demand’ Federal hearings?
And for that matter, if SNAP is indeed a front for the torties, then that politically connected bunch isn’t going to want to see all that come out in any Federal hearings. And for that matter, no savvy pol is going to want to call for Federal hearings that would embarrass the torties.
So I would advise JR to take his own advice: “Please try thinking”.
And perhaps SNAP has “never published the story about so few victim compensations” because even SNAP knows that such a claim is not only baseless but easily refuted. This is what happens when you drink your own Kool-Aid, presuming that the cartoons you spin to console yourself are actually factual and veracious, and that therefore the world’s failure to take them seriously must indicate all manner of skullduggery in the world, rather than in one’s own skull.
JR then tries to conclude the service by donning the Wig of Pastoral Concern: he has “faith” that readers “can do this analysis honestly” – which term, in JR-speak, means doing it and seeing it JR’s way.
But – heck – JR is just JR even under this or that Wig. Thus he can’t really help himself when he adds that final snarky bit: “if you have any morality at all”. Given the demonstrations of JR’s own morality, one may judge as one thinks best.
On the 9th at 259PM JR will point out the amounts that (Stampeded) juries were awarding in California, referencing his own case. But surely we now know that JR got his million without being ‘fxxked’ at all.
And – as usual – in an effort to bolster a weak point with some form of distraction, JR calls ‘Malcolm Harris’ “Father Harris”.
And then it also escapes his “analysis” that for the three years the Australian government has been holding hearings, it hasn’t come up with much at all. Perhaps the Australian government is also a tool of the Church, along with the US torties and judges and police and media and maybe the Irish government (remember the Magdalene Laundries?) and the Dutch government (remember the Dutch Abuse Report?) and whoever else has wound up on JR’s cartoon hit-list.
Oh, and everything JR and the other ‘victims’ have said about SNAP’s fraud “is true” and it’s your own fault if you don’t see it. Because – doncha see? – just because readers don’t believe what Abuseniks say doesn’t mean that what Abuseniks say isn’t true.
It also works this way: Just because Abuseniks say or claim or assert or insinuate something doesn’t mean it’s true.
And on the 10th at 859PM JR will insist that it isn’t true that “accused priests haven’t had a fair go”. As we have seen – in great detail – in the Philadelphia Lynn case, they haven’t had a fair shake in court, and even the Pennsylvania Superior and Supreme Courts have so ruled.
As for the dynamics of the afterlife, there is not “one scintilla of proof” because scientific proof can only deal with some form of this-worldly material reality, and the afterlife is not a this-worldly material reality.
Once again we see here Science staring into its sonar scope and declaring that since it cannot see any aircraft on the scope, then there are no aircraft. And such a conclusion based on such a presumption is indeed a ‘fantasy’ “of the first order”.
And we see here another classic example of the Abusenik shell-game: suddenly now all of the judges and juries and police and media who are not to be trusted because they are tools of the Church are suddenly now to be trusted because … well, because the cartoon needs them to be trusted for the moment. Tune in tomorrow and that may change, if the Abuseniks need it to.
On the 10th at 923AM we get another familiar bleat: Has JR ever asked anyone here “not to examine [his] facts?” Readers may recall – or consult the archived record – as to the resistance JR put up against examining even his own “fact” of child-rape.
And thus the rest of his riff here can be taken for what it is.
And once again, I cannot do any better than to proffer to JR his own advice: “It’s time to grow up, Sunshine”.
And as for the recoil of assertions, one cannot do better for an example than JR’s assertion that “Every claim you make is based on your feelings, not on facts”. And thus, in regard to his own material, JR’s conclusion is also valid: “Therefore, your opinions can not, and should not, be taken seriously”.
And on the 10th at 928AM JR will – as usual – attempt to explain away one of his juvenile nasty bits as just being a bit of humor, but also that ‘Malcolm Harris’ deserved the epithetically-charged “Father” because – doncha see? – “you always and only take the clerical side in this argument”. Oh my, that’s a mature and convincing explanation for the snark.
As for the “Sunshine” explanation: JR claims to be a victim. Does that make him a victim?
Once JR grasps the substance and significance of that question, he will grasp the need and purpose of this site. And if not, not.
The significance of the reality of my abuse, of course, would be lost on a lying sociopath because he only tells the truth if it suits his purpose. Normal human beings don't do that. I had and have no need to lie about being abused. You seem to have a very great need to make me out to be a liar. Now exactly why would that be? Let's talk about that need of yours. Why does it exist? Cui Bono? Even when I admit i was wrong in calling my abuse statutory rape. You don't forgive my error. ERROR. No lie but an admitted mistake on my part. you take that as a sign that I lie about my abuse. It's impossible to please a sociopath obviously. And you claim to be a Christian ?!!!??? Hon, you wouldn't know Jesus if he sat on you.
EWTN – Who commands it's brainwashed sheep to "Live Truth – Live Catholic", had this ending to their day 7 Novena of which there are 9 days with the same repeated closing prayer;
"O Brilliant star of purity, Mary Immaculate, Our Lady of Lourdes, glorious in your assumption, triumphant in your coronation, show unto us the mercy of the Mother of God, Virgin Mary, Queen and Mother, be our comfort, hope, strength, and consolation. Amen.
Catholics – Mary can show you no mercy, comfort, hope, strength [or] consolation. She is dead and like all humans waiting for Judgment Day. Nothing but lies from hypocritical liars.
Remember, Christ died and rose from death and alone can lead you to the Father. "For there is ONE God and ONE mediator between God and mankind, the man Jesus Christ." 1 Tim 2:5 To pray to anyone else is absolute idolatry and an abomination. Be Not Fooled.
We now have a first set of responses to the initial material I put up on the morning of the 12th.
From JR we get … what?
On the 12th at 1227PM he will merely try to go for the personal – ad hominem – while also continuing to toss up his usual claim that I am “lying” (his own exposure as to his long-held claim of child-rape seems not to occur to him).
A new twist, however, is that he lists himself as among my “victims” – which serves to do nothing so much as indicate his rather elastic sense of what “victim” means and his readiness to toss that charge against anyone who doesn’t buy his stuff.
Underlying that is the script in which he is the simple bearer of truth who is bethumped baselessly by the powerful. Back then to JR as Tribune of the Victimry. Again, we are seeing here merely a typed version of the assorted bits JR tells himself in the mirror, where he receives in reply from that object only complete and total agreement – which is the only way JR likes it.
On then to JR’s of the 12th at 1246 where he will settle down to his fallback tactics: I am “unnamed” and am a “liar” and am “defending pedophile priests and their enablers” (which will – to his mind – constitute his “evidence”; “evidence” to JR is simply his making claims and accusations that were previously rehearsed in the bathroom mirror).
He claims there is no media conspiracy (I had used the term “synergy”, which is not the same thing). Readers may consult the record of this site for the many articles and comments on assorted media efforts to Keep The Ball Rolling through selective and even false ‘reporting’. Without the media’s embrace of the Victimist script the Stampede could never have succeeded as it did.
He tosses in stuff about the years-long Australian hearings (so far without substantive result) and about the lack of US government hearings. I addressed those points in my comments of late on the 12th.
LOL! "keep" what "ball rolling"? You don't fuck kids you don't get talked about, moron.
You write more than anyone else here but you say nothing. You imagine you've posted facts but there are none in what you write. You talk but have nothing to say. You are an empty jug.
On the 12th at 1252PM he merely tries to expand his signature defense since he was exposed in regard to his child-rape claim: I must be doing all sorts of child-rapey things and that’s why I am busy.
What other defense has he got though, really?
On the 12th at 211PM he will borrow a phrase from his mind-mate, ‘Dan’, and characterize my handling of his material as “mocking”. And tosses in – but of course – some juvenile scatological epithet, while characterizing my analysis and assessment of his stuff as being “royal” (scream-caps omitted).
And repeats the utterly non-credible claim based on the old Wiki article as to only 15 percent of victims being compensated. Which point I have addressed in my comments later on the 12th.
On the 12th at 222PM he then adopts the Wig of Hurt and Innocent Competence and bleats about his asking people to look at his “evidence”. As I said, in JR-speak, “evidence” merely means whatever bits he imagines and finds consoling to himself, which he then tosses up on the screen.
That type of “evidence” – he accidentally but rightly surmises – is not acceptable or sufficient.
But then his internal fire spreads and he can’t help but get down to the real JR: he tosses epitheticals at everyone as being “a moral backwater”. (Again, his own exposed untruths don’t apparently occur to him.)
And then (the 12th at 1012PM) ‘Dan’ gets in on the game, with substantively nothing to say.
Which is followed by another bit on the 12th at 1115PM which starts us once again down the swamp road into the Dan-verse with more ‘prophetic’ pronouncements.
JR and ‘Dan’ are two peas in a pod. They have formulated a batch of self-consoling bits; these bits are neither accurate nor coherent but that isn’t their purpose. The bits are simply there to hold their personal ‘world’ together and through the marvels of the internet are now here as well.
I have made the best use of those bits that I can, using them to further an understanding of the dynamics and types of mentation that have been drawn to the surface by the Stampede’s roiling of the troubled waters. I will continue to do so.
Once again, the multiplication of words, lacking any valuable content.
Why do you act so threatened by bible quotes, calling them "Dan-verse". You lack the capacity to realize that you're mocking God's Word when you make these accusations. If you're claiming my quotes of your repetitive prayers to Mary, Queen of Heathens, is "prophetic", then I would have to correct you. They are most definitely PATHETIC and Antichrist and Anti-Christian. For this, and many other misquotes, misinterpretations and disregard for the Lord's Word, is the very reason that led your idol worshipping cult to doing all the disgustingly nasty crimes against His children and all humanity. Read Romans ch. 1, describing your cult and it's clergy of hypocrites in fine detail. Maybe you need a few lessons in theology in order to understand what's written plain as day. We're tired of hearing all the lame excuses your catechism dreams up for disobeying the Lord's Word. Good luck with that.
Oh! Thanks for your definition of faith. the unbelievable ability to believe in what isn't there. Excused,according to you, by the fact that science can not measure the never was.
Should I clap for fairies too, Peter Pan? Clap. Clap. Clap. I do believe. I do believe.
Proof? Zippo. = delusions, imaginings; fantasies.
Thanks for sharing nothing.
I grasp the significance and need for this site alright. To hide the truth. To spin everything against the simple fact that your church didn't protect its' children but served them up,as if, on a platter(or altar?) to be sacrificed to pedophiles over and over and over again UNIVERSALLY. Good job church! You just "loved" us kids to death.
Saying something is "utterly un-credible" doesn't make it true. It just makes you a propagandist for very evil people. You poopooing others only makes you look like the empty piece of crap that you are.
I'm not insulting you here. I'm describing you here.
Dan glad you found the right religion for you. Religious contradictions are better fought in a forum about those contradictions. They don't really apply here. But smoke must be blown.
I wonder if P's a little like Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady all snobbery and servants. I wonder who serves him tea as he scribbles his poison pen-ery by the hour. Poor soul!
Jim, How you've come to the conclusion that I don't belong in this forum is beyond me. Could be that your fight for some financial gain, has blinded your eyes to the battle that's really being fought in this arena. This is a fight between good and evil, God the Creator and Satan, the accuser and slanderer of all that is good and righteous in this world.
Have you not witnessed the flight of a hummingbird, a worm morphing into the most beautiful butterfly, or the cheetah, leopard, hyena, vulture or lion, and how perfectly they fit into God's feeding plan and how beautifully they coexist with all the rest of nature, a delight for the eye to see. Then I could understand your denials of a Creator.
I find you to be very confused as to what is right and wrong. The difference between God's people and the religious that you've come to believe represent God and His Son. If there is any smoke billowing on this website then it would have to becoming from Satan's nostrils, his deceivers, liars, excusers and enablers, but also from the unbelievers and deniers
And on the 13th at 1239PM JR digs the hole even deeper.
For openers – had you been waittttingggggggg forrrrr itttttttttt? – an epithet: I am “a lying sociopath”. Regular readers will recall just who has been exposed as “lying” here and the oddity of JR’s only familiarity with psychology being the deep-seated characterological problem of sociopathy.
Then he ignores the dangers (and dynamics) of projection and accuses me of being the one who “only tells the truth if it suits his purpose”, larding onto that the pronouncement that “normal human beings don’t do that”. No, they don’t. He should take that to the mirror.
He then – yet again – bleats that he has “no need to lie about being abused”. He was receiving a poor grade from the teacher he accused and he has demonstrated here just how vengeful he can be when he doesn’t get what he wants (once I had nailed down his “obfuscation” and so forth about being child-raped, he simply retreated to calling me a pedophile and so forth). And his claim, when lodged in that massive Los Angeles 500-plus plaintiff case, yielded a rather hefty sum. And if he wasn’t abused, his entire career (in his own mind, anyway) as Tribune of the Victimry would have lost its creds.
That’s quite a bit of “need”.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1239PM:
He then tries a bit of mental judo: It is not his lie, but rather the “very great need” that I “seem to have” to “make [him] out to be a liar”. In other words: he’d the like the focus to be not on his (long and oft asserted) lie about being child-raped, but rather about why I would expose it.
And perhaps he would like this bit to be stretched to cover my questioning of a great number of his claims and assertions: why would I question them? Or – in his own words – “why does it [my questioning] exist?”.
My questioning exists because I sense questionable material – claims, assertions, and stories – on a rather important subject.
Readers may judge as they will whether JR’s responses i) answer or ii) raise more questions than they purport to answer.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1239PM:
JR came to this site well after the case in Los Angeles. During the preparation for that case his attorney had to have disabused him as to the legal accuracy of any claim of child-rape or statutory rape. So JR didn’t make a mere “error” (scream-caps omitted) when he claimed here, quite some time after that case, that he was child-raped. JR had to have known already that the experience he claimed to have undergone did not constitute child-rape or statutory rape. And yet for so long here he insisted that it did.
That isn’t an “error” or an “admitted mistake” (admitted only after some years of questioning). That is a deliberate and sustained insistence on an untruth.
JR’s sly but hardly adequate solution to that uncongenial reality is to sigh that “it’s impossible to please a sociopath, obviously”. That’s a thought that has often occurred to me when dealing with his material.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1239PM:
And then – slyly – he tries to head for the high-ground by impugning my Christian charity: I don’t “forgive” his “error” and yet I “claim to be a Christian”. Which is a neat job of combining epithet, innuendo and insinuation – no doubt he’s had a lot of practice over the years.
And he heads off-stage for the wings while delivering – yet again – a gender-bendy bit of snark.
On the 13th at 1247 JR then thanks me for my “definition of faith”, which he doesn’t quote so it’s hard to know just what he’s going on about.
He’s clearly trying sarcasm here, but the bit fails to reach the complexity of the point my “sonar” imagery raised: you aren’t going to find planes with technology designed to locate submarines; for planes you need a different modality.
And he – as have many before him – tries to whistle-away that problem by merely claiming that there isn’t anything ‘up there’ that needs to be searched-for anyway in the first place. Readers may consider the reliability of that presumption as they may, coming from JR or anybody else.
And then some riffing on various fairy-tale characters.
And then a quick stab at logic (not one of his strong-points) with a barely comprehensible bit about “Zippo” and so forth.
Which enables him to at least get back on ground more familiar to him as he concludes with a stab at more snark. What else has he got, really?
And on the 13th at 1253PM he insists that he does indeed “grasp the significance and need for this site”: it is – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – “to hide the truth”. This from the recently exposed long-term and insistent obfuscator and hide-r of the truth.
And he riffs on with more bits that have been largely addressed in my prior comments on this thread.
But note his tactic here: he tries to distract from his own rather serious truth-problems by trying to wave the bloody-shirt of “pedophiles”, which is precisely a point so deeply at issue and about which so much doubt legitimately exists: just how much actual and verified pedophiliac activity has been demonstrated to have existed (which demonstration requires more than the mere claiming of it).
And – just to keep things tidy – there is the comment of ‘Dan’ (the 13th at 745PM), who simply tries to run his old I’m Not/You Are bit: it’s not his own material that lacks content, it is mine. Readers may judge as they will.
At this point I would invite readers to consider an editorial from The Wall Street Journal entitled ‘Chevron Shakedown Rout’; it appeared in the print edition of Tuesday, August 9 of this year, on page A-12.
The editorial discusses the end of a case – brought against Chevron – which it characterizes as “One of the most egregious legal frauds in history”.
A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a lower court’s decision and “ruled that an Ecuadorian[lawsuit] judgment against Chevron was the product of fraud, coercion, and bribery”.
We are into the realm of tortie tactics and strategy here, which is the relevant point for this site.
Continuing with my comment on the Chevron case:
The court found the tortie’s conduct to be “corrupt” and “legal terrorism and ransom at the highest level”.
The tortie – the editorial continues – had strategized seeking an “ad terrorem effect” which would have had the result of “impelling Chevron to agree to a settlement”. In other words: so terrify the defendant (a deep-pockets corporation) that it would have submitted to a settlement.
This is a vivid example of the same type of tortie tactic deployed against the Church in the Stampede (and most certainly in a 500-plus plaintiff lawsuit such as was pulled-off in Los Angeles a decade ago).
The attorney had “lined up environmentalists and even actress Daryl Hannah to create a media circus that would force the company to settle”. What the tortie lacked in this case was a steady supply of ‘victims’ who would ‘report’ their ‘victimization’; the Stampede could deploy an apparently endless supply.
Continuing with my comment on the Chevron case:
Two years ago a federal district court judge found that the tortie “had committed acts that would qualify as violations of the federal Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act and nearly every standard of decent professional behavior”.
And this then also goes to JR’s bleating about “federal hearings”: would the Stampede torties really want to be exposed for their various tactics deployed in the Stampede? Would any pols want to put so powerfully influential a group at risk of exposure?
And it also goes to JR’s pooh-poohing of any media role: creating a “media circus” was a vital part of the plan from the get-go.
The judge wrote – the editorial continues – that the tortie’s handling of the lawsuit was “an exercise in pure extortion” and was “offensive to the laws of any nation that aspires to the rule of law”.
So much for any attempt to cast the Stampede torties as merely simple truthy folk doing their humble bit for justice; they are capable of strategies designed to terrorize a targeted defendant into agreeing to a hefty settlement (with accompanying hefty fees and divisions of the swag).