KNOCKOUT! Falsely accused St. Louis priest Rev. Joseph Jiang fights SNAP – and wins!
In a monumental victory for truth and justice in the Catholic Church abuse story, a federal judge has ruled that the lawyer-funded group SNAP indeed defamed St. Louis priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang and conspired to falsely claim the priest of child sex abuse.
In her ruling, the judge sanctioned SNAP, its national director David Clohessy, and its "outreach director" Barbara Dorris and ordered them to pay for Fr. Jiang's attorney fees and expenses.
[**Court docs: Click to read the federal judge's ruling against SNAP (pdf)**]
SNAP national director
David Clohessy
The abuse claims were outlandish from the beginning. The accuser "had made previous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse" and already had a reputation of being "a serial exaggerator to the point of being 'delusional.'"
Meanwhile, one of the accuser's parents had a "history of making unfounded claims against the Catholic Church for monetary gain" and had a long record in the civil court system, with at least 2 liens and 16 judgments against him.
SNAP's willful contempt
Throughout the legal process, SNAP repeatedly and willfully defied a federal judge's orders to hand over important documentary evidence in the case. Then, as we reported just a few weeks ago, the group proceeded to orchestrate a fraudulent media campaign about the case.
So when U.S. District Court Judge Carol E. Jackson issued her ruling this week, she really let SNAP have it, concluding:
- "SNAP defendants' refusal to comply with the Court's discovery orders has been willful and in bad faith";
- "SNAP defendants conspired with one another and others to obtain plaintiff's conviction on sexual abuse charges and that they entered into this conspiracy due to discriminatory animus against plaintiff based on his religion, religious vocation, race and national origin";
- "SNAP defendants' public statements about plaintiff (Fr. Jiang) were false and they did not conduct any inquiry into the truth or falsity of these public statements, but instead made these statements negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth."
To punish SNAP for its recklessness, Jackson ordered that SNAP "pay the reasonable expenses, including plaintiff's attorney's fees, caused by their failure to comply with the Court's orders."
Kudos to Fr. Jiang for his victory for truth and justice.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 1242PM:
But then JR goes on immediately to admit that SNAP is – at least to some extent – “a lawyers front group” if not much of a “victims organization”. Well, I had been postulating the former all along and nobody here ever doubted the latter.
Leaving JR with nothing but his still-undemonstrated presumption that despite all that, it was, is and always has been the Church that was controlling the whole bit.
And the fact that JR still hasn’t come up with a credible chain of causation for the Church’s role … that isn’t “pretty odd” at all because JR has no credible chain of causation, no plausible chain of dynamics and motives that would demonstrate the plausibility or possibility or probability of the Church’s control of all the players, overtly or covertly, consciously or unconsciously (whatever that could possibly mean in the first place to begin with).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 1242PM:
And then JR tries to move on to his scheduled tie-in with a concluding epithetical bit about me: I am – he doth declaim – “literal about everything but victims”. After years of complaining about my abstractness and abstruseness, JR now finds it convenient to utterly reverse the epithetical direction and denounce me as “literal about everything”. Go figure.
But what really throws a monkey-wrench in his game-plan is that I am not at all “literal” about “victims” – meaning that I don’t take their stuff at face-value. He makes that sound like a bad thing. Where would we be if all along we had taken JR’s story as “literal”?
And nobody doubts that they all “self-identified” as “victims”. The problem is – as it has always been – that mere ‘self-identifying’ doesn’t make one what one identifies-as. Nor does it make anyone whom one necessarily has to accuse in order to do such ‘self-identifying’ automatically guilty.
And it is precisely that gaping and abyssal problem that the Victimist and Abusenik Playbook was designed to evade.
On then to JR’s rather stretched gambit in his comment of the 28th at 1230PM:
With pearls tightly-clutched, JR – the Wig of Decent Outrage jangling and jiggling precariously atop his pate – doth denounce me as having “twice compared [myself] to Jesus”.
I have two legs, Jesus had two legs; I have two eyes, Jesus had two eyes. What’s the problem? And what’s the point?
Did I compare myself to Jesus in regard to His Divine qualities and powers? (That’s more of a ‘Dan’ thing, is it not?)
Did I compare myself to Jesus in regard to His virtue or His goodness?
And – from that file JR has apparently kept from his own uncongenial experiences on the wrong side of a clinical desk – we get “narcissistically” (and properly spelled, too). I’ll leave him to it then.
But as one mal-tuned fork can set off other equally mal-tuned tuning forks, JR has set ‘Dan’ vibrating on the 28th at 119PM:
Yet – as always – ‘Dan’ is working his own angle and agenda. Specifically, that I cannot possibly compare myself to Jesus since I make – had you been waitttttingggggg forrrrr itttttttt? – “lying assessments and accusations” (about – had you been waittttinggggg forrrrr ittttttt? – ‘Dan’).
And then ‘Dan’s mind – enlightened by the assorted divinities in his bathroom mirror – moves on to riff about “One minute you’re mocking Jesus, next minute you think you are Jesus”.
Of course, I have never mocked Jesus and ‘Dan’ hasn’t provided a quote because such a quote doesn’t exist. I do go after ‘Dan’s stuff, but then I have gone to great length to explain why at times not to do so would be an offense against truth, rationality and – not to put too fine a point on it – sanity.
So, no, I don’t compare myself to Jesus in His Divine aspects; I have more than enough to do being myself. But that is hell-and-gone from ‘Dan’, who – not really wanting to be himself or face himself – has presumed a place in that little trinity in his bathroom mirror instead.
Are you dense, stupid, or just plain ignorant? You've consistently mocked God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. which by the way is blasphemy, an unpardonable sin.
1) Not the exact quote, but something like "God and Jesus and 'Dan', the blessed Trinity".
2) " 'God's wondrous plan to have 'Dan' be his specially-appointed Mouth"
3) "The gaggle of divinities resident in his bathroom mirror forbid 'Dan' from doing any such thing and 'Dan' is nothing if not a reely reely good 'servant' (of Servant") of God (and/or of 'Dan')."
4) "demonstrations of unholy mockery of 'God' and rejection of His (meaning God's and /or 'Dan's) Word and Will)."
5) Everytime you use anything simular to the quotes above, 'Dan'-verse' or 'god-gram' in reference to my, or my friend's, prophetic messages from the Lord, you are doing worse than blasphemy against Jesus, you're criticizing God's power of His Holy Spirit, whether you think so or not. Changing what was truly 'beautiful prophecies' to the children, and like a scumbag, slandering me with your false accusations repetitively is both low and dirty, but we've seen how deep you can go. And you think it's clever or smart, when it's truly asinine.
P.S. By the way, you can't compare yourself to Christ by any 'aspects'. You're the complete opposite of anything good, pure or righteous. Though you might compare yourself to His jackass, but I bet even his donkey was smarter, at least he didn't mock Him.
publyin', "not to put too fine a point on it", but you don't represent anything close to "truth, rationality… or sanity". And that would be period. Servant of the Almighty- appointed and designated by God Himself and furthermore witnessed by His Son Jesus and the Spirit – So sorry that you don't get it, but in time you will, but maybe not until your Judgment Day.
And thus to JR’s of the 28th at 1221PM:
Apparently rather taken with his newly-constructed Wig of Peace-y Benevolence, JR opens with it here, and, it would seem, with no thought or care as to how obviously clunky a ploy it is.
Be that as it may.
JR wonders how SSETT did reach those “insights about the SNAP-Church fraud”. Perhaps SSETT just read JR’s stuff and one mal-tuned fork set another off. Or perhaps SSETT is some Abusenik we have already seen on this site – there is, to be sure, something rather familiar in SSETT’s style and tone and diction and method.
JR shares his inner visions of so many (genuine?) “victims” … “who have been reperpetrated” - if you will.
And what has reperpetrated them? Why, seeing the likes of JR get a million while they get nothing.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 1221PM:
But JR’s got some new material and he’s going to try it out here: he muses that perhaps all of those “victims” who did get a nice check are guilty of “apathy” since they have not organized to do something for all those myriads who – we may rely on JR’s visions – are still out there, somewhere.
So many invisibles are involved in the Stampede, are there not? On top of the invisible evidence there are now invisible myriads yet to get a check and further invisible myriads who got a check but now don’t seem to want to get too close to the public eye. And – we can take JR’s word for it – they are all out there, somewhere.
And – it must also be clear – after all the years of JR’s stuff going up on the internet here and elsewhere, apparently few, if any, of the invisible check-cashers have made their way to JR as their Tribune who will marshal them into an effective field force to liberate the invisible un-checked myriads.
He is rightly bemused. And I’ll leave him to it then.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 1221PM:
But wait! There’s more!
Apparently, somewhere in the performance, the Wig of Peace-y Benevolence has dropped off our performer’s poor pate and there now lies exposed in the sweaty gleam of the footlights merely the usual JR: I am paid to do my work here. As I have often said, JR seems to operate in a world where nobody does anything except for money (which, as I have noted before, may go quite a way in explaining his whole gambit in the first place).
And I’ll leave him to that then, too.
I hope everyone is enjoying their Tuesday.
Gene Wilder RIP. You are already missed.
To the comment by ‘Glenna Kerker’ I would only offer this addition: Kathleen Kane is now the former Attorney General of Pennsylvania, having had to resign in the wake of a felony conviction for misusing her office and authority.
And on the 28th at 627PM ‘Dan’ will demonstrate once again his game-rigging presumption that you either agree with his scare-visions and eructations or else you are merely “an excuser”.
Note also this sly bit: he creates a characterization that ‘Glenna Kerker’ did not use (“our poor church”) and then uses his own characterization – not ‘Glenna Kerker’s – as the springboard for more of his own stuff.
And again with the bit about “Dead priests don’t mean innocent priests”. It doesn’t mean ‘guilty priests’ either, for that matter. But it does mean that in allegations which are already queasily short on evidence, the accused now is no longer able to make any defense whatsoever. But that’s how ‘Dan’ likes his eructations to be and how he likes them to go: nobody objects-to or counters his stuff, for fear of “mocking God” (as Whose very speshull agent and mouth-piece and co-trinity colleague ‘Dan’ has appointed himself (or Himself)).
She didn't have to use the words, "our poor church". That's how all you excusers gripe and complain, about your 'poor', 'persecuted' and picked on, cult of perverts and pedophiles. Thought with all your brilliance, you would be able to assess that for yourself. I mean, you were so smart to figure out that 1 Peter 4: 14-16 was not the actual verse. Gee, was it the missing quotation marks that tipped you off. Man, little peewee, you're becoming wise beyond your years. And your fellow liars are the ones who did the persecuting, because they couldn't handle the truth, just like your mocking dumb—.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 627PM:
And then yet another bunch of Scriptural pericopes and Dan’s own usual stuff:
The pericope 1 Peter 3:17 is simply another demo of ‘Dan’s self-excuse for all the social and legal trouble ‘Dan’ has gotten into: it isn’t because ‘Dan’ is a queasy and disturbing whackjob who frightens “hundreds” of people and targets children in a schoolyard, but rather that ‘Dan’ is just another in a long lines of Biblical prophets who have been persecuted for delivering God’s Word.
The bit ascribed to 1 Peter 4: 14-16 is not actually the pericope itself but is, rather, ‘Dan’s take-away from it (which – you should presume – is thus also God’s take-away): the Church apparently does indeed suffer “persecution”, but only because of the Church’s own “wickedness and evil” (which, of course, would include Catholics whom he has targeted and/or frightened calling the police and so on).
The pericope Ephesians 5:11 can as easily be taken to refer to anyone who exposes ‘Dan’s stuff for the virulent and self-serving ranting it is.
And the nonsense and ignorance is again repeated, as if consistent liars cawn't be whackjobs.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 627PM:
Lastly and yet again, ‘Dan’ doth hereby instruct one and all to “read the Bible and get an education”. Which yet again is a fine bit of advice that ‘Dan’ should deliver to his bathroom mirror, preferably in reverse order: get the education first, and then read the Bible for itself rather than trawling through it to merely find support for his own self-serving agenda (i.e. evading his personal issues by claiming the mantle of God’s authority and of Biblical competence).
Great wisdom, 'authority' and 'competence' from the troll, too stupid to realize you shouldn't go around mocking the Creator of the universe. Where did you get your education, from a box of your 'popcorn', Cracker Jacks? servant
Why did the Diocese leave a check on the 9 year old girl's parent's car, for $20,000 ? Another detail the Chuch likes to overlook.
Oh gosh, I am just glad to say I am certainly an atheist (if a label had to be put on me..lol..I would go with that). The menaces which seems first to be this website…but hey..what does this website's opinion mean anyway…yet the menacing essays seem to abound. LOL Have a great day. Sheese. See you all in court. LOL
O.K. so here's how I handle P. I go around him. I mostly don't read him. Why bother? It's all raspberries from P all the time. He's a waste of space and time.
I wish Sacer would write more. Why does this always happen here? Someone writes in support of what I say about SNAP then vanishes. I swear I have never ever in my life had anything happen to me like the shit that rolls in at me due to this scandal.
Where are the human beings who morally stand behind what they know and work to help the people harmed? How could Sacer be so vehement and accurate in their SNAP analysis and then walk away?
I don't get it!
Satan, and Mini-Pee – Please stand back, in Jesus' name. Today's message from the Lord -
"In the world, we will have a life of suffering. In the world, people are greedy and want more money than they should have in life. In the world, men of the clergy lie and pretend they're righteous, yet they lie about other people and get away with the worst things a human can ever do. In the world, hurting and molesting some of My little children and their families. In the world, nothing is done to any of these horrible people, and they seem to go free each time, but they will get what they deserve. In the world, they carry guns of all sorts, and many young people are killed for no reason. In the world, we have all kinds of hypocrites, who would rather lie, than tell the truth. In My heaven, you will have nothing to worry about, except My faith, hope, love and peace."
And on and on.
‘Dan’ (the 30th, 216AM) opens merely and yet again with epithet and once again relies upon the presumed identification of himself (or Himself) with “God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit” such that to disagree with ‘Dan’ is to mock the (actual) Trinity and commit – we are instructed – “blasphemy, the unpardonable sin” (apparently, then, child-abuse is not “the unpardonable sin”; or else perhaps the only real “unpardonable sin” is to expose ‘Dan’s whackery).
And the comment turns out to be merely an extended riff on all that.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 230AM:
More epithet, this time cast as a pronouncement about my not representing “anything close to ‘truth, rationality … or sanity”. Readers may judge as they will.
And again with the God’ll-getcha-for-this threat, although – like Wimpy and his hamburger – ‘Dan’ may have to wait until “Judgment Day”.
‘Dan’ (the 30th at 354AM) now claims that ‘Glenna Kerker’ “didn’t have to use the words ‘our poor church’”. Because – doncha see? – we can take ‘Dan’s word for it that such a sense is “how all you excusers gripe and complain” and so forth. He just knows that, and since he (or He) shares some bit of Divine Enlightenment, then that’s all there is to it.
So he doesn’t just make stuff up for his own convenience; he just knows this stuff, and that’s because he (or He) has that speshull fax machine and nobody else does.
And, but of course, he cawn’t think why anybody would consider any of his stuff mock-able.
I'll inform you that one wouldn't need any 'Divine Enlightenment' to hear 'how all you excusers gripe and complain" about your poor, persecuted cult, especially with you as leader of the pack, acting like a cry baby, whimpering your nonsense.
publyin' oinks about myself, "So he doesn't just make up stuff for his own convenience". No. That would describe you, "mak[ing] up stuff for [your] own convenience". Liar, deceiver and excuser of your cult of hypocrites.
But then – and had you been waitttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – ‘Dan’ apparently realizes he (or He) hasn’t got too much actual substance to counter my material, so on the 30th at 301AM he (or He) realizes he (or He) had best retreat to the ‘high-ground’ of Divine prophecy and thus delivers himself (or Himself) of a ‘prophecy’.
I would simply point out that “in the world” one is going to “have a life of suffering” if one is notably deranged and not only a) does nothing to resolve the problem(s) but also b) tries to make an invulnerable virtue out of the derangement by claiming the mantle and authority of God.
You are laughable. " 'Dan' apparently realizes he (or He) hasn't got too much substance to counter my material." You're a joke. Everyday, you spew so much longwinded ignorance and slander, that I can ignore 90% of your garbage and still have plenty of substance to counter your trash. The prophecies are only a bonus for those who have any Spiritual sense, so that would definitely exclude you, Mr. Know-It-All of Nothingness.
'In the world', we will have a life of suffering, dealing with the greedy, lying, perverts, pedophiles and hypocrites of your cult. This is the meaning in a nutshell, so you should be able to relate to that. And as far as your wish that 'child-abuse' is not "the unpardonable sin", as Matthew 18 simply explains differently, but not according to Spiritually inept publyin'. Strange how you wish the sin of "child-abuse' is forgivable. Is there something the pervert or pedophile is hiding from us. Maybe time for you to come clean, Creepy whackjob. servant
On then to JR’s of the 29th at 909PM:
Once again, JR tries to extricate himself (and, in the process, go for something in the epithetical line) by declaring – once again – that he “mostly [doesn’t] read” my material. Thus then, all of his stuff referring to my material is stuff that flows from not-reading what he’s responding to.
Then we get what appears to be an honest lament that SSETT – who mostly repeated JR’s own whacked-out speculations about SNAP and the Church and so forth – hasn’t said anything recently. How – JR bleats – is it that somebody so clearly acute and brilliant (as to agree with JR) doesn’t return to the lists?
Readers may imagine as they may.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 909PM:
And then JR doth clutch the pearls and “swear” (and we can judge the credibility of this oath as we may) that never in his whole life has he had as much “happen to” him “like the [sxxt] that rolls in at me due to this scandal”.
My take-away would be: a) in attempting to dine out further on “this scandal” JR took to the public ways and revealed his actual self and it’s not pretty and b) JR’s own role in “this scandal” is now revealed to be that whopper he came up with about being raped. How could anyone be surprised at the outcome?
But thus he is still a ‘victim’, doncha see?
Shit the word is shit. You are shit.
I, AGAIN!!! ,THOUGHT ANY SEX WITH AN UNDERAGED PERSON WAS CALLED STATUTORY RAPE.
IT TOOK P 2 YEARS TO FIGURE OUT AND PUBLISH HERE THAT MY DESCRIPTION OF MY ABUSE AS RAPE WAS INACCURATE.
I ACCEPTED WHAT HE SAID TO BE TRUE AND CHANGED MY MIS NAMING OF WHAT HAPPENED TO ME.
NOW P CLAIMS THAT THAT MISNOMER MAKES ME OUT TO BE LYING ABOUT MY ABUSE.
WHY WOULD A DECENT HUMAN BEING NOT ACCEPT MY APOLOGY?
AND WORSE WHY WOULD A DECENT HUMAN BEING, KEEP UP THIS ATTACK?
The answer is obvious. P is not a decent human being.
Thus to the comment by ‘True Catholic’ (the 29th at 704PM):
TC proffers utterly no reference as to the provenance of what seems to be some sort of internet ‘story’ (or legend) that appears to go something like this: once upon a time, somewhere, some Diocese left a check for twenty thousand dollars on the windshield of an allegant’s parents’ car.
The thought of any organization dropping 20K in a check in such a fashion would stretch the credulity of any rational listener or reader. But not ‘TC’.
Readers may consider it as they will.
And why are we to believe Christianity is a religion of love????????????? P cuts through that lie with every word he writes. I wish him happiness.
The largest settlements only happened in California. Home of major media. Maybe Cardinal Mahony was a better man than other church leaders? I don't think he had the power to do right all by himself if the insurers didn't agree. I don't know.
But where else have settlements like that happened for the church's victims?
Maybe a high priced PR firm, hired by the church thought that if you settle with victims in a major media state it might appear that everyone else who was victimized will have been helped as well. It cost a lot but the church would save much more money overall if the world believed such settlements were happening everywhere.
P. wants me to look up and publish here the court case Anderson and co. lost right after California settled. Like I made it up. It was all over the L.A. Times. Look it up yourself you lazy lying twat.
Isn't it interesting that P's the only voice of the church here. Dave Pierre posts a little nonsense at the top of the page yet this is P's world. He HOGS the conversation. He tells us we, who were harmed both by our abuse and by the false flagged SNAP are all wrong, and he does it over and over again. His criticisms of us aren't accurate or kind or true, and they certainly are not respectful and therefore are not Christian.
So basically the lying non-Christian is the only one here, making up insults and lies and all in "defence" of the "one true church"????!!!! Wow! Congratulations! I'm so impressed! LOL!
This is kinda starting to sound like fun? I think not. There is nothing fun about exposing sexual predators and their enablers to protect others. It is very hard work. That said, see you all in court; and perhaps all "The Media Report" e-mails and documents will be court ordered to be disclosed. Having fun now? Have a nice day.
Oh, would I love any court to review these posts at TMR? You bet I would. That's the difference between someone telling the truth and someone trying to hide the truth. P wants to change the truth to suit him and his owners. I'm happy that SNAP's been called on at least a part of its actions. I think a court viewing might expose more. And I'd love that to happen. I mean I'd just LOVE that.
Doesn't seem like my actions want to hide anything, if I want all of SNAP's truths brought to light, now does it? That's what I am dying to have happen.
All of ‘Dan’s current crop are simply variants of the usual I’m Not/You Are gambit, larded thickly with such epitheticals as ‘Dan’ can come up with. Readers may consider it all as they will.
Finally, I see progress. I don't have to listen to any of your longwinded ignorance and nonsense, excusing, slandering or mocking. I'm sure your shrink will be impressed.
On then to JR.
On the 30th at 506PM JR will continue to discourse on my material which – we had already been assured – he mostly doesn’t read.
He opens with a general question about Christianity, which seems rather abstract and conceptual for him … until he gets to his actual point, which is – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt????? – epithetical. And epithetical topped by that queasily fake Wig of Peace-y Benevolence.
Then on to some history or such: “The largest settlements only happened in California” – but if they were “the largest” then they could “only” have happened in some particular spot, so we’re not going far with this one.
California is “home of major media”. And, say, New York … isn’t? JR seems to be building up some sort of syllogism, but if his two assertions here are the premises then it’s hard to imagine where he’s going with them to reach a logical conclusion.
But no – he then riffs a bit on Cardinal Mahony and then declares (and who could disagree?) that he just doesn’t “know”.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 506PM:
But having admitted that he just doesn’t “know”, he can’t just leave off and instead starts speculating. Readers can enter a phrase such as ‘size of Catholic abuse settlements’ into a search engine and see various authors’ listings, although I have been unable to locate online a full and complete and authoritative listing.
The quality of the speculation is hobbled by – among other things – the need to keep the Church as the central strategizer. Thus the tortured bit about the Church hiring a high-priced PR firm so that if there were a reely reely big settlement (such as in LA) then people might think such monies were flowing all over the world and thus … people wouldn’t try to get some themselves … ????
My thought is that the torties – deploying a long-established stratagem of theirs, only this time with a very hefty and sustained media boost – bundled bunches of allegations into multiple-plaintiff cases in order to force the Church, that perennial deep-pockets defendant corporate entity, to settle rather than contest each allegation at trial.
And – as I had predicted – JR isn’t going to be putting up any reference to the case that he claimed Anderson lost. No surprises there.
And he tosses in some charming epithetical string. And no surprises there either.
Having apparently realized that his foray into logical thinking and history didn’t go very far, JR then gets back to more congenial methods a few minutes later (the 30th at 519PM).
He buckles down to some of his long-practiced insinuation, i.e. that I am “the only voice of the Church here”. But I am a questioner, and not “the voice of the Church here”. Abuseniks put stuff up, I consider it and raise questions that flow from it, the Abuseniks – having read my points or not – put more of their stuff up, and that’s how it’s been going.
And he then tries to back that bit up by – yet again – claiming that I do ‘hog’ (scream-caps omitted) the conversation here. That’s an image that might work in face-to-face conversation, where only one person can speak at a time; but – as I have often pointed out – it doesn’t work in a written modality like internet commentary, where anyone can put up as much material as s/he likes.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 519PM:
Nor do I merely ‘tell’ … I explicate, explaining with demonstrations of flaws in thought or fact that they proffer. It is the Abuseniks who merely “tell” (and expect, mind you, to be ‘believed’ forthwith and without further ado).
And that bit riffs on into – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – my making the ‘victims’ look bad and – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – re-victimizing them in ways that are not “accurate or kind or true … and certainly not respectful and therefore are not Christian”. Bottom-line: JR and company are yet again ‘victims’. Ovvvvv coursssssssse.
They are victims of their own material, and if victimized in all of this by some external element it would be by the Victimist and Stampede Playbooks, that assured them that the way the Game would be played, they could “tell” whatever they wanted to and nobody would dare question them.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 519PM:
And having piled up his little pile of blocks just so, JR can on that basis then declare that it is actually I who is “the lying non-Christian” and “the only one here … making up insults and lies”. Readers can review the various Abusenik submissions on this thread alone and judge as they will.
But a few minutes later (the 30th at 534PM), the victory-lap snarky mind seems to have left the building and we get another all-scream caps pronunciamento. Or maybe JR is just screaming for laffs and it’s all a put-on.
And what is he on about?
Well, first he opens with an epithet, in his usual charming way.
Then he merely repeats some of his more dubious self-excusing points: he “thought any sex with an underaged person was statutory rape – although placing a hand on a phallus questionably qualifies as “rape” of any sort and he made his claims here after a court-case in which he would have gone over all of this with competent counsel, who would have explained it all to him in formulating the actual gravamen of his Complaint for the lawsuit that got him his million.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 534PM:
Then that it took me “2 years” to point out the problems with his rape story. I had alluded to the problems and handled them gingerly and somewhat obliquely all along but didn’t want to create the sxxtstorm that I imagined would have arisen had JR been confronted directly. But after a while, it seemed that tactful obliqueness didn’t work and more directly addressing the points was required. Especially after he had provided enough further elements of his story and the document cache from his own case had come to light.
And then – had you been waitttingggg forrrrr ittttttt? – he tries to blame me for his story problems. But he had come here having already completed both his lawsuit and the preparatory work done with his attorney. And my thoughts about the inappropriateness of legislatively using the term ‘rape’ in such a way as to include non-rape activity in some state laws over the years didn’t purport to completely explain his own story.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 534PM:
And if JR now bleats that he took my word – mine, mind you – over the word of his own (successful) attorney … then that hugely undermines his claim that he doesn’t read my material because it is so full of “lies” and this and that and the other thing.
And he “changed [his] misnaming” only after the whole exposure of his story had been put up in clear and direct prose.
And then and then and then: the sly and queasy effort to imply that no “decent human being” would keep on about this after JR – he seems to think – made an “apology”.
Here’s why: a) my position has been from the get-go that there are numerous elements in the Stampede indicating the high probability that allegations may not have been accurate and veracious and b) JR’s own story has demonstrated exactly that while c) JR continues to hold forth assertively on the accuracy and veracity of the Stampede and its constituent allegations while d) continuing to claim that his stuff and stories and assertions about this and that aspect of the Stampede should be respected and presumed veracious (under pains and penalties of much epithet and the accusation of ‘attacking’ him).
“What decent person” would continue to carry on, then, as JR does? And I submit that the answer to that question has now become rather “obvious”.
So now it's wrong that I corrected myself? Jesus fucking Christ! you're an asshole.
On the 31st at 1214AM commenter ‘Kris’, after something about “fun” apropos of nothing I can suss out in the thread commentary, says that “exposing sexual predators and their enablers” “is very hard work”.
So true. Especially if one sets out to do so a) in the absence of evidence and b) in such a way as to make the problem seem much much larger than it actually may have been.
Which is precisely why the Stampede and the Victimism that spawned it have worked so very hard to i) legally undermine the principles of evidence and even the core principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and ii) create a media frenzy that a) treated all allegations as ‘reports’ and b) selectively focused on only those elements that enhanced the desired appearance of the problem being large and ongoing while downplaying or simply ignoring elements and developments that indicated otherwise.
‘Kris’ can consider the history of the McMartin Day-Care Satanic Ritual Child Abuse case to get an idea of all that “very hard work” and how it all worked out and the consequences that flowed from it.
And you still insist that you don't make excuses. This entire post is plagued with your excuses for criminal priests. And how do you explain the plethora of priests that admitted to being perverts or pedophiles. You are terribly disingenuous and I think you realize that.
Publion:
You are in a state of denial, in my opinion. Yet, keep writing your essays as if that is going to change the facts and the truth. Have a nice day.
Publion:
Based on my own experience, I gotta laugh at your essays. See you in court. I welcome the chance to prove the truth again because it may protect someone else from horrific sex crimes and cover-ups. Some of us have the guts to do that.
Publion, on the 31st at 1.17 pm, has hit the nail of the head with his words…"which is precisely why the Stampede and the Victimism that spawned it worked so very hard to…… 1) legally undermine the principles of evidence and even the core principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'….." What puzzles me is how this could happen?. We are not talking about a banana republic here?. This is the nation that put a man on the moon, with it's science and technology. This is also the "Land of the Free" where human rights are paramount. This is a great democratic nation, that's the envy of the world. Dare I suggest that your very first President, General George Washington, what uttering remarkable foresight when he said "It is impossible to rightly govern a country without God and the Gospel" Personally I think that is what has is happening, God has been pushed into the background, and secularism is now taking centre stage. The same can be said for the rest of the western world.
Read about Jeff Anderson and how long he's been THE lawyer for victims.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/26/church.abuse.victims.lawyer/
Here's why I have found no investigative reporters to look at my charges against SNAP.
"Good" news is no news now.
Watch John Oliver break it down for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq2_wSsDwkQ
In a nation chock full of hungry lawyers how did Jeff Anderson become THE lawyer for victims? What did he know that other lawyers didn't know or what action did Jeff take that other lawyers couldn't or wouldn't take?. Lawyers are in a cutthroat search for clients. Yet one lawyer became THE go to guy? Sounds like some Big Magic was working here. Some money magic. Money's usually the Big Magic so it might have been bigger money than victims reparations.
Why the slightly rich Catholic church itself might have steamrollered Jeff into that power position. The position of being THE go to lawyer for victims.
And if Jeff Anderson's the power behind SNAP, Why would he let them make such unnecessary legal errors? It makes no sense. (Which exactly explains every error SNAP's ever made. They all made no sense.) If they are a lawyers front, why do they continuously make legal mistakes? Legal mistakes that make victims, and only victims, look bad?
Here is a 'pericope' just for you, to assess and question, and try to change the meaning, but you 'cawn't' -
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intellegence of the intellegent I will frustrate. Where is the wise man? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." 1 COR 19 – 21
In your case, the sentence would better read, "I will destroy the wisdom of [those who think they are] wise. - God-gram by 'Dan'-verse for publyin' and any other excusers.
What planet is that you're from? Australia. publyin', "has hit the nail on the head". Are they the same nails, him and his deceiving cult used to nail Christ to the cross, and they continue to do so to this day? Does it give you catholic kudos to brown-nose a liar, deceiver and excuser. The corrupt legal system of this country, in cooperation with the slanderous leaders of your cult, have benefitted your cult of liars and enablers, substantially more than it's ever hurt them. Nice quote from George, but your false church has done little to advance the True God and His Gospel. In fact, the hypocrisy of your church, along with it's child abuse problems, has done as much or more damage than secularism. As witnessed on this forum, any appropriate quotes from the Bible have been torn apart or mocked, by the very creep who has become your hero, when any decent, Bible believing Christian, would consider his comments and lies to make him a zero. Wake up Malcolm and realize your church preaches a false gospel, and many of it's leaders and some followers are proof of it's rottenness.
"Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruit will you recognize them." Matthew 7: 15-16 When the fruit on the tree is perverts, pedophiles, deceivers, their enablers and excusers, you can rest assured that that tree does not belong to God or follow His Gospel.
Before getting to the most recent crop I have a few thoughts about the JR posting (the 31st at 437PM) of that link about Jeff Anderson .
The article dates back to 2010, more than half a decade ago. At that time Anderson was into that phase of trying to sue the Vatican in international court venues . As we now know, although those efforts were introduced and announced with much éclat, none of those efforts succeeded.
And that seems very relevant when considering the question as to why the Stampede hasn’t succeeded in catching-fire in any other countries. (Time-saver: let’s recall that the Dutch Abuse Report of 2011 went nowhere and its full text was never even published – to the best of my knowledge – in English; the Magdalene Laundries brouhaha in Ireland has gone nowhere and its originating author has now backed off her claims; the Australians have been holding hearings for years now with nothing to show except the case of one priest and much fulminating against Cardinal Pell; and the German/Austrian choir case was mostly about physical – rather than sexual – abuse).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 31st at 437PM:
I would say that in no other country has that synergy of interests and dynamics – overt and beneath the table – been able to coalesce as it did in the US. The legal bar is higher than it is in the US, where a) the torties – quasi-formally known as ‘the plaintiffs’ bar’ – retain a powerful political influence; and b) the culture wars enabled some aspects of radical feminism, Victimism, secularism (a secularism greatly endorsed by the government itself in its ‘transformative’ secularist agenda), and a media amplifying it all because it is both eager for soap-operas and no longer subscribes to ‘objective truth’.
And the article makes a great deal of Anderson’s competence but also his ambition and capacities as a showman (and learning how to script shows and stories is a vital element in the Stampede).
Now for the current crop. The Abusenik material doesn’t seem any the worse for being taken in the physical sequence that appears on the site here, so I won’t bother to put all of them in strict chronological order.
Thus we begin with JR’s of the 1st at 605PM:
We are first treated to his personally-consoling pipedream of some “court” or “any court” reviewing the posts at TMR. On what legal basis? JR doesn’t say. But the bit does serve a purpose: it provides a lead-in for JR’s perennial – and perennial undemonstrated – claim that I am trying to “hide the truth” and “someone” (surely not JR) is “telling the truth”.
What “truth” am I trying – as JR claims – to “change”? He doesn’t say.
Just who has “called” TMR “on” any of this, such that JR is transported into a minor ecstasy, is anybody’s guess. Readers may suss it all out as they may.
JR may try to bring “all of SNAP’s truths” into the “light” and he won’t get too much objection from anybody here that I can see, except for his bit about the Church running it all, the plausibility of which assertion he has never established, and the implausibility of my own theorization he has never demonstrated.
On the 31st at 859PM JR will try to make himself out to be a victim – yet again – in the matter of his own whopper about his ‘rape’ by now whining that since he has “corrected” himself, then it’s sooo unfair and not-right that he is now “wrong”.
He isn’t – by any material I have put up – “wrong” to have “corrected” himself; but a) he hasn’t actually apologized for his whopper, sustained for years here; b) he didn’t “correct” himself until he was exposed; c) he continues with his assertions and accusations as if his integrity were unimpaired; and d) he continues to try to get his game up and running again with assorted manipulative distractions (and, as we clearly see here, epithets).
On the 31st at 1105PM ‘Dan’ tries to wish-away all my points by trying a manipulative comment that presumes – without any demonstration or explication – that I am making “excuses”. Just how it may be that I am making “excuses” ‘Dan’ doesn’t bother to say (time-saver: in prior efforts on this site he has simply claimed that all my material is “excuses” (or the ever-handy “lies”) and so there’s no need to go into specifics since anybody can just read my material and see how right ‘Dan’ is).
Readers may judge as they will.
As to ‘Dan’s claimed “plethora of priests that admitted to being perverts or pedophiles”, I don’t recall any such “plethora” of admissions – although there have been a few.
But the actual few wouldn’t serve the purposes of ‘Dan’s on-going and self-serving cartoon, so he had to jack it up into a “plethora”.
We then get two (the 1st at 122AM, the 1st at 215AM) from ‘Kris’ who proffers nothing of substance, but rather only delivers more of his own preferred epitheticals: I am, he opines, “in a state of denial”. Denial of what? He doesn’t say. But we are assured, it would seem, that whatever he is driving at without saying it is “the facts and the truth”. I rather doubt it, but if he wants to share some further details of what he trying to go-for here then we can see how things develop.
And “based on [his] experience” … he’s “gotta laugh at [myh] essays”. What “experience” might that be? He doesn’t say.
“See you in court”, he then says – apropos of nothing except whatever might be playing on the screen in his head. And he riffs on in that direction for a bit.
And that’s it. Such as it is.
On the 1st at 1011PM ‘Malcolm Harris’ asks how the Stampede could have happened (in the US, I presume) since it is not “a banana republic”.
My thought would be that it is precisely the rule of law that distinguishes a polity as not being a banana republic. And it is also that exact same rule of law that had to be weakened in order for the Victimist and Stampede gambits to succeed. And thus we get show-trials and media-fueled derangement of public information and thus opinion, all of which – excited to white heat by the prospect of lots of cash for little risk (thanks to the reversal of the presumption-of-innocence and the dilution of the requirement for evidence and the valorization of any story-teller as a heroic and truthy victim whose claim must be taken as nothing less than a full and veracious ‘report’).
On the basis of which the long-established tortie stratagem of bringing lawsuits for the purposes of cowing any targeted deep-pockets defendant entity into settling (as was described so well in the Wall Street Journal piece I referenced and discussed on this thread, the 14th at 1123AM) could get along swimmingly, each settlement encouraging more stories to ‘come forward’.
But “secularism”, as ‘Malcolm Harris’ well describes it, has to reduce – if it can’t completely eradicate – its greatest rival.
On then to JR’s of the 31st at 840PM where we are treated to JR’s further speculations about Jeff Anderson. How did he become “’the’ lawyer for victims”.
First of all, I would say that Anderson is more accurately characterized as the most successful lawyer in Church abuse cases, at least as far as settlements go. It was he who realized the invaluable possibilities inherent in a (then-failing) organization like SNAP and made SNAP that offer it chose not to refuse and it was his flair for showmanship (as the article to which JR linked indicates) that attracted so much of the mainstream media into amplifying the soap-opera aspects that have been so seductive an element of the Stampede.