Exposed in the courts: SNAP president Barbara Blaine (l) and SNAP director David Clohessy (r)
A callous disregard for victims. Financial kickbacks from Church-suing tort lawyers. Retaliation.
A stunning new civil lawsuit filed in Illinois by a former insider at SNAP confirms what many of us have known all along: SNAP is not an organization designed to help victims of clergy sex abuse but a gang hellbent on shaking down the Catholic Church through a seedy web of lawyer kickback schemes, lawsuits, and bigotry.
Dennis Coday at the National Catholic Reporter was the first to report the news of this stunning lawsuit.
[**Click to read the actual must-see lawsuit filed against SNAP (pdf)**]
Gretchen Hammond was hired by SNAP in 2011 as director of development to oversee the group's fundraising operations and to boost cash inflow to the group. Ms. Hammond did so with great success, but the more she learned about the inner workings of SNAP, the more she came to learn that SNAP was not simply an innocent "victim advocacy group." Hammond began "collecting documents in preparation of exposing SNAP's acceptance of kickbacks from attorneys."
And as the lawsuit asserts, when Ms. Hammond confronted SNAP president Barbara Blaine about her concerns about SNAP's dealings with attorneys, "the atmosphere changed at SNAP for [Hammond]," "SNAP began taking retaliatory actions against [Hammond]," and the group soon fired her. Indeed, the lawsuit is a must-read. Among the eye-openers in the suit:
- "SNAP does not focus on protecting or helping victims – it exploits them."
- "SNAP routinely accepts financial kickbacks in the form of donations. In exchange for the kickbacks, SNAP refers survivors as potential clients to attorneys, who then file lawsuits on behalf of the survivors against the Catholic Church."
- "SNAP is a commercial operation motivated by its directors' and officers' personal animus against the Catholic Church."
- "SNAP's commercial operation is premised upon farming out abuse survivors as clients for attorneys."
- "SNAP callously disregards the real interests of victims, using them instead as props and tools as furtherance of their commercial fundraising goals."
- "SNAP would even ignore survivors that reached out to SNAP in search of assistance and counseling."
- "81.5% of SNAP's 2007 donations were donations by attorneys."
Indeed, regarding SNAP's slippery dealings with attorneys, the lawsuit highlights a November 2012 email in which, according to the lawsuit, SNAP National Director David Clohessy "provided information regarding a survivor to the attorney for the purposes of filing a lawsuit on behalf of the survivor … [and then] asked the attorney when SNAP could expect a donation." Of course.
The email that says it all
For many years, we at TheMediaReport.com have asserted that SNAP's activities have had almost nothing to do with the protection of children and everything to do with bludgeoning the Catholic Church for what it stands for.
Well, Hammond's lawsuit showcases an actual email message composed by Clohessy that clearly proves our claim once again. In a 2011 email exchange, Clohessy wrote:
"i sure hope you DO pursue the WI [Wisconsin] bankruptcy … Every nickle (sic) they don't have is a nickle (sic) that they can't spend on defense lawyers, PR staff, gay-bashing, women-hating, contraceptive-battling, etc."
This lawsuit is the single largest revelation in the Catholic Church sex abuse story in years. We highly urge readers to read the actual lawsuit for themselves and spread the word.
We also wish Ms. Hammond all the best with her courageous lawsuit.
Developing …
Hmmm…SNAP is a fraud filled with Catholic haters who earn their living from lawyer kickbacks.
Is this really a surprise to anyone?
I think what is really significant about this story is noting who broke the story…..NCR has often rightly been accused of being overtly liberal and had often provided SNAP a free platform unchecked. But to NCR's credit, they've shown signs of very fair reporting.
Except that NCR's reporting on it was a puff piece.
I never understood where they got their money from but this makes sense. And I always suspected that they had some hatred of Catholics and that that was behind why they did their noisy protests.
Why do catholics think that anyone who comes against catholic crimes is some sort of catholic hater? Any true christian won't hate the sinner, but will despise hypocrite sinners. Your religion is rampant with a hierarchy of lying hypocrites. If they had never committed some of the most disgusting sexual crimes against young children, then there would be nothing to criticize them for. But not only did they perform despicable perversions against minors, but also went out of there way to cover them up, all for the good of an apostate cult.
One must understand that a lower 6 figure salary goes a long way in Missouri. One must also understand that Clohessy doesn't have the credentials to manage a Cinnabon without SNAP.
This news is such a welcomed surprise. I can't wait for SNAP to depose all civil and criminal authorities. Let the process begin! What will we find? Congratulations SNAP!
The new guy in the White House said something about "draining the swamp" in Washington, D.C. Well, in a similar vein, I hope that Gretchen Hammond's testimony will help to drain a different swamp, known as SNAP. Of course the swamp in Washington is largely due to lobbyists who representt special interests, But SNAP is also a lobby group…. for contingency lawyers. Because SNAP, with the help of an enthusiastic media, creates moral panic against our priests. For this service SNAP expects a reward.
It comes in the form of generous 'donations' from the lawyers. But in this cosy arrangement no thought at all is given to the falsely accused priest who refused to plead guilty.
He is just left to rot in an overcrowded prison cell.
Speaking of "draining the swamp", how about your church try that themselves, although I doubt any hierarchy would be left. Maybe you guys could start from scratch and truly make it the One True Church. You could start by tossing your false catechism and all the lies of your apostate cult.
Your remark Dan is bigoted and off point.
Dear Carol, Thank you, coming from another possibly lying bigot of the catholic cult of excusers. Totally on point and simple truth, you hypocrites are most unwilling to admit to.
Add. for Carol, If your not calling people haters then your calling them bigots. Research the past history of your corrupt church and if you don't find it disgusting, then your eyes just refuse to see.
Dan, shut up. You'll lucky that Dave lets your garbage through.
Dear Mark Taylor, If you're not calling those who challenge your false cult, haters, then your labeling them bigots, and when that doesn't suffice you're telling them to shut up. You catholic hypocrites are laughable. servant of the Almighty
Dan is right on the money! Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. SNAP wouldn't exist if the church didn't hide and then lie about the priests, bishops and cardinals that have allowed peodophilia to run rampant in the Catholic Church.
"If you're not calling those who challenge your false cult, haters, then your (sic) labeling them bigots, and when that doesn't suffice you're telling them to shut up."
Dan, how dare you bare false witness against me like that?! Surely you know the 9th commandment?!
Seriously, you are not being any better than the pedophile priests by carrying on like that. It is very wrong to label all Catholics "hypocrites". You call yourself a Christian but behave nothing like Jesus.
As for Catholic 1, sadly what you say about SNAP not existing if the Church hadn't behaved unChristlike itself is true, but you must realize that SNAP themselves have a lot to answer for because they don't give falsely accused priests the benefit of the doubt.
I just spent an hour writing a response to this and it's evaporated. I loathe this fucking site, I'm in Galway Ireland, hiding from Trump world. though I do praise him for ending the TPP.
All Ms. Hammonds points in her suit are a false flag to end a false flag and have been designed to harm victims again . SNAP's a false flag. our lawyers were picked for us by the church through SNAP. and SNAP is the church and Ms. Hammond's the church or is just too dumb to notice who SNAP has always worked for the church and against victims.
Mark Taylor you shut up. How dare you tell a victim of your rapists to shut up?
I don't care if Dan is a victim or not. He has no right to be condisending towards us Catholics.
I don't care what terrible things the Church has done. They do not justify the equally terrible things he says.
Well, after all these years of Stampede, a significant milestone indeed.
If you read this TMR article and the text of the lawsuit to which it hyperlinks, and then go to BigTrial and read Ralph Cipriano’s article of the 20th and the NCReporter article to which it hyperlinks, you will glean quite a picture of what has been going on.
As if the behavior of various of the Philly judges and the DA in the Lynn case weren’t enough, there is the fact that the then-ADA Marian Sorenson in Philly was also once on the Board of SNAP. And that SNAP was pulling in hefty ‘donations’ of up to 80 percent of its annual take from the torties, including, for the 2007 reporting year, quite a chunk from a tortie in California (where the 500-plaintiff lawsuit in Los Angeles was settled in 2006) and 161K that year from “a Minnesota lawyer” (Jeff Anderson is based in the Twin Cities).
It was a racket, for sure, conducted under not only under color of law but also under the mantle (or Wig) of righteous Victimist Virtue.
One also wonders if Bishop-Accountability didn’t benefit as well, in recognition of its compiling a handy internet list of news stories and claims and so forth as a useful reference source for enterprising allegants.
And we can see how that ‘Spotlight’ movie slyly jiggered reality in its portrayal of the Boston tortie, as if he were only a dedicated bit-player (playing second fiddle to the ‘heroic reporters’, of course) who just wanted to see ‘justice’ done in his own simple way.
I agree with Ralph Cipriano’s concern that the exposure of all this harms the credibility of any genuine victims. But I would also say that given all the elements of the Stampede now coming to light, there has to be some significant and substantial skepticism about the dynamics and operations of this whole Stampede from the get-go.
But the Stampede surely succeeded in opening a public space for a queasy congeries of types, as is evidenced by the ‘Dan’ stuff here, which will no doubt continue for as long as his bathroom mirror (housing that assembly of fax-happy deities who continually assure him of his role and status as God’s deputy-dawg) doesn’t crack.
And on the 24th at 838AM JR posts. How will he handle this grossly inconvenient development contained in the lawsuit?
Why, with an assortment of the usual bits from his trusty grab-bag of gambits, of course.
First, he informs one and all that he had actually written an hour’s worth of response but – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – it suddenly “evaporated”. Perhaps it’s the moist climate over there in Ireland.
Oh – second – did he not inform us that he, in his capacity as knowledgeable world traveler, is in Ireland? That should surely enhance his status, in the absence of any substantive material to put forward. Charmingly, he either presumes the geographical ignorance of the readership or seeks to hammer home his globe-trotter creds by reminding one and all that “Galway” is in “Ireland” (not the town and village in upstate New York).
And – third – that he, in his capacity as knowledgeable man of national affairs, is over there because he is “hiding from Trump world”. Yes, this is all Trump’s fault: the Stampede, the lawsuit, everything. We can take JR’s knowledgeable word for it all.
Fourth – in his capacity as knowledgeable man of international affairs – that JR doth “praise” the President for “ending the TPP”, a distraction apropos of nothing on the table here except JR’s own imagined status and creds.
PeeWee, I hadn't read this one until now, and I don't necessarily like to comment on posts directed to someone else, unless as you often do, take some cheap shot at me, thinking you're so cute. Reread your comment to Jim. You don't find these four facts you brought forth to be childish and insignificant. You need to get a life. Little, insignificant creep. servant
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 24th at 838AM:
As to the specifics of the lawsuit, laid out in such inconvenient and organized clarity in the text of the lawsuit, JR simply tosses up his usual bit that it is all “false flag” since – as his cartoon has it – it has always been the Church that ran SNAP (and the torties and the police and DA’s and judges and the media and – why not? – the Easter Bunny too).
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit, therefore of course, is either also a tool of the Church or else is “just too dumb” to recognize the truth and wisdom of JR’s long-cherished and carefully constructed cartoon.
That as an attorney the Plaintiff would recognize the profound professional danger of being exposed as having filed a thoroughly untruthful lawsuit, and under pains and penalties of perjury to boot and all the rest of the lethal consequences of such a filing … such a question as to why anyone would take such a risk doesn’t interfere with his cartoon in the least. And who at this point can be surprised at that?
The documentary evidence referenced in the lawsuit? Also not a problem for the cartoon.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 24th at 838AM:
And in conclusion, in his imagined capacity as Victimized Tribune of the Victimry, JR doth puff up his pinfeathers, don the appropriate Wig, and doth waddle (the Wig is a heavy and ungainly one) up to the high-ground, and doth denounce with pearl-clutching outrage ‘Mark Taylor’ for daring to “tell a victim of your rapists to shut up”.
Yet, in all of his many many many bits, ‘Dan’ has never – to my recollection – claimed to have been a victim of rape, by clerics or anyone else. (Yes, ‘Dan’ has claimed to have been ‘victimized’ by the many “lies” of those “hundreds” who considered him not at all well, and dangerously so, but no actual rape.)
That it is certainly possible and indeed probable that there are those who would wish ‘Dan’ would shut up, but on the basis of his whackery and not any status as having been raped … this does not appear on JR’s radar at all, perhaps since he himself is rather incapable of discerning the dissemination of outright whackery, having for so long indulged in the practice himself.
Well, I've been mentioning the lying hypocrites of your cult and the whackjob of all catholic lying hypocrites pops up like jacked up in the box. I'd like to start by pointing out to Mr. Research, that your comprehension skills are really tanking. Case in point, 12/14/16 @ 3:33 & 3:34pm in the previous "Time to pay up" article, your criticizing 'Dan's 13th @ 2:50pm, adding more lies and mockery to your stupidity, when the comment noted was from Jim and not mine. In the comment Jim even said "I and Dan" and that didn't even tip you off to your ignorant mistake. Then you compare me to Jim with, "similar to JR's oft-used gambit", and that still doesn't tip off your peewee brain that this just might be Jim talking and not 'Dan'. Which leads me to say, "You have quite the nerve to be criticizing anyone, dummy."
In regards to your childish, immature mocking of God's Holy Spirit and other nonsense today, I reserve the right to comment when I can respond to an adult, and not my two year old niece.
Point by point Ms. Hammond's case?
First: Yes SNAP exploits victims, but for the church, not for lawyers. The lawyers were picked by SNAP for the best interests of church, not for the best of victims. Victims have been only allowed to sue in very few states due to statutes of limitations.
Second: Animus towards the church? Victims should be affable towards a church that abused them and protected; aided and transferred our abusers (to abuse again at will) while denying any help for victims? SNAP's animus exists to upset church members while never helping any victims by it's never mentioning our needs or injuries? Rather odd for a real victims group wouldn't you say?
Third: Again only certain states or governments have allowed victims to sue for compensation. So why wouldn't SNAP, if it were a true victims group, be pushing for more suspensions of those statutes rather than doing nothing along those lines for victims. Strange doings if they were really nothing but a lawyer's front group? You'd think SNAP's lawyer bosses would be pushing for more opportunities to sue. Do you see that happening? I haven't.
Fourth, I take it Ms. Hammond is suing for being fired for mentioning that SNAP is a false flag for lawyers. How old is Ms Hammond? How did she come to our cause? What were her qualifications and what was her job? Is she a victim? Is she an active Catholic? Why are you pretending to care for victims and our needs now? You never have before? The "real scam" is supposedly having lawyers hand picked by SNAP because of donations from said lawyers? So It is, according to you and the "virtuous" Ms Hammond, reasonable for SNAP to be a lawyers front but absolutely impossible for SNAP to be a church front group created to control victims by gaining our names and picking our lawyers accordingly. Again strange lack of action if suing were the ultimate goal and not protecting the church by choosing our lawyers and speaking for us sans consent from us.
Publiar, I mention Galway, Ireland because Americans are so ill educated many wouldn't know where Galway was or couldn't pick out Ireland on a map.
Ralph is reporting that Clohessy has resigned his position at SNAP!
Assuming KenW, on the 24th, is correct about SNAP Director David Clohessy resigning…… then I hope it is like the proverbial rats deserting the sinking ship. Although the explanation could be that they needed to throw a body from the ramparts…to appease the enemy now beseiging SNAP's vulnerable castle.
We sure are living in very interesting times.
"We sure are living in very interesting times." The exposing of your cult of hypocrites, pedophiles, blatant liars and excusers, is certainly proof of that. Remember as PeeWee states, these charges against SNAP are only allegations, and your cult should spend more energy cleaning up their own backyard. servant
Hey Jim, Isn't it just like a cult of hypocrites to now act so concerned for the victims, when they demonstrated little or should I say absolutely no concern for victims, as they shipped pedophile creeps from churches to orphanages or schools or boy's choir positions. And I'm waiting for the results of their investigation into the Belgian boy's choir and the abuse of over 230 young boys, overseen by pope Ratzinger's brother. There was "A 1987 investigation of reported abuse [that] did not prompt the choir's leaders to remove Mr. Meier or take action, the [churches appointed] lawyer said." Ratzinger's brother, Georg, conducted the Regensburg choir from 1964 to 1994. Georg claims he knows nothing about the sexual abuse, when the choir was under his care in 1987. Lying, hypocrite creeps from top to bottom. Now there can be no charges or victim compensation because the Statute of Limitations has expired. How do you evil, lying, pedophile creeps live with your filthy, disgusting consciences? Or do they even possess a conscience at all? DESPICABLE!! Do they think, "If we don't mention it, possibly our dumb sheep will forget about it?" I believe this is the premiss their pope's have been depending on for centuries, including Francis. Do you hear him mention for the past year anything in regards to their abuses. Don't bring it up unless they expose or corner us. WE WILL NEVER FORGET OR ALLOW YOU TO SWEEP THESE TERRIBLE CRIMES UNDER THE RUG. Wake Up Catholics!! Come to the Light!!
Yes Dan, The fakers.
The mediareport says, "[w/ EXCLUSIVE Court Docs]" Really? Like that is a "news flash." Did the court send them to you first? Isn't that public information already? Isn't it true that for decades there have been countless court documents filed that the media chose and choses to ignore?
As for ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 528PM, it’s hard to tell them apart since they are both peas from the same pod: JR holds himself to be Victimized Tribune of the Victimry; ‘Dan’ considers himself to be the oh-so-speshull deputy-dawg of God. If you don’t go along with either of their fantasy-impersonations, then they aren’t happy at all.
Then on the 24th at 535PM he tries the now-familiar gambit of I’m Not/You Are and something about his two year old niece. The whole bit requires that we presume ‘Dan’ and God are so close as to be inseparable and that it would be “nonsense” to imagine otherwise. Ovvvvvv coursssssse.
On then to JR’s of the 24th at 458PM:
Here, JR will toss up some of his old stuff and hopes it will resemble a coherent comment.
The first paragraph is merely his assertion – yet again – that whatever SNAP does is “for the church”. No evidence is presented to support that assertion. And some stuff about the Statute of Limitation (SOL) that doesn’t connect with the prior point at all.
The second apparently tries to conflate the SNAP leadership’s “animus towards the church” – as evidenced by documents quoted in the Complaint – with animus on the part of the allegants, which is not a point raised in the Complaint at all. But the conflation thus enables JR to don the old Wig and declaim his usual declamations.
Further, JR’s effort to make some use of the “animus” fails: the SNAP leadership’s animus was expressed in documents that weren’t meant to be shared with the public, so it makes no sense to claim that such animus “exists to upset church members”.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 24th at 458PM:
His third point is – again – more on the SOL bit; here JR once again tries to make a point that nobody on this site has ever denied: SNAP doesn’t work for victims and never has (which is precisely the point made in the Complaint). But as usual he can’t logically or with evidence get from that point to his cartoon point about the Church running the whole SNAP show (and the Stampede as well).
SNAP’s “lawyer bosses” would surely be shrewd enough to realize that it would run an unnecessary risk to have their front-organization (fueled by kickbacks from those same “lawyer bosses”) take too high-profile a position on issues that might draw too much public scrutiny of that front organization (and given what we see quoted from Clohessy’s material in the text of the Complaint, he certainly isn’t the brightest bulb in the chandelier).
The torties – themselves a rather influential interest group in Democratic circles – had less risky means of influencing legislation. They didn’t need to drag SNAP into the limelight to achieve that element in their agenda.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 24th at 458PM:
His fourth point tries to toss some red herrings into the mix, going on about the Plaintiff’s age and so forth. He might want to consult the text of the Complaint, where his questions would find their answers in the history of the Plaintiff’s connection to SNAP.
He then loses track of his presentation and starts addressing – apparently – the Plaintiff directly.
And – yet again – SNAP didn’t pick the torties; rather – as Michael D’Amato revealed in his book – it was Jeff Anderson who picked SNAP, making Blaine that offer in 1988 to become a front-organization for torties. Once Blaine accepted the offer, then SNAP had entrée to local torties in any venue where allegants could be found. Nor does JR present either evidence or rational explanation of how the Church somehow controlled the torties.
Any reader who can suss out the meaning or logic in the concluding bit about “strange lack of action” is welcome to share it.
The Plaintiff, as is clear in the Complaint, was hired as a fund-raiser and not as a litigating tortie.
And finally to JR’s of the 24th at 511PM: here he chooses to go with the “ill-educated” option: he mentioned that Galway is in Ireland because – doncha know? – he considers readers to be so ignorant of geography that he could not be sure they would know where Galway is.
I would say the more relevant question is whether JR is actually in Galway at all in the first place. Not that it is a question that changes much one way or the other.
F U You low life scum! WW2 happened. If I repeat WW2 happened should we call the facts of it happening "tossed up old stuff"? (or perhaps we should call it an alternative fact?)
You never saw one of SNAP's internal papers before this suit but you for 3 years have talked about nothing BUT SNAP's animus towards the church
. What do you think we're dumb? That we have no memory. You fixed that with your endless rants right here. SNAP's animus towards the church was a real limp dick. It showed hostility towards the clergy yet never mention victims real injuries or real needs? Amazing work for a money grubbing lawyers' front. I think I'd mention such things if I was a lawyer. But as always according to you P head you know best. (You even know I'm not where I am).
If SNAP's not for the victims and the lawyers aren't for the victims by never mentioning our injuries in order to get more compensation for us, who, then, are they for if not for the church?
You keep saying Anderson picked SNAP first. Who cares if both were for the church. Who introduced who to whom?
Who's Mr D"Amato when he's home. Is he pals with Mr Cipriano and the Philly mob? Is he an active Catholic. Who financed his book? Funny how all the major book writers on the subject, or reporters on the subject, are Catholic (Jason Berry and, or Italian (Cipriano and D'Amato). Just like all the SNAP leaders are active Catholics. Gee! I'm so surprised.
And you would believe that the one and only major voice for victims has been holding back in it's not mentioning our injuries at our lawyers behest? Yet still show enough animus to bother you. You're an idiot or worse. You believe SNAP brought victims to the lawyers who paid SNAP but it was impossible that they were doing said for the church because the church wanted Jeff Anderson in charge? If you can pick the lawyer and pick the victim's public response by writing it yourself. The church would never do something as immoral as that. they'd only hide and protect child molesters that was the limit of their evil? Allegants have been found where ever there's been a church Catholic or no. Why? Because where there's power, there's abuse.
The strange lack of action refers to the fact that only a very few states have been pressed by our money grubbing lawyers to extend the statutes of limitation. The only way for them to get more of the money you say they are singularly after.
You are such an ass. You, who offers kudos to Ken W for re-posting Clohessy's resignation from Cipriano's blog. Wow!
Kudos to ‘Ken W’ who notes (the 24th at 855PM) that Ralph Cipriano has reported Clohessy’s resignation from SNAP (see RC’s “update” comment towards the bottom of the comment section of his January 20th article on BigTrial entitled “SNAP lawsuit alleges kickbacks”; the update is dated the 24th at 945AM).
RC is on top of it quickly since the SNAP press release came out at 900AM on the 24th.
Curiously, the SNAP announcement of Clohessy’s resignation claims that he resigned “effective Dec. 31, 2016” – yet they waited almost a month to make the announcement. Now that is odd.
Are they trying to somehow save themselves by imagining that Clohessy is thus not a Defendant in the lawsuit that was filed on January 17th, 2017, and thus any evidentiary material in the lawsuit pertaining to him is no longer in play? Or is it Clohessy himself who is trying to somehow imagine that if he ‘resigns’ then he can dodge the lawsuit?
Stay tuned; this can only get better.
It sure is interesting that his boss praised David Clohessy when she announced his voluntary resignation from SNAP, effective from December 31, 2016. She pointed to his 30 years of dedicated service, and how much it was appreciated by all concerned. So I am puzzled, that his dedication to SNAP, did not extend to giving them ample notice of his departure.. So they could advertise for his replacement?. His job being so important to the effective running of the whole operation?.
It seems that his decision to leave was at best rushed, or at worst….. actually back-dated. The sort of thing a clever lawyer might suggest…. to remove him from the focus of the lawsuit, which was filed on January 17.
And on the 24th at 1138AM we are yet again treated to one of those catty little just-entre-nous shout-outs between the two peas in the same pod. Here, ‘Dan’ will now try to shoehorn in his usual eructations by limning his favorite “cult of hypocrites” as now acting “so concerned for victims”. Just where that characterization comes from is anybody’s guess.
But it’s all he’s got in order to riff on with his usual stuff. Although – again – his own ever-febrile concern for “pedophile creeps” continues to seem rather self-revealing. One is reminded of that marvelous scene in Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” where, on a line of short pillars along an ancient city street, all manner of whackos and loonies declaim their favorite fever-visions, seeking to inveigle passers-by (or in ‘Dan’s case, schoolchildren in a schoolyard).
‘Dan’ can keep “waiting for results” of this or that investigation for as long as he wants. We aren’t going to be getting much because – much like the once-touted Dutch Abuse Report of half a decade ago and the Magdalene Laundries investigation of a few years back – there isn’t much there and never was.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1138AM:
And that point is further driven home by the fact that while ‘Dan’ predictably tries to blame the Church for the lack of investigation, it was a public issue brought to the attention of public authorities and despite the claims of the Austrian tortie mouth-piecing the whole thing, there appears to have been nothing actionable in the sexual-molestation line that could be found by the public authorities.
And the whole thing is wrapped up here with ‘Dan’ trying on his own version of JR’s Tribune of the Victimry Wig with the “we will never forget” bit (scream-caps omitted). Perhaps it sounded more impressive to ‘Dan’ when he first practiced declaiming it to his bathroom mirror … by the muzzy denizens of which he was no doubt encouraged in his new role/Wig.
As the Stampede begins to come apart, revealing its inner-workings, the cartoons will just have to keep getting more outlandish and scream-cappy.
I'm not sure why you think the Stampede, as you rudely consider it, has come apart, and I don't know why you think I'm a part of it. I've just begun to expose the creeps of your cult, pedophiles, perverts, hypocrites, liars, mockers, excusers and enablers, of which you qualify for over half of these descriptions. I repeat, scream caps accentuated, "WE WILL NEVER FORGET OR ALLOW YOU TO SWEEP THESE TERRIBLE CRIMES UNDER THE RUG. WAKE UP CATHOLICS!! COME TO THE LIGHT!!" Here's the pericope to verify what I've been called to do:
"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead EXPOSE THEM. For it is shameful to even speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is EXPOSED by the LIGHT, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is LIGHT." Eph. 5:11-13
Now go ahead and think you can change the meaning of God's word or claim it doesn't apply, but you can rest assured that I'll be pursuing you and your fellow perverted creeps until everyone knows of your perversions and cover-ups. servant called to duty
P.S. The absolutely only reason why "there appears to have been nothing actionable in the sexual-molestation line that could be found by the public authorities", is totally based on the fact that it is past the Statute of Limitations. That does not negate the fact that your fellow pedophile creeps committed horrible sexual offenses against minors, it only means, like usual, they again got away with it. Absolutely Despicable. The whole bunch of you. servant
I've contacted the office, located in Chicago of Mr Howard who reps Ms Hammond in her suit. I expect him to be part of the church controlled loop of "usual suspects" in all this. Everyone you are allowed to see and take "seriously" in all this have been "approved" shall we say? I haven't given up. But this suit has been brought to,as per usual, slur victims by sluring people we have never asked to represent us. Finis SNAP. Finis Victims. Finis problems for the church. You are so so obvious and so so consistent in your lies and so so evil.
I’ll be going down the list of comments as they appear chronologically.
First is ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1234AM (commenting on mine of the 24th at 1136AM):
Here he tries to make the case that attention to smaller details is “some cheap shot” and “childish” and “insignificant”.
Anyone who has watched a detective show knows that smaller details can actually reveal quite a bit, and in forensic document examination such details can reveal a great deal that the writer did not even intend to reveal.
This was certainly demonstrated in the matter of getting to the bottom of JR’s long-held bit about his ‘rape’ and also in assessing ‘Dan’s assorted stories about his many misadventures with people, the police, the courts, and mandatory psychiatric observations.
What tees off the storyteller in these instances is that while he has constructed a story with his attention fixed and focused on only the bits that he has selected for his own (manipulative) purposes, yet those purposes are undermined by the little details to which he paid little if any attention.
Oh! Now we can add forensic investigator to all your other dreamed up qualities. You're an absolute joke, publyin'. You insist on nauseatingly, repeating about my indiscretions as if they were true accusations, and then adding your stupid lies to the mix (i.e. dangerous, accosting or harassing children), thinking your so cute with your allegations. Cheap shots, childish, insignificant and don't forget, petty. And then you have the nerve to claim I'm manipulative, you with all your excuses and lies, enabling your hierarchy to continue to deceive and cover-up their terrible crimes, attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of their dumb sheep. You are one class act. servant
On the 25th at 1116AM ‘Dan’ tries to pooh-pooh the Chicago Complaint by reminding one and all that the charges made “are only allegations”. That is very true, and at no point did I refer to the material presented in the Complaint as demonstrated facts (although there is a great deal of documentary material proffered, which is harder to create out of nothing, and then there is the interesting fact that Clohessy has suddenly resigned with that back-dated resignation).
So then: allegations in lawsuit Complaints are only allegations until demonstrated in open court. Fine and dandy.
And how many, then, of ‘Dan’s eructations against the Church are based largely or even solely on allegations that weren’t even made in formal court processes but instead were just newsy bits culled from assorted media reports and claims and stories? If he were to treat them with the caution and prudence due to ‘allegations’ then he’d be hard up for the type of junk he regularly stuffs into the muzzle of his blunderbuss to fire at the Church and so forth.
OK! Trump the second. It's all the media's fault. You'd like everyone believe that your cult is totally innocent of all allegations, while insisting on accusing innocent people. You're a perfect fit for your lying church of hypocrites. And just as despicable.
Oh! And let's not forget, as I expose your lies and garbage, that I'm just some "blunderbuss to fire at the church." You are one annoying, little dweeb twit. servant
On then to JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:
He opens – as usual – with mere epithet.
He then tries to equate what appears to be Abusenik stuff with the fact that “WW2 happened”.
Sly but rather grossly insufficient: we have a great deal of reliable evidence that WW2 actually did happen; with Abusenik stuff we have very little such reliable evidence (and great possibility or probability that the claims, allegations, and stories are indeed made-up for the occasion and purposes of the Abusenik and the story-teller).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:
In the second paragraph he tries for the point that I have never seen even “one of SNAP’s internal papers before this suit” and yet I have for years “talked about nothing but SNAP’s animus toward the Church”.
I have talked about quite a number of things for “3 years” here.
And specifically in regard to SNAP I have made assessments based on a logical analysis of what material (events and connections more than documentary evidence) was available, the accuracy of which is now simply being demonstrated by the documentary evidence presented in the present Complaint.
I have a great deal of reliable evidence that SNAP's the church. You deny everything victims write. You are so fair. We're not victims. SNAP's not the church. Jesus rose from the dead. You have no evidence for any of your premises.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:
In his third paragraph JR once again tries the old red-herring distraction of assuming the pose of the victimized: is he supposed to be “dumb” or “have no memory”? Readers can consider that as they may, as they also may about who best qualifies here for the “endless rants” classification.
SNAP’s behavior was perfectly in keeping with being a front-organization: it focused on a) feeding allegants to the torties and with b) spouting from time to time the pious mush-mouthy bits delivered to keep fanning the flames of the Stampede and puff up the credibility of the whole scam.
He then tries to insinuate that so “limp dick” a performance by SNAP demonstrates that SNAP was a Church-run front, but – as ever – with nothing to support that insinuation.
The post-1988 behavior of SNAP can be pretty much completely explained by its being a front-organization for the torties, following the 1988 offer Anderson made to Blaine. The only way to shoehorn the Church into it is to presume that all the players (torties, SNAP-pers, judges, police, and even the media) were all tools of the Church as well.
Before that meeting SNAP might have been merely a small-potatoes dissident organization of assorted Catholics but not after that.
"pretty much" does not equate to the truth that SNAP is merely a front for the "torties" I say SNAP was created by Church chosen"torties"
How else can you explain the lack of a national front for victims? You can not, particularly if you claim the "torties" are only after money. That's the hole your arguments fall in. Where's the national greed? How many victims in how many states have been helped? SNAPas THE victims' group should be underlining where compensation has not been attained. They don't. There in lays the hole into which your fake assumptions fall .
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:
In his fourth paragraph, JR simply tosses up again the bit about SNAP and the torties not being “for the victims” and nobody here has ever denied that. SNAP was for the torties and for the kickbacks (donations, if you wish) from the torties.
But – yet again (and does JR not imagine that readers here are so “dumb” and have no “memory”?) – the fact that SNAP was not for the victims does not at all establish that SNAP was a tool of the Church (rather than of the torties).
Thus to answer his paragraph’s concluding question: SNAP was for the torties, certainly since the 1988 meeting.
See who sponsored SNAP's non profit status. It was the Dominican nuns of Siniswa, not a lawyer not a group of lawyers but a group of nuns.
Who allowed Blaine and SNAP access to church owned property, a former convent in Chicago, whih was SNAP's initial office? Who had that power? Jeffy Anderson THE lead lawyer "for" victims in America? Try answering those questions rather than ignoring them per usual.
See who sponsored SNAP's non profit status. It was the Dominican nuns of Siniswa, not a lawyer, not a group of lawyers, but a group of nuns.
Who allowed Blaine and SNAP access to church owned property, a former convent in Chicago, which was SNAP's initial office? It's address was on SNAP's "leadership packets" Who had that power? Jeffy Anderson THE lead lawyer "for" victims in America? Try answering those questions rather than ignoring them per usual.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:
In his fifth paragraph – going back again to his “dumb” and no “memory” bits – JR riffs further on about the 1988 Anderson-Blaine meeting, so often discussed here and at length when it was discovered as a revelation in Michael D’Amato’s book a few years ago.
JR apparently wants to insinuate that the Church introduced Anderson and Blaine.
To what purpose? To create a kickback scheme that would cost the Church so much money over the next 3 decades?
Rather, Anderson, the shrewd tortie and – according to the material proffered in the Complaint, major SNAP ‘contributor’ and funds-provider – saw the lucrative possibilities in having a front-organization that would attract, collect and channel allegants to the torties (a step forbidden by professional regulations and law to the torties themselves).
Who made Michael D' Amato's book the alpha and omega on the history of SNAP? You?
You had to pay the few you've paid because of the truth of our abuse. not because of Jeff Anderson. Ya big dummy.
Anderson and Blaine teamed up to SAVE the church money. Which they have. Name how many states could sue?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:
In his sixth paragraph JR will try to run his old insinuation gambit yet again, this time trying to rouse up some red herrings about D’Amato himself. The best that can be said about this bit is that JR now has to scoop up D’Amato in his net of Church tools. Readers may consider it as they may.
And in support of that phantasmagoric bit, JR will proffer the further clincher that all or most of everybody who has written-about or participated-in the SNAP thing are either Italian or Catholic. That’s the level of mentation we are dealing with here (and, if one consults assorted precincts of the Web, the level of mentation displayed and demonstrated in a lot of Stampede comments).
It is, however, no surprise that JR doth profess himself “so surprised”; given the limitations imposed by his cartoon mentation, a whole lot of the world’s reality must be surprising to him.
My net of church tools are less than 10 people. Not an impossible number of tools to direct victims exactly where the church wanted "survivors" to go.
You think SNAP was run by fewer than that and according to SNAP that enabled them to become universally the voice of the abused.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:
In his seventh paragraph, JR gets even more iffy: SNAP, apparently, hasn’t really done much of a job and has been pulling its punches in the task of “mentioning [allegants’] injuries at our lawyers behest”.
SNAP did its work, and given the avid support of the media in fanning the flames of insinuation and allegation and unsupported-conclusions, SNAP didn’t have to do too much at all. (One might enter ‘Catholic abuse claims’ or any similar entry into a search-engine to see how much the media helped out here.)
And since the general public atmosphere had been largely poisoned by the sensationalist media early on, and given the Victimist-influenced behavior of legislators and courts, then the Stampede horror-stories could provide quite a bit of fuel to keep the fire going. The Thing became almost self-sustaining, simply because of all the elements working to keep it going.
The “animus” doesn’t “bother” me; it was clearly in operation from the get-go and that was always clear to me.
And the paragraph trails off with more now-familiar insinuating riffs.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 538PM:
In his eighth paragraph JR tries to justify his “strange lack of action” comment. Since he appears to have no “memory”, let me repeat points I have covered before on this site:
As of 2013, only eight States have not passed some form of Statute-of-Limitation (SOL) extension for sex crimes, according to the Victims-of-Crime website (http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/sak-backlog-laws/exceptions-to-sol.pdf).
Especially if the SOLs apply to civil process (i.e. lawsuits, rather than criminal prosecution) then torties benefit greatly from such legislation. And given the way lawsuits are handled in a Stampede atmosphere (i.e. the Defendant or its Counsel realize that the skewing of evidentiary principles and a generally Victimist public atmosphere will militate against trial and for settlement) then the torties’ path is even more substantially smoothed.
Thus JR’s attempted point that “only a very few states” have yielded to the torties clearly fails.
In his ninth and concluding paragraph, apparently on the presumption that he has made some significant and valid points in the prior paragraphs, JR allows himself his usual indulgence and takes an epithetical victory-lap for himself. Wow.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 534PM:
In his first paragraph, ‘Dan’ doth profess that he cawn’t think why I think the Stampede “has come apart”. I didn’t say that I did. But I do think that the process is now speeding up. If the points made in the Complaint are true then the revelations can only make no salutary impression only upon such types who have never been rationally pro-SNAP but instead piggy-backed their own agendas – not often rational or evidence-based – on the wave created by SNAP and the Stampede.
He also throws in an advertisement for himself that also – alas – reveals his whackness: he himself, he doth proclaim, has “just begun to expose” the Church and so forth. Readers may consider the validity and viability of his self-consoling advertisement as they may.
In your small, insignificant mind, you actually think your ignorance and garbage is "rational and evidence based?" Boy are you ever delusional. Time to crawl back under the Sunporch, Whacko.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 534PM:
And then – quickly moving on from any demonstration of his claim(s) – he doth deliver a Scriptural pericope that he has been “called” to deliver (by, we recall, the committee of those denizens resident in his bathroom mirror).
Thus the second paragraph.
The whole pericope depends on how one characterizes or defines “the unfruitful works of darkness”, which – for ‘Dan’s cartoon agenda, as we know so well – pretty much covers the entirely of the Catholic Church and ethos and so on and so forth.
It also would require the presumption that all or most of the Stampede claims over the years have been accurate and veracious. Which is increasingly coming to be a difficult presumption to justify.
He concludes in his final paragraph with an assurance that he will continue what he has been “called” to do (by that committee in his bathroom mirror). So there it is. The prognosis would not be positive for this patient. He has ‘reported for duty’ to his bathroom mirror and that’s that.
And you think all you spew is "accurate and veracious." News flash- Lies are neither accurate or veracious, of which you've become a pro. And what's with your obsession with bathroom mirrors, pervert creep?
You're absolutely right. You and your cronies are "the unfruitful works of darkness." You don't count for all "the unfruitful works of darkness," but you sure do account for the majority of them. There are plenty of other pagan religions that have followed and learned your disgusting ways of idol worship, greed and perversions, but you clowns are a couple of layers and the icing on the cake. Can't wait until the Lord comes to crush that cake. How's that for the blunderbuster, peewee pooh-bear. servant
If these explanations of "the unfruitful works of darkness" don't suffice, then maybe you can put on your proverbial "Cartoon Thinking Cap" to help you figure it out. Let's see, UMMDUHH !?!, "unfruitful works of darkness?" Obvious ones – a) What do you think might go on down in the creepy dungeons of your cult's Skeleton Rooms and Skeleton churches? b) Do you think the pedophile creeps who raped little boys, committed their crimes in the Light and not in the darkness? You all think you got away with the majority of your crimes, because no one saw. You have yet to understand that "the eyes of the Lord are ten thousand times brighter than the sun?" Your day will come, signed Blunderbuster c) What do you think goes on when hundreds of priests or cloistered nuns are alone together for dozens of years, with little exposure to the outside world? Answer d) All of the above "the unfruitful works of darkness" Still trying to confuse, dispute and misinterpret the Word, little peewee? The very Rock His children will build upon, will be the very Rock that causes your fall, and that will not be very pretty. Servant "Deputy Dawg" Here to chew and spit you out!!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 534PM:
Oh, and there’s a ‘P.S.’.
He now claims – with no evidence – that the only reason that there has been no outcome from the Austrian investigations is “totally based” on the problem of the SOLs. I would find that very hard to credit unless there was substantive reliable evidence proffered to support it.
Surely the media would have glommed onto the fact – for lack of anything better – that there were horrific cases of sexual abuse but the SOLs don’t permit criminal (and civil?) process to be pursued. Entering ‘Austrian Catholic choir abuse case’ into a search engine yields the most recent story as coming from January, 2016, which is when the whole thing was first taken up by the media. Nothing since then.
As was the case with the Dutch Abuse brouhaha, the Magdalene Laundries brouhaha, and the apparently still-active Australian Royal Commission investigation (whose website is now imploring anybody to come forward with a “story”, and – after three years of investigation – has got one claim involving one priest as of last month).
Oh yeah! All these cases keep popping up against your cult and it's all just some coincidence or it's the media's fault or it's 'Dan's manipulating blunderbuss against your pure, innocent cult. You are one disgusting piece of work. I urge any catholic to research these news stories and the internet. Don't allow these phony, lying hypocrites to blindfold and keep you from the truth. They laugh behind your back and think your stupid for believing all their garbage. Keep donating your hard earned funds, so they can keep sending their lawyers to lie and dispute every valid accusation that comes against them. Be ye not fooled. They are without doubt what Christ described as the wolves in sheep's clothing, deceiving hypocrites. servant
On then to JR’s of the 25th at 553PM:
He has – he says – “contacted the office of” the attorney who represents the Plaintiff in the Chicago suit. It’s in – he reveals to buff his creds – Chicago (the one in Illinois, we presume).
To what possible end? What will or can anybody in that office tell him, given his lack of legal standing in the matter? Or will he volunteer himself as a witness? To what? (And – really, given his performances on this site – has he fully thought-through the dangers to himself of actually being adversarially examined in open court under oath? For that matter, is he aware that his entire performance on this site may become subject to such examination, if for no other purpose than to cast credible doubt on his veracity, if not worse?)
Or – as he seems to imply in his comment here – is JR going to reveal to the attorney in question that JR considers him to be a tool of the Church (which will lead to JR’s proffering his tool-of-the-Church theory and so on and so forth, with uncongenial results for himself)?
And again with the bit that anything that makes “victims” look bad is ipso facto a Church plot. As if his own performance couldn’t easily make JR’s performances look bad all on their own.
And the whole thing concludes with both a declamation (“Finis” … and so on) and an epithet.
LOL! I will testify anywhere about SNAP and the facts I have that you continue to never mention. Fact: ANSWER ME, How did SNAP get a church building to use as it's headquarters? How did SNAP meetings in Michigan happen in other church owned property?Jeffy Anderson never had the power to give SNAP that. Nor did any lawyer have the power to have a Dominican order of nuns sponser SNAP's non profit papers.
"Some form of statutes of limitations extension" equates to zero compensation in the vast majority of U.S. states. otherwise, you'd have heard about it in the media. You ,like the church you represent so poorly, pretend that the abuse cases have been settled when they've never even been allowed to be filed.
What is my agenda P? Other than to allow those who haven't been able to sue (due to SOL) to sue.
This suit of Ms Hammond is there to end SNAP in a blaze of shit PR for victims. The final shovel of dirt on the graves of victims. Who, because of SNAP's interference and lack of action, are dead when it comes to compensation.
Only 6 or 7 people, Doyle, the leader, Blain, Jason Berry a few others who when placed correctly have managed to limit the extent of those compensated.
Since I was one of the few who were compensated. It's my duty to fight on for those who were not.
I suspect Mr Howard of Chicago is in on the deal or is so needy he won't look deeper. Lawyers usually don't "go" after other lawyers and certainly not for one fired employee. (the rumor is that Bill Donhue's crowd is paying for this suit.) This dynamite was planted 25 + years ago. if things got rough for SNAP, boom! detonate the pre placed bomb and no one will ever know what really went down thanks to SNAP.
The fraud that is SNAP has a very thin veneer to scratch through. ( contrary to what Pliar would have the readership here believe.) But one most go deeper than just a lawyers front.
I don't deal in rumors, Jim. Present your facts, or STFU.
There is no reason for Donahue to back a transgender. None.
"a transgender"? You mean a human being? Is Ms Hammond a transgendered person? I don't know anything about Ms. Hammond other than what's in the suit. Has she a history of suing employers?
My facts are around SNAP not Ms. Hammond. You ignore my facts. I reported to you a rumor from someone still "friendly" to SNAP. I just know it costs money to have lawyers suing anyone about anything. Kenny boy now u put up or STFU.
Contingency……pretty much all reputable law firms take these cases on contingency, and pretty much all reputable law firms will not take a case unless the prospect of a decent settlement is very high.