See you in court for defamation! (l to r) David Clohessy, SNAP; Matt Jatczak, SNAP Detroit;
Jameson Cook, the Macomb Daily; and Niraj Warikoo, the Detroit Free Press.
[First reported at TheMediaReport.com]
A falsely accused priest in Michigan has sued the group SNAP, SNAP's disgraced former director David Clohessy, the Detroit Free Press newspaper, and the Macomb Daily newspaper, claiming that they wrongly charged that he molested a 16-year-old girl in the 1970s.
Rev. Kenneth Kaucheck filed a lawsuit for defamation and libel in Wayne County Circuit Court in Michigan, on January 30, and now TheMediaReport.com is the first to report the news. This is already the second lawsuit that SNAP has faced so far in 2017.
[**Click to read Fr. Kaucheck's lawsuit against SNAP and the press (pdf)**]
Seeking truth and justice
Fighting the good fight:
Rev. Kenneth Kaucheck
According to the lawsuit, Kaucheck was placed on administrative leave after the allegation, but neither a civil, criminal, or canonical hearing has ever been held for Kaucheck to present his case and fight the false claim.
Yet the mere decades-old accusation – made by a woman who enjoys complete anonymity – did not halt SNAP and the media from hurling false statements about the priest.
According to the lawsuit, among the many false claims that were aired was that the Archdiocese of Detroit "determined that in 1976 he committed sexual misconduct with a 16-year-old girl." In truth, even though Kaucheck has delivered to the Archdiocese of Detroit sworn affidavits and other evidence to support his innocence, no such determination has ever been made about his case, and there has never been any kind of hearing allowing him to prove his innocence.
Fr. Kaucheck was also accused of "working with pregnant teens" at a shelter (Gianna House) "without the knowledge or approval of the Archdiocese." In fact, according to the lawsuit, Rev. Kaucheck has never had any contact with any girls at the facility, his role at Gianna House is strictly one for fundraising, and the archdiocese was very well aware of Kaucheck's work for the shelter since its inception.
In 2015, Kaucheck voluntarily submitted himself to a psychological evaluation by an expert in priest sex abuse. The doctor concluded that Fr. Kaucheck's history, psychological profile, and spiritual life are "not consistent with those who sexually abuse adolescent females" and that "Fr. Kaucheck is and always has been a psychologically healthy priest and he is not a threat to adolescent females or to women."
Not letting the facts get in the way
Yet the inconvenient truths about Fr. Kaucheck's case did not stop SNAP's hysterical former director, David Clohessy, from doing his usual smear job. On April 17, 2016, Clohessy and SNAP published a press release trumpeting that Kaucheck was "ousted because he molested a girl" and that the Archdiocese of Detroit should alert every parish in the archdiocese so it will be "harder for [Fr. Kaucheck] to assault another girl."
Surprisingly, SNAP has removed the offending post from its web site (see a screenshot). We are unaware of any other time in SNAP's history that the group has removed a press release from its site, no matter how incorrect or crazy. This sure appears to be an admission of guilt by Clohessy and SNAP.
As for the Detroit Free Press and the Macomb Daily newspapers, in the summer of 2016, a lawyer for Fr. Kaucheck sent letters to the papers which asked for retractions from the papers and provided evidence to support the requests. (The letters are attached to the lawsuit.)
What were the papers' response to the lawyer's requests? Both papers completely ignored them. And while both papers have gleefully regurgitated the false charges about Fr. Kaucheck over the years, neither paper has ever informed the public that Fr. Kaucheck requested a retraction and has now sued them. So much for transparency.
Kudos to Fr. Kaucheck for standing up to the crazy bullies at SNAP and in the media and for fighting for truth and justice.
Developing …
See also:
• "SNAP's Clohessy Resigns In Wake of Lawsuit Scandal That SNAP Took Lawyer Kickbacks and Exploited Victims" (1/25/17)
• "SNAP’s Leadership Suddenly Resigns Amid Lawsuits and Scandals" (2/7/17)
Here we go. 2 priests suing SNAP. will there be more? Will it be the stampede P's always on about? 2009 SNAP outed this priest or did a lawsuit by a victim out this priest? Why should SNAP be blamed for mentioning a claim was made against the priest? If they called him an abuser. Why did they do that? Seems pretty risky to do what with SNAP being a lawyer's front and all according to you. Do you think priests who harmed people one on one are going to admit it? Deny Deny Deny. Thaat's what they do. But if SNAP had and the victim's lawyer have no evidence what's up? What' the clai?. What were the facts that were knowable? Why are SNAP being sued only now and only by priests who were accused very late in the development of this scandal? You'd think SNAP would have been wiser with time not sloppier after 20 odd years. Particularly if they are being led by lawyers. Makes no sense at all. Unless you count it as a fraud created to end SNAP by SNAP for SNAP's owner the church.
How could it be labeled a "false claim", if it's never been tried. If we're going to be "seeking truth and justice", then we surely wouldn't want a canonical hearing. Might be time for an independent polygraph. Are your priests going to hop on the bandwagon and produce fraudulent accusations and denials in order to commit the same fraud you blame the Abusenik Stampede for. Hypocrites, reap what you sow!! servant
JR’s of the 27th at 659PM offers a nice view of some of his (and the Stampede Playbook’s) manipulative gambits.
First, the assertion that “SNAP outed this priest”. But that is patently not so: ‘outing’ means revealing some actual but hidden aspect of somebody. In this case – as both the article and the Complaint to which the article hyperlinks clearly indicate – there is and never has been any evidence introduced or formal investigation conducted that ever has revealed such a hidden aspect of being an abuser. That’s the whole point of the lawsuit here.
Second, JR – in the uncharacteristic pose of defending SNAP – bleats “why should SNAP be blamed for mentioning a claim was made against the priest?”. Had he bothered to read the text of the Complaint he would have seen that SNAP is being sued for doing far more than ‘mentioning’ that an allegation had been made; see especially Complaint at paras.73-5 and also Exhibit A, which reproduces a SNAP article which goes far beyond ‘’mentioning a claim was made against the priest”.
The church found the accusations against Fr. Kaucheck "credible". Not the press nor Clohessy "found" but his Archdiocese found the accusations "credible". Shouldn't Fr. Kaucheck be suing the church for that statement?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 27th at 659PM:
I would also point out that towards the very bottom of the SNAP article reproduced in Exhibit A, we have SNAP’s own statement that it “was founded in 1988”. That was the year that Anderson met with Blaine and made the offer for SNAP – failing organizationally – to work with the torties. We have long discussed the origins of the current incarnation of SNAP on this site and here we have SNAP itself claiming to have been founded in the very year that Anderson met Blaine. In SNAP’s own estimation, it was the meeting with Blaine that really ‘founded’ SNAP.
And in the list of links to media articles, we also see the name of Bishop-Accountability pop up: that organization ran a convenient collection-site for any articles about allegations and accusations, saving various enterprising types the need to do much research.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 27th at 659PM:
JR continues in his comment by demonstrating what passes in him for logical thinking: why would SNAP call him an “abuser” if he wasn’t – runs this bit; surely an organization that was a front for lawyers wouldn’t do such a “pretty risky” thing, would it?
First, SNAP did make some very assertive claims about the priest and those claims were not factual; that’s part of the gravamen of this lawsuit.
Why would SNAP do such a “pretty risky” thing? For the same reason that as competent and shrewd a lawyer as Anderson would do so “pretty risky” a thing as invite SNAP to become a front for the tortie scheme: because it was a Stampede and nobody would bother to question anything done by those (the torties and SNAP) ostensibly working against the big bad Church on behalf of ‘victims’.
In 1988 the surf was running so high that it looked like the Stampede was going to last forever or at least until the Church had been drained of cash. By which time the torties and the allegants would have cashed their checks and who would care?
Hell would freeze the day that the Catholic church "had been drained of cash". That great gettin' up morning will never be.
I say that an organization that has functioned as a lawyers front for 29 years (according to you) suddenly going off the rails 20 yrs plus into its existence by making libelous claims against 2 priests. seems about as likely to happen "naturally" as the Catholic church ever being drained of cash.
I did not read the priest's suit because his individual details don't matter to my argument. What matters to me is: Why SNAP after 20 yrs would do something to end itself? That's the big question about the big picture.
SNAP exposed itself twice to libel, very late in its existence as a lawyers' front in your scenario, in order to die. Why? Sheer clumsiness? Lawyers who've succeeded for 20 yrs with a fake front are not likely to screw up as blatantly as SNAP seems to have done by accident.
My view is much more likely true than your's P because the same "organization for victims" has been cloned all over the world by the same people yet only here in the U.S. and late in SNAP's life does it screw up enough to be sued by 2 priests.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 27th at 659PM:
Then JR tries to weaponize the no-evidence problem without having the thing blow up in his face: If neither SNAP nor the “victim’s lawyer” (what “victim’s lawyer” since there is no mention of the allegant ever having taken the case further toward legal action?) had any evidence then – as JR oddly puts it – “what’s up?”.
As so often with JR, when his grammar gets shaky, he’s up to something. And here he is now tripping up his presentation: in order to avoid pulling the grenade’s pin himself, he simply tosses out an insinuating question: wassup with that?
This is followed by a series of further ‘questions’ that only indicate that he hasn’t read the Complaint, which reading would have answered them.
According to you, I'm always "up to something" or being "sly" shaky grammar or no.
So SNAP committed libel with no suit to back them up as the reason for their accusation? How often has this happened? And if SNAP has done similar acts why haven't more than 2 priests sued them in all these years?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 27th at 659PM:
And then JR trips himself up again. He asks insinuatingly why SNAP is “only being sued now and only by priests who were accused very late in the development of this scandal?”.
Had he read the Complaint he would have seen that the SNAP article itself didn’t appear until April of 2016.
Why would SNAP – inter alia – be sued “only by priests who were accused”? Because this priest here was the only one with standing to file a Complaint for defamation, invasion of privacy and libel – which is the gravamen of the lawsuit; as was the case for the other priest in St. Louis for the reasons set forth in his Complaint.
Why now? Because the SNAP statements in its article were made only recently. Need it be pointed out to JR that one can’t bring a lawsuit until some demonstrably actionable tort has allegedly been committed?
How stupidly you attempt to gut the point of my questions.
Only one priest standing? (What all the rest of the wrongly accused perpetrators are dead?) Then you say that there is another priest "standing" in St. Louis. Make up your tiny mind as to how many priests are "standing" and how many more aren't, if they too were wrongly accused by SNAP. It can't just be 2 and "only recently".
To believe your stampede theory the vast majority of priests were wrongly accused by thieving lawyers, fake victims and the one and only "lawyers front" SNAP. And so your smear campaign of victims continues. Why? because the church desperately needs to appear to be the "real" victim in all this. SNAP has only helped this nonsense of yours by its actions far more than it's helped any victims. Gee, I wonder why?
LMFAO!
SNAP's never accused a priest before without a victim suing as their excuse for talking about the priest. If they have done it before where are those priests? 2, you have 2.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 27th at 659PM:
And JR seeks to bring it all home by repeating his bit to the effect that SNAP “would have been wiser”, especially if it was “being led by lawyers”.
As I have said, neither SNAP (not led by the brightest bulbs in the chandelier to begin with) nor the torties ever expected to have to live through the subsidence of the Stampede wave.
I would say that it is precisely the subsidence of that ‘wave’ that has made it seem more possible for accused and – more importantly – their counsel to now consider lawsuits that at the height of the wave would have promised little if any chance of success.
Thus JR’s assertion that it “makes no sense at all” certainly stands as merely another of his typical assertions, to be judged as such. What “makes no sense at all” to him hardly need mean that it “makes no sense at all”.
How would you know what our lawyers "expected to have to live through"? Does P stand for presumptive?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 27th at 659PM:
But he’s worked too hard to fabricate his cartoon about the Church masterminding SNAP and the torties all along, so he tosses in – over his shoulder, as it were – a parting bit: the whole lawsuit development is merely “a fraud created to end SNAP by SNAP for SNAP’s owner the Church”.
We have been over this cartoon of JR’s many times on this site, and recently as well as quite a while back.
If any reader can see a logical way to plausibly establish the Church as a) having masterminded the entire Stampede, including but not limited to the torties and SNAP, over the course of the past decades and b) having for whatever reasons chosen and even foreseen that this moment in history would be the moment to “end SNAP”, then that reader is welcome to share it.
As for SNAP being ended “by SNAP”, it is far more plausible that SNAP’s chicanery has finally caught up with it.
LOL! 29 years and only "recently" SNAP's been caught out by it's own wrong actions? Are we to pretend he church and or individual priests were waiting for this moment, defenselessly all these decades? Again with the false, church as the real victim, pose? You're a joke.
We live in an age when scientists are able to splice algae dna to mouse genes in order to monitor nerve cell activity in the study of memory. School children have watched "Memory Hackers" which document this. And yet the Courts still admit false memories generated in repressed memory therapy which is unconstitutional since testimony based on RMT theory is unreliable and as such should never make it before a jury at all. The entire justice system is medieval because myths about memory debunked decades ago are used to convict those accused of childhood sexual abuse. The gap between science and the law is deep and wide. And on top of this anachronism there is the partnership between damages attorneys, therapists and survivor organizations which spread misinformation regarding true victims. Criminals such as Jeff Anderson and the other schemers who benefit from fraudulent allegations of abuse should be punished because they are nothing but con men.
Glenna "misinformation regarding true victims"?????
And How is Jeff Anderson a criminal in your thesis? Where's your proof for that libel?
.
Glenna Kerker, on the 28th, really sums things up well. Particularly in describing Jeff Anderson as a con man. In a just society, it would be much easier to prove his nature…. than to prove Rev. Kenneth Kaucheck is a molester of girls. We have here a curious thing. There is President Trump… being loud in his criticism of the media, even calling them "liars" and some journalists "just sleaze". Trump may never hear of this lawsuit against Detroit Free Press (and others) but it basically illustrates everything he has been saying. For a start they print false news…..the priest was never found guilty by Church authorities for abusing girls. Next they are liars…the priest sent them documents last July which proved they had falsely accused him… they just ignored his request for a retraction…this constitutes malice. Which means they don't care about his right to a good reputation Moreover it means that they don't care if they print lies. I pray to God this goes all the way to trial. So that a line is clearly drawn… between the freedom of the press and the rights of individual citizens.
Why is it that "liars", as witnessed in this forum, must think and accuse others of being "liars". Your heros, Trump, publiar and your cult, are some of the worst "liars' I've ever had to listen to, and yet they have no problem whatsoever slandering and accusing, just about everyone under the sun, of lying. This is hypocrisy at it's finest.
In regards to the "Church authorities" not finding the priest guilty, well he was never given a canonical hearing, and looking at the church's record, we wouldn't want to trust their opinion, when it comes to the guilt of their own. We've seen too many denials and excuses for the criminal behavior of their perverts, even to the point of putting pressure on civil authorities not to prosecute, and all for the good of their so honest and respectable 'true' church. When will all the hypocrisy, lies and deception stop? Guess we'll be waiting until Judgment Day.
Malcolm, she called him a "criminal", not a con man. When was he convicted of a crime?
May your imaginary "God" work his magic for you. Since he skipped Auschwitz who knows what good "he'll' do for you.
Since the priests own bosses found the accusations against him "credible" Why shouldn't he be talked about in the press. The Clohessy quotes seem more libelous but if his own church calls the claims against him credible yet he's not suing them..I don't get what his case is?
Malcolm Harris, on the 28th, Amen to what you said. So many of us have to sit quietly agreeing with what you said, just hoping for the day this defemation of character stops.
Jennifer, True Christians would like to request, if you insist on giving kudos to blatant liars and their defenders, like publyin', lying priests and bishops, phony popes and Trump, please refrain from using Christ's words (i.e. Amen, etc.). You claim, "So many of us have to sit quietly agreeing with what you said, just hoping for the day this defamation of character stops." Are you saying that your cult has not only brainwashed all of you, but has also kept you from speaking? Sure sign of a dictatorship (Hitleresque). We victims, of your cult of liars, would also like to see that the "defamation of character stops", from all the lying creeps, publyin', lying, perverted priests and bishops, phony popes and all the other slanderers and deceivers of your apostate church. Thank You Very Much, servant of the Almighty
Before any of you creeps start claiming fraud or defamation of character, you had better make sure your claims are truth. Rev. Kenneth was investigated for having sex with an underage 16 year old. There was a witness who saw the victims plane tickets of the priest and herself flying to Florida. There was no denial and this relationship violated church protocol and raised concerns. The creep then violated restrictions put on him by the Archdiocese. The priest moved on to surround himself with troubled teenage girls. How convenient. No matter if your priests are homosexual pedophiles or heterosexual perverts, they seem to find their way around the church, and place themselves in convenient locations in order to persue there sick, perverted lusts. Oh! The Archdiocese plans to look into these violations and they will be addressed by clergy at the Vatican, officials told ABC 7 Action News on April 18, 2016. Take a look at Rev. Kenneth Hypocrite's Linkedin account and find one comment describing him as a saint to Society. What Society, the Jesuits of Pedophilia and Perverts Society. Catholics, you might want to research the creeps before you claim them to be a Poster Child of fraud or defamation. Hypocrisy, Lies and Deception, the M.O. of your cult. servant of The One True God
P.S. The Vatican will address the violation, just like they addressed the violations of pope RATS brother George and his involvement with abusing Belgian choir boys? We're waiting!!
I’ll go along the most recent crop in the order they appear on the screen.
Thus to JR’s of the 1st at 448AM:
In regard to JR’s claim that “the church found the accusations … ‘credible’”: The term I have found in Exhibit B (news article on Complaint document page 25 on the hyperlink) is “substantive”, which is the term repeated in the news article in Exhibit D (Complaint document page 34 on the hyperlink).
But then in Exhibit F (lawyer’s letter in Complaint document page 41 on the hyperlink) that term “substantive” is explained: it merely means “sufficient to warrant an investigation”. The letter continues: “The allegations have never been ‘verified’ in an ecclesiastical forum or proved in a court of law”.
I could not find the term “credible” in any of the documents/Exhibits.
I have found the term “credibly accused” (Exhibit D at Complaint document page 33 on the hyperlink), but the term there is used by David Clohessy in an assertion quoted by the news article comprising Exhibit D). Thus it was indeed – and contrary to JR’s assertion – Clohessy who “found” the allegation to be ‘credible.
Substantive def. – 1. having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable
Two other definitions – A) meaning, what is substantive: important, serious, or related to real facts B) The definition of substantive is something that is substantial and based on fact.
For liars, 'reality' and 'fact', must not compute in their little brains. Quit playing your childish, word games, we're on to all your nonsense and excuses.
On then to JR’s of the 1st at 349AM:
Passing over the opening rodomontade, we proceed to the second paragraph.
Here JR tries to create a strawcase more convenient for himself: it seems implausible that an organization that has fronted for attorneys for almost 3 decades “suddenly” goes “off the rails”.
I doubt that “suddenly” very much and never claimed that SNAP has only now “suddenly” gone off the rails. I would expect that SNAP has been pulling this stunt for just about all those years. It’s just – as I said in a prior comment above – that only now has the Stampede wave subsided to the point where its chicanery can be challenged via lawsuit.
Oh! I'm Mr. Know-It-All and I use words like rodomontade, because I'm so much smarter than anyone else in my cartoon, don't you think so, Rocky. You tell'em Mr. Know-It-All. I bet you know these big words too: Dummkopf, Ignoramus, Hircismus, because you sure are one. Well, Thanks Rocky
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 349AM:
And in the third paragraph JR once again tries to cover for his sloppy research: he had not “read the priest’s suit” – doncha see? – merely “because his individual details don’t matter to [JR’s] argument”.
Ah, but ”details” do so very much matter, as my point in the immediately preceding comment here makes clear.
Was JR’s own long-held deployment of the term “rape” a mere bit of “individual details” that didn’t matter to his allegation, his claim, and his subsequent garnering of a million-dollar settlement? (Even if he was then victimized or re-victimized by his tort attorney whose fee and expenses took over a third of the swag.)
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 349AM:
But – doncha see? – JR’s “argument” here (actually we get the grammatical form of a question) is that SNAP cannot plausibly be seen to be “suddenly” doing “something to end itself” after almost 30 years.
But as I have said in a comment in this sequence, SNAP has very plausibly been pulling this type of stunt all along, but it is only now that the Stampede wave has subsided to the point where its game can be exposed through a lawsuit.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 349AM:
The fourth paragraph simply continues this riff. But SNAP’s situation at this point is far more plausibly seen as being no “clumsiness’ nor “accident” but rather as simply the exposure of its long-standing modus operandi, due to the subsiding of the Stampede wave’s protective dynamics.
And yes, I would say that SNAP’s M.O. here is “blatantly” clear, but it was precisely the protective aura of the Stampede that shielded such blatant chicanery from public view and examination.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 349AM:
And the fifth paragraph simply tries to bring it all home with a preemptive and manipulative ‘victory lap’, to the effect that JR’s “view” is “much more likely true than [mine]”.
And why might that be? Because – as best can be inferred from his text here – while SNAP has been “cloned all over the world by the same people”, yet “only here in the U.S. and late in SNAP’s life does it screw up enough to be sued by 2 priests”.
But what we have here is a bunch of assertions that are not shown to be causally interrelated nor causally capable of resulting in the present two lawsuits by priests.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 349AM:
First – and to repeat a point I have made a number of times on this site – it was in the US that such a Stampede could get traction (due to, inter alia, the structure of U.S. tort law / the pressure of the highly-influential tortie influence with legislators at all levels / the deranging influence of the US embrace of Victimism in law and jurispraxis / the growth of ‘advocacy’ science’ that sees itself justified in supporting by whatever means necessary any ‘good’ initiative (such as the ‘repressed memory’ surge of some years back) / and the media’s participation for purposes of a) increasing circulation with salacious and ostensibly victim-rights stories. b) burnishing its creds as a truthy opponent of this and that ‘oppression’, and c) participating in the general US culture war by reducing the credibility of secular-elites’ greatest and most vocal opposition.
For those reasons, this Stampede phenomenon hasn’t been able to gain traction in other countries (we think of the Dutch Abuse Report, the ‘war crimes’ charge brought before a sub-branch of the UN, the Magdalene Laundries, the German choir-boy abuse claims, and now the fizzled years-long Australian Royal Commission ‘investigation’ and ‘Report’).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 349AM:
But then and thus, the Stampede in the US is now subsiding as those dynamics I mentioned immediately above begin to lose their cohesion, weakening the protective aura and shield that for decades has prevented a deeper and more comprehensive analysis of the Stampede’s core US vehicle or vessel, i.e. the SNAP-tortie arrangement.
As for it being “late in SNAP’s life”, this is merely putting the cart before the horse: if it is now “late in SNAP’s life” then that would only be because the subsiding of the Stampede’s protective aura is now making it possible to expose that arrangement.
Before these lawsuits there was no way of plausibly asserting that SNAP’s days were numbered.
The lawsuits are not the result of SNAP’s ending; they may well be the cause of it.
On then to JR’s of the 1st at 356AM:
I have here many times and at great length explicated i) why one should always presume that JR is “up to something” and ii) his grammatical tics are so often indicative of a sly bit that he can’t quite bring himself to declare clearly.
Which points are then nicely demonstrated in his second paragraph, where the first sentence doesn’t quite make sense.
As to why “more than 2 priests” haven’t brought lawsuits, I had covered this point in recent comments: until the subsiding of the Stampede became somewhat reliably evident – and that former SNAP official’s own lawsuit and Complaint were brought – it would have been very difficult for any plaintiff-priest to find an attorney who could legitimately assure him that any such lawsuit had any reasonable chance of succeeding.
On then to JR’s of the 1st at 412AM:
He opens with what reveals itself to be yet another demonstration of his whacky M.O.: clutching his pearls, he tries the old I’m Not / You Are gambit, i.e. that I “attempt to gut the point of [his] questions” and – nicely – that I do so “stupidly”.
Let’s look at that.
He has glommed onto my comment about the plaintiff-priest here having “standing” to bring a lawsuit.
“Standing” – or more fully “Standing to sue doctrine” – is a legal term meaning that a person “has sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy” (I am using the Black’s Law Dictionary definition here, 5th edition, for persons who want to check the reference). This means that one cannot simply bring a lawsuit on a whim against something or someone that one doesn’t like; one must first have “standing” to bring the lawsuit; one must be sufficiently involved so as to be plausibly aggrieved and injured.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 412AM:
JR here, however, has simply glommed onto the word “standing” and taken it in the colloquial sense of – say – ‘last man standing’ or some such.
But on the basis of that sophomoric mistake, JR can then riff on about how many priests are “standing” (as in ‘standing around’ or some such).
So much for JR’s “tiny mind” epithet, which can stay right up where it was put.
Once again, word-games are deployed in lieu of actual engagement with the points on the table.
As to whether there are still a number of priests who might have similar “standing to sue” … that’s a very interesting question and raises some thought-provoking possibilities.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 412AM:
On then to his second paragraph:
Once again JR creates a strawman more convenient to his purposes: my Stampede theory does not assert or claim or insist that “the vast majority of priests were wrongly accused by thieving lawyers, fake victims” and SNAP.
Rather, my theory simply points out the high plausibility or even probability of such chicanery. And that plausibility/probability would then require one and all to look very carefully (in a form of public “strict scrutiny”) at each of the myriad claims, stories, accusations and allegations that are made.
This, of course, is precisely what the Stampede was designed to prevent.
Instead, being pelted with ‘stories’ and ‘reports’, the public was to be saturated to the point that many would simply presume that if a story or allegation were put forward, then ‘everyone knows that it must be true because so many priests are like that’ or some such.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 412AM:
And the Stampede Playbook gambit to be deployed in the face of any such effort at “strict scrutiny” was and always has been: if you doubt then you re-victimize and “smear” the (already-presumptive) ‘victims’ and may even be a victimizer yourself. And so on and so forth.
And we have so very often seen that gambit deployed here by Abuseniks and others who have found the Stampede congenial to their purposes.
And we then see the pearly-clutchy discombobulation that the Church might in any way turn out to have been victimized in all of this; after all, the Abuseniks have already – they figured – claimed the Victim-y high-ground and would like everyone to think that they possess the clear title and deed to that ground.
On then to JR’s of the 1st at 416AM:
Again, merely another attempt to run a variant of the ‘why only 2 priests in 30 years’ gambit.
As I have said, for all this time the Stampede successfully precluded the reasonable possibility of any priest publicly defending himself. As we have seen, not even the Church organization dared to stand up for its priests and instead caved to the then-raging wave of the Stampede.
I am reminded of Khrushchev denouncing Stalin in February of 1956 at the XXth Party Congress: with the monster safely gone, K could admit the outrages that were committed, which during Stalin’s lifetime absolutely had to be accepted as merely the superb and glorious workings of the justice of the State and the Revolution. To have claimed or even suspected anything otherwise would have been “politically incorrect” (that old Bolshevik term) and would have had very unpleasant results for anyone who stood up to express such thoughts.
On then to JR’s of the 1st at 424AM:
Here, again, JR tries to run this gambit: how could SNAP have done so much wrong and not been “caught out by its own wrong actions” until “only ‘recently’?”.
I have dealt with this point in prior comments in this sequence.
It is only at this “moment” that the Stampede wave has sufficiently subsided so as to make lawsuits viable.
And – yes – it was precisely an objective of the tortie multiple-plaintiff strategy as well as of the Stampede to so poison the public atmosphere and legal atmosphere and jurispraxis that the targeted defendant (priest or Church) would be for all practical purposes “defenseless”.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th (February) at 330AM:
Here ‘Dan’ opens with the manipulative presumption that I am among the “liars” and that this ‘fact’ is “witnessed in this forum” and that I must “think and accuse others of being ‘liars’”.
I have examined ‘Dan’s material and basis for the conclusions I have drawn is fully contained in his material and I have explicated them at length. That ‘Dan’ is utterly incapable of handling any negative implications or facts about himself as being anything but “lies” is merely a reflection of his own issues and dynamics.
And on and on he goes for the rest of the paragraph.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 330AM:
Then, in the second paragraph, ‘Dan’ once again winds up tripping over himself: on the one hand, the Church never did give this priest a canonical trial but on the other hand, who would trust the Church’s judgment and findings? (‘Dan’ gives even more away by mistaking or equating “opinion” with the findings of a canonical trial.)
And thus on and on until – had you been waitinggggg forrrr ittttt? – God’ll-getcha.
One wonders if it hasn’t occurred to ‘Dan’ that – absent a Divine finding of insanity – God’ll get ‘Dan’ for impersonating a prophet.
On then to JR’s of the 1st at 455AM:
Here JR again tries a run based on his “credible” bit, which fails as explained above in this sequence of my comments.
Poor JR: he cawn’t think why and doesn’t “get what his case is”. Given JR’s failures of analysis and even of reading the text accurately, who can be surprised? This must happen to him a lot, going way back.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 117PM:
Here ‘Dan’ addresses “Jennifer” wearing the Wig and Authority of “True Christians”. An attempt at self-serving manipulation, but nothing new about that.
On and on he goes then.
But wait. There’s more.
“Jennifer” is huffily requested – by the pearl-clutchy authority of ‘Dan’ as now channeling not God but all “True Christians” – to “please refrain from using Christ’s words” (such as “Amen” and the like). I am beginning to wonder if ‘Dan’ hasn’t erected a homemade sedia gestatoria in the bathroom, facing the mirror.
I don't understand, "I am beginning to wonder if 'Dan' hasn't erected a homemade sedia gestatoria in the bathroom, facing the mirror." Are you somehow under the impression that this was cute or clever? Why would a Christian, own the ultimate symbol of Idolators, a throne made to carry your popes or 'Queen of Heaven' on your enslaved sheep's shoulders. Your stuff is really going south, as you become weirder and creepier. And you have nerve to question another's mental state? I think you need to see a doctor, that is unless you're still committed.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 117PM:
Clearly – he doth go on – “Jennifer” has not realized that the Church has “kept [her] from speaking”, which is so very “Hitleresque”. Hitler also liked to present himself as being specially “chosen” by God to bring the German Volk to its long-denied supremacy; and if ya didn’t go along with it, then God – working through the Gestapo – was gonna get’cha.
But there is a deeper method to the madness in this bit: ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – is not going to be “kept … from speaking”, because he (or He) is so very speshull and “chosen” and truthy and heroic (recall the great Battle at the Schoolyard Fence where ‘Dan’ did mightily subdue the kiddies … at least until responsible adults interfered and then went and – the horror! – “lied” about him).
Then, working up to more pearl-clutching for his (or His) summation, ‘Dan’ doth borrow a bit from JR (Truthy and Heroic Tribune of the Victimry) and now style himself as among “we victims” of the Church.
How – ‘Dan’ simply cawn’t think – can he (or He) be subjected to so much “defamation of character”? That ‘Dan’s own material makes him the greatest defamer of his own character does not – of course – occur to him (or Him). I think the bathroom-mirror crew is really failing ‘Dan’ here. Or maybe ‘Dan’ just ignores those parts of the Faxes that won’t fit into his cartoons.
And the publiar conveniently ignores the "fact', as usual, that Hitler considered himself a baptized catholic even up to his death. Being catholic, would absolutely negate any chance of his being 'chosen'. Unless you hypocrites consider the false gods you worship as saints to be 'chosen', but even though your Queen of Heaven was 'chosen' to bear Jesus, yet never in the Bible cllaimed to be a saint, disciple, sinless, immaculately conceived or assumed into heaven, unless you deceivers just think you can assume that she was assumed. Nothing but proven, time and again, a cult full of lies and liars. You creeps would make saints of toilet seats or bathroom mirrors, if it serves your agenda. servant of Truth
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 526PM:
The “chosen” (or “Chosen”) is getting mighty put out now: the readership is addressed as “you creeps”.
He advises that one and all “had better make sure your claims are truth” – a fine bit of advice, though apparently a responsibility to which “the Chosen” are (or ‘is’, if ‘Dan’ be the only one) not required to conform.
But what occasions this stentorian bray?
Never addressed the readers as creeps, that would be referring to you and your perverted and pedophile hierarchy, and all the liars, especially you, that belong to your cult. servant
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 526PM:
Well, it would appear that ‘Dan’ has been reading some news articles, perhaps even those very articles included as Exhibits in the lawsuit.
Before perusing ‘Dan’s following bits, readers might want to read the attorney’s letter included as Exhibit F.
And thus fortified, readers can then consider ‘Dan’s pearly-clutchy bits here in this comment.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 526PM:
Taking his various bits in the order they appear in his comment:
First, the female who came forward in 2009 to report a claim of sexual molestation dating back to 1976 and claims to have “a plane ticket” from a Florida trip taken with the priest in 1976 was determined by the County Prosecutor’s Office (when the allegation was first made to them in 2009, 33 years later) to have been of the age “of legal consent” in 1976 and refused to prosecute. And the corroborator of this claim is a woman who was then a 17 year-old receptionist at that parish in 1976, whom the female told and who claims to have then told a deacon at the parish who then “told the senior priest”. Oddly, although this receptionist went on to become a psychologist, she did not report anything to the police until 2009 when the allegation was first publicly made. (Readers can consult the Complaint at Exhibit D, page 34 of the hyperlink document.)
There is no mention in the Exhibit D article that this corroborator was a “witness”, nor that she saw that the plane tickets were “of the priest and herself [i.e. the allegant] flying to Florida”, nor that “there was no denial”(nor that there was any formal accusation made that required a denial or admission). If ‘Dan’ has gleaned these bits from somewhere, he can kindly provide the reference. If he has just made them up for the burnishing of his bit here, then … no surprise there.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 526PM:
Second, the “restrictions placed on him [i.e. “the creep”, as ‘Dan’ would have it] by the archdiocese” dated from 2009 when the allegation was first made to the Archdiocese. Those restrictions flowed from his being removed from public ministry as a priest as a consequence of the allegation.
It remains a matter of ongoing question whether his position as development director for a facility not under the aegis of the Church and founded to provide a home for unmarried mothers with unborn children – with no contact with the residents of the facility, as a facility official noted – was actually a violation of the restrictions to public ministry.
If he carried on the job without wearing clerical garb or presenting himself as a priest and restricted himself to fund-raising and finance, then his activity would simply be a job, and not subject to the public-ministry restrictions.
(Readers can consult the Complaint at Exhibit D, page 34 of the hyperlink document.)
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 526PM:
Third, as to ‘Dan’s statement that the priest “moved on to surround himself with troubled teenage girls”: a) his job – as the facility official noted – did not involve being in the presence of or interacting with the residents of the facility. Nor had the facility received any complaints about him nor had any of the staff noted any disturbing indications about him.
In fact (Exhibit D, page 30 of the hyperlink) this facility, founded in 2015, was in May of 2016 still undergoing renovations and not even yet open for residency and had no residents.
The priest resigned at the age of 69 in later April of 2016, after a months-long wrestle with the Archdiocese that “believed” his work for the facility violated his ministry-restrictions.
(Readers can consult the Complaint at Exhibit C, page 30 of the hyperlink document.)
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 526PM:
Fourth, this priest didn’t “seem to find [his] way around the Church” since the facility is not under the aegis of the Archdiocese.
Or, in an alternative reading of ‘finding his way around’, it remains certainly open to question whether this priest was actually and intentionally trying to ‘get around’ the Church restrictions on his ministry or whether he was simply trying to put his organizational talents to some useful purpose (and find a job).
And the rest of the comment dissolves into the usual rant.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 526PM:
As for the “P.S.”:
First, the Vatican is apparently going to have to determine if the priest’s job indeed constituted a willful violation of the restrictions on public ministry. I am not familiar with the intricacies of canon law in this regard, but perhaps if he is found to have willfully violated those restrictions then he may be liable for sanctions even including laicization, which is a penalty only Rome can impose.
The “abuse” that has been alleged (from 1976) does not seem to be ‘rape’, since I can’t imagine the media not-using that term if it indeed applied here. Which of course then leaves the matter in the middle of the seemingly endless possibilities for the ever-mutable definition of ‘abuse’.
And ‘Dan’ wraps it up by claiming that the Vatican can’t really be trusted anyway since they did so little about the “abusing” of the “Belgian choir boys”. Perhaps ‘Dan’ – who originally raised the subject here – meant the German (Regensburg) choir boy abuse case of early 2016.
We recall that a) that ‘abuse’ was primarily about verbal and physical (spanking) abuse and that b) the local authorities’ investigation has produced no actual charges that I am aware of (indeed a search-engine check reveals no articles or reports since January of 2016).
‘Dan’ can remain “waiting!” for as long as he likes. If he’s waiting for his cartoons to be proven accurate and true, however, I’d recommend he not forego any meals until the Glorious Day.
Regarding publyin's last five posts: And we have the oh-so-familiar barrage of excuses, lies, manipulations and twisting of facts, surely not worthy of any response. And I'm surely not interested in hearing a catholic attorney's excuses, denials and lies. Listening to yours is plenty enough for any Christian to have to bear. Thanks anyway, for all your long-winded ignorance and nonsense. I've been enjoying your comedy act for months on end. servant
"Credible" was quoted in the lawsuit on page 3 of the lawsuit brought by the priest. after the number 22, The 22nd allegation(?) listed in his claims. What's the matter bung hole can't you read? You are such an evil idiot. READ the law suit. The diocese of Detroit found the allegations against the priest were in their own words, (not Clohessy's words but their own words) CREDIBLE.
Why do I even bother? You, like your co-fascist Trump, deny smear and lie.
Why would I say that the Archdiocese of Detroit called the accusations against the priest "credible" if I hadn't read it in the priest's suit? It's there to be read by you or anyone else in black and white. Why isn't he suing the church, smart ass?
On the 2nd at 1224AM ‘Dan’ will demonstrate his chops by quoting some dictionary definition of “substantive”. Well and good as far as it goes for a general definition, but it doesn’t go far enough at all here.
Because the term “substantive” as used in this specialized context means – as I said – “warranting an investigation”.
For people like ‘Dan’ anything that looks like it would be suitable for plop-tossing in the service of his cartoon will quickly be embraced; any further thought and examination, which might interfere with the cartoon, is ignored.
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 337AM:
Nicely, he demonstrates his usual M.O. by failing to quote the rest of that 22nd paragraph of the Complaint: “’Credible’ does not mean ‘guilty’, verified, substantiated or proven”.
Since there is a difference in terms between the “credible” that appears in No. 22 and the “substantiated” that I quoted from the attorney’s letter (Exhibit F) as meaning ‘sufficient to warrant an investigation”, then the bottom line would appear to be that the Diocesan Review Board found the allegation sufficiently “credible” as to be “sufficient to warrant an investigation” .
The key point here is that “credible” is to be taken not in the sense of colloquial usage but in the specific usage of the context here, which would be the specific usage of the terms according to the Diocesan Review Board’s usage and protocols.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 337AM:
This also demonstrates the difficulties with Stampede analysis:
First, there is the specific and perhaps even counter-intuitive usage of terms such as “substantive” and “credible” in the Church protocols.
Second, there is the confusion of terms that we see in the news reports introduced as Exhibits, whether through sloppiness of reporting or through the reporter’s efforts to use more inflammatory terms or terms that would confuse the readers in the direction of going along with the reporter’s spin.
Third, there is the general confusion of colloquial and technical-specific usage.
It is in these interstices that the Stampede can try to bolster its bits.
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 342AM:
Here JR simply cawn’t refrain from once again painting himself as the poor, truthy, put-upon and bethumped victim: clutching the pearls, he launches into his familiar “why do I even bother” aria.
And – just to add some extra sawdust to his thin baloney sandwich here – he drags in Trump and so forth.
As to why the priest isn’t “suing the Church”, there is certainly this possibility: the confusion of terms that we have seen may actually work to exclude the Church from the gravamen of this lawsuit because the Church didn’t actually formally and publicly assert and claim that he really did abuse anyone and so forth.
It would be nice to see the actual text of the Archdiocesan protocols, and that may well come out at trial. But at this point the Archdiocese hasn’t actually made any assertion or claim that the priest abused anyone.
The Board found the allegation to be “credible” or “substantive”, but that is a judgment on the status of the allegation itself, not a final and definitive pronouncement upon the action (whatever it may have been said to be) that was allegedly committed.
Credible = believable. I don't need to know what the word doesn't mean but what credible does mean. BELIEVABLE.
Are these imaginary pearls you've created anything like Ben Wah balls? Calling someone gay who is gay makes you what? not gay? No it makes you a bully.