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)
P You are so hateable. you personally and your sick disgusting way of dealing with your betters. Me being just one of them. I need no pearls or poses to deal with shit. I flush it. If I had a gun I'd shoot you down like the dog you are. Turn myself in and just use as my excuse every evil lying piece of shit you've written here. You better pray to your imaginary friend I never find out who you are. If I do you're a dead man. Believe that.
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 554PM:
Confronted with complexity, any purveyor of cartoons will simply fall back on the cartoon.
Thus we see JR here.
He will stick with his bit and that’s as may be.
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 557PM:
I can make no sense of it. Any reader who can is welcome to share the insight.
As so often, for lack of anything better, JR will simply make no sense and call it a day’s work.
Manipulating, deceiving, twisting and lying, cannot and will never be considered "insight". When will you show anything more than, lack of anything better? Stop making all these excuses for fraud, when there are thousands of other 'credible' cases out there. How about the church coming clean and exposing crime, instead of defending the creeps. Won't ever happen, though the cult claims it's being more transparent and improving. Hypocrites!
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 604PM:
As so often, for lack of anything better, JR will simply indulge himself in an epithetical rant.
Although this one includes threats. Charming.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1149PM:
He cawn’t think why I might imagine “a Christian” would “own the ultimate symbol of idolaters” (i.e. his very own homemade sedia gestatoria).
Well, since ‘Dan’ actually eschews membership in any known organized Christian (or perhaps other) religion, and considers himself specially to be “the Chosen” of God, then he is for all practical purposes the leader of his own ‘religion’ – which would qualify nicely as a cult except for the fact that it has no congregants or followers and there is instead only ‘Dan’ in the bathroom there, getting his speshull and “secret” Faxes and advice from the séances .
In fact in most things he does indeed carry on like a faux-Pope, except for his unfortunate but deeply-ingrained tendencies to potty-mouth and epithet and so on.
As to who is ‘becoming’ “weirder and creepier”, let the readers judge as they may.
And while ‘Dan’s extensive misadventures with psychiatry certainly constitute a body of experience, yet that experience does not qualify in any way as diagnostic chops. Except insofar as he may well have simply taken some of the material addressed to him, sitting there on the unhappy side of the clinical desk, and using it to toss at others. We have seen that gambit run by other Abuseniks here.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 823PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to pass off as a “fact” that “Hitler considered himself a baptized catholic even up to his death”. Hitler was baptized a Catholic, but there is no evidence that he retained any Catholic identity or praxis, certainly not in the postwar period and on up to his death by suicide.
Indeed, considering the number of priests and nuns that were sent to the camps (Dachau had its own ‘Priests Barracks’; in Poland it is estimated that 3000 bishops and clergy were sent to their deaths; in Warthegau eighty percent of the priests and five bishops were sent to the camps in 1939 alone, forced to wear a purple ‘P’ on their camp clothing) then it becomes – to say the least – extremely difficult to maintain plausibly that Hitler remained in any functional sense a Catholic, especially in his own eyes.
That he might have acknowledged that at one point in his very early life he had indeed been baptized – though I know of no such comments (perhaps some might exist in the many volumes of his Table Talk) – yet there is not only no evidence of his ever maintaining his Catholic identity but also significant evidence that he persecuted the Church whenever he figured that he could get away with it.
Hitler wouldn't be the first dictator to kill his own kind. You're proof he wasn't a catholic is meaningless. I must say that if your figures are correct that many bishops and clergy were put to death, then that most likely saved alot of victims from having their lives destroyed by your hierarchy of pedophile, perverted hypocrites and their enablers. servant
Continuing my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 823PM:
His second sentence is not grammatical and makes no conceptual sense either. Hitler presented himself as being chosen by God to lead the German Volk. How his “being catholic” would preclude that possibility is not at all clear in and of itself nor does ‘Dan’s bit here proffer any further explication.
In one sense Catholic doctrine would accept that all human beings are “chosen” by God by the very fact that they are born; in another sense all Catholics are “chosen” for a special responsibility by their call to follow Christ.
And when you look at them, both Hitler and ‘Dan’ would appear to share a clear similarity: both declared themselves to be in some sense very specially and specifically “chosen” (‘Dan’ has even capitalized that term at times, referring to himself – or Himself) and on the basis of that self-declaration have claimed an authority and made presumptuous demands on others.
And the rest of the comment trails off with the usual rant-y stuff.
Allow me to clear up for your dense mind, exactly what I mean by a practicing catholic would not be of the 'chosen' of God. Now if they left the cult, gave up their idolatry and sins against the Creator, they could possibly become one of the 'chosen'.The reason – The catholic organization breaks almost all the 10 commandments – 2) They bow to statues, worshipping false gods, whether they think so or not. 1) If you've broken 2 then your surely not observing the !st. 4) Sabbath was supposed to be on Saturday, but was done away with in Col. 2:16, for those who follow the Bible. 6) The cult has a history of many murders. 7) On adultery, you are so much worse, raping little boys and molesting minors. 8) You've been stealing from your dumb sheep for centuries. 9) Liars? Your cult is full of them, you being one of the worst. 10) Do not covet. Your hierarchy covets everything, including souls.
Catholics, be honest with yourselves. Your religious cult is terrible and there's no better time to figure that out than right now. Run from this greedy, lying, idolatrous, perverted, pedophile cult and come out of the darkness and into the Almighty's marvelous light. Don't allow them to control your minds any longer, and feed you this lie that it's fine to worship and pray to all these false gods, Mary, Queen of Heaven, their falsely 'chosen' saints, popes, bishops or priests. They are a bunch of power hungry, greedy, perverted liars, who care nothing for your souls. All the angels, apostles, including Paul, or Jesus's disciples would never allow, even those they healed to bow down to them. This is in the Bible, so what makes these creeps think they're so 'speshull' that you should bow to them. HYPOCRITES!! All of them!
And as far as listening to catholic doctrine, I don't trust that anymore than I'd trust your phony lawyers, corrupt hierarchy, your archdiocese investigations, bribed or bought gov't officials and cops, paid off psychiatrists, or especially you, publiar, Mr. Untrustworthy. My trust is in the Lord Almighty, and rarely in man, let alone trust in your cult of lying hypocrites.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1204AM:
Concerning five of my posts – from the 1st between 848-852PM – which contain a point by point consideration of his claims contained his comment of the 1st at 526PM:
‘Dan’ will merely wave it all away as “familiar barrages of excuses, lies, manipulations and twisting of facts”. What “lies” I have allegedly told ‘Dan’ – but of course – does not bother to specifically say. But his description would certainly be more aptly applied to just about all of his own material – and readers may judge this surmise as they may.
At any rate, he slyly, manipulatively, and huffily doth declare and proclaim that my points are “surely not worthy of any response”. As if there were any “response” that he could have made anyway.
Continuing my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1204AM:
And in regard to the material from Exhibit F – the attorney’s letter – well … ‘Dan’ is “surely not interested in hearing a Catholic attorney’s” and so on and so forth. As I have always said, ‘Dan’ is not going to consider any elements that interfere with his preferred, constructed, and scheduled cartoon.
As so often happens in Victimist praxis, or Fundamentalist praxis, nothing that interferes with the ‘preferred narrative’ is to be allowed entrée: not into the public’s mind and not even into the cartoonist’s mind.
But he is, of course, a “Christian” – having apparently demoted himself for this occasion from the more exalted rank of “True Christian”. Yet this bit here does demonstrate the usual reversion to a pearl-clutching attempt to portray oneself as put-upon, bethumped, unjustly misunderstood, and – poor thing – just worn out and exasperated with it all. An aria not unlike one of JR’s recent performances here.
Has ‘Dan’ indeed “been enjoying” all this? His own scream-cappy rants in recent comments would certainly demonstrate the incoherence – and perhaps non-veracity – of that claim.
I've got a question for the participants in this comment section. Were any of you sexually abused by a priest when you were a minor?
I was molested at school by clerics, not priests. Marianists brothers. when I was 16.
Classic appeal to emotion.
There are definitely some participants in this forum who were sexually abused by priests, while minors, though I'm not one of them. I've been falsely accused and slandered by the cult, including by clergy, publiar and his groupies. What does this matter? Does it change anything in regards to the horrible abuses done by the hierarchy of the church?
There are participants in this forum who claim to have been abused by priests. If anyone on this forum has been abused by priests, they sure have not proven that here. What I have seen posted on this forum are sensationalized accounts of alleged instances that cannot be proven. I would say that the more sensational the story the less likely that the story is true. I recall someone posting that 2 priests abused someone while holding a gun to their head while raping them on an altar. Really? Are there people that would climb on board that story? Or that hundreds of people including Bishops, Nuns, Priests and the Police conspired to bring down Dan who was just preaching the “truth” to children in a playground. Or that Jim, who for years claimed to be raped by a brother at a school only to find out that his claim to be raped wasn't rape, and we are to just believe the rest of his account when he can't get the details of his story correct even after receiving a large sum of cash based on that salacious story. Remove the overdramatized bits and what do you have left? Not much. So, to your question, “Were any of you sexually abused by a priest when you were a minor? The answer to that question is, probably not.
As usual, ‘Dan’ on the 3rd at 1223PM proffers nothing but epithetical characterizations (with no specific examples) and presumptions (i.e. that “there are thousands of other ‘credible’ cases out there”.
And how would ‘Dan’- or anybody – know enough to validly assert that “there are thousands of other ‘credible’ cases out there”? That there are some is surely probable; that there are “thousands” (why stop there – why not tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands or millions?) is purely a self-serving presumptive assertion made to spackle up the cartoon.
I absolutely agree with your assessment of 'credible' cases, (why stop there – why not tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands or millions?). Apparently your creeps didn't stop there, so why should we give them the benefit of doubt, and be conservative with the numbers?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 103AM:
First, the relevance of ‘Dan’s opening sentence about Hitler seems rather cloudy (and perhaps distracting): no doubt he wasn’t the first (or last) dictator “to kill his own kind”. So what?
Second, I didn’t at any point proffer “proof that he wasn’t catholic”. I pointed out that while he was baptized Catholic he later demonstrated sufficiently that he wasn’t following Catholic praxis in any sense whatsoever.
And if I recall correctly, ‘Dan’ was at one point was baptized Catholic and – again if I recall correctly –he was an altar boy. Clearly he no longer considers himself a Catholic. ‘Dan’ surely wasn’t the first or only example of human beings baptized into Catholicism who later depart from it.
And as for the final bit – where he tries to twist the deaths of so many clergy at the hands of the Nazis by insinuating that this “most likely saved a lot of victims from having their lives destroyed” and so forth … that bit can stay right up where it was put and readers may judge as they will.
Publiar, the excuser of all cathoilc creeps, questions whether Hitler could have been catholic and denies any connection. Let's investigate his theories and denials. Bible description of catholic hierarchy, including the outstanding sins of publyin' himself:
"But the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and sexually immoral and sorcerers and idolators and all liars, their place will be in the lake of fire that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death." Rev. 21:8
So let's see – You, p, qualify for six out of eight of these qualities, and definitely get extra credit for being a terrible liar. Hitler qualifies for at least 7 of 8 of these qualities. I would say that he would definitely qualify to being catholic hierarchy. Shame that he committed suicide, for with those numbers he would have qualified for becoming pope. Oh! That's right. He had groomed fellow Nazi, RAT-zinger, to follow in his footsteps. Too bad he wasn't around long enough to give a Sieg Heil, (or Heil Mary), when he became pope RAT-zinger. 'chosen' servant of God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1232AM:
In the first paragraph ‘Dan’ will attempt to justify his bit about “a practicing catholic would not be the ‘chosen’ of God” (and in ‘Dan’s cartoon-verse who on earth would be ‘chosen’, except ‘Dan’?): a ‘practicing catholic’ “could not be” – he merely asserts – because the Church “breaks almost all the 10 commandments” … and there follows the usual ‘Dan’-bits so often seen and dealt-with here before.
‘Dan’ is “full of” something, I would say, and I’ll leave it at that.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1232AM:
In the second paragraph ‘Dan’ once again addresses a faux-papal exhortation to “Catholics” to “be honest with yourselves”. Once again, a bit of advice that ‘Dan’ might well take for his own personal use.
And the rest of the paragraph trails off with more of the usual ‘Dan’-bits. He does like to hear himself (or Himself) denounce and declaim.
And the third paragraph simply demonstrates once again that ‘Dan’ will “trust” nothing that doesn’t back up his cartoons.
And in that “paid off psychiatrists” bit is there lurking beneath the phrase ‘Dan’s attempt to dismiss his own rather extensive and unhappy misadventures with psychiatric examination?
And ‘Dan’ concludes with the method in the madness: ‘Dan’ will “trust” only in “the Lord Almighty” – doncha know? – especially since “the Lord Almighty” probably isn’t going to overtly contradict whatever cartoons and phantasms ‘Dan’ cooks up. Something about letting the tares grow up with the wheat, I would think.
Very neat: ‘Dan’ gets to claim the mantle of an unquestionable authority issued by an Authority Who most likely won’t be objecting to any of his stuff. Very sly too.
Why I even answer to your insistent stupidity is beyond me. I was put on a 5150 hold as I told you 6 times. I averaged less than 3 minutes per hold. speaking to a psychiatrist. The 1st hold, a psych saw me within 10 hours and after speaking to me for 1 minute, questioned why I was even sent there, and I asked the same and he gave me permission to leave on the spot. One hospital kept me for 5 days, because they had no dr. over the weekend. I never did a 14 day hold. Never had "rather extensive and unhappy misadventures with psychiatric examination"? How do I know this, because I was there and you weren't. I was sent there every time based on lies, the majority by your cult of blatant liars. When will you stop with your poor assessments and ignorant lies. You are one low-life, lying creep and make a perfect member of your false, apostate cult of hypocrites. They must be proud of you. servant
And don't give me more of your lies of how I have a low-grade derangement and they didn't see much chance for improvement. You're an ignorant, lying fool, and should be evaluated for mental illness, because it's pretty disturbing for an adult to be such an unrepentant liar. servant
publyin', You conveniently avoid what you can't answer to, with your usual 'Dan'-bits. I want to know, what gives your cult the right to have people bow to your popes and to dead, lifeless statues of Mary and falsely 'chosen' saints and at times, bishops or cardinals?Bowing down was never allowed by angels or apostles, including Paul, even when they performed miracles. It is absolutely forbidden, to bow down and worship these false gods and goddesses. These are the Biblical examples – Acts 10:25-26, Rev. 19:10, Rev. 22:8
So these are just a few examples, proving that catholicism refuses to follow Biblical principles, makes up their own manmade rules, full of rituals, pomp and circumstance, denying God's truths. You need more proof? a) Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." b) Acts 7:48 Stephen says, "However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands." c) Acts 17:24 Pauls reaffirms, "The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by human hands."
So all this proves that catholicism does not obey the Bible. They are not the 'chosen' or True Church, as you and they think they can claim. By their own horrible, unrepentant, sinful lives, they further prove to be far from God's mercy or grace. Don't play your silly, ignorant childish games with me, for the only one being played is you. You're a lying, slandering, mocking fool, who's deceiving no one besides yourself, and maybe your little groupies. servant of Christ
Since you soul is so obviously dead P take the hint and follow it. Awfully hard for gods who are not there to contradict buggar all.
"Very neat: 'Dan' gets to claim the mantle of an unquestionable authority issued by an Authority Who most likely won't be objecting to any of his stuff. Very sly too." You really don't know the One True God at all, do you. My God questions just about everything. He gives us a conscience, that either condemns us or declares us not guilty. He never falsely accuses, slanders or lies, in order to achieve His honest goals. This would describe your god, Satan, the Accuser of everything good, lying and deceiving to achieve his agenda, of bringing souls down with him. Sounds an awful lot like you, publyin'. The Truth shall conquer all, come Judgment Day.
The comment by ‘BetsyCannary’ (the 4th at 521PM) offers an opportunity.
It might strike one as odd that a person poses a question yet doesn’t bother to explain or expand upon his/her thoughts surrounding or underlying the question.
But the single-question bit does not actually have an interrogative purpose, though it assumes the grammatical form of a question.
Rather, this is simply a code-phrase or code-question from the Stampede Playbook: it is meant to merely elicit an entire corpus of established presumptions and emotions, especially that:
First, even the slightest bit of ‘abuse’ has life-wrecking consequences;
Second, if you ‘weren’t there’ and didn’t actually experience the ‘abuse’, then you have no business asking any questions;
Third, if you do ask questions then you are a ‘re-victimizer’ if not also a ‘victimizer’ and so on;
Fourth, the only proper response to this ‘question’ is and must-be righteous outrage.
Continuing with my comment on the Cannary comment of the 4th at 521PM:
I am not suggesting or implying that Ms. Cannary consciously and deliberately deploys this question here as a Playbook gambit. It is quite possible that her question simply demonstrates what passes in some circles as not only insightful but conclusive and generally accepted (and acceptable) ‘thought’ on the matter.
But I certainly think that whether intentionally or not, this ‘question’ is actually supposed to a) squelch and preclude further thought and b) signal the unquestionable and unassailable virtue of both the question-poser and of all those who were (allegedly) ‘abused’.
I would also like to say a bit more about JR’s of the 2nd at 554PM:
In that comment – we recall – JR asserted and insisted that as far as he’s concerned, “credible = believable”.
I would say that “plausible” is much closer to what “credible” means in this context, i.e. that an allegation seems i) sufficiently possible as to perhaps have happened and ii) to warrant further investigation.
Were we to take JR’s intended sense – i.e. that if an allegation is “credible” then it is a) believable and b) therefore must be believed – then “credible” would not only have to mean “believable” but would also have to “=” ‘true’.
And if a “credible” allegation = a true allegation, then the more appropriate usage would be to simply declare the allegation to be ‘true’ and not use the fuzzier word “credible” in the first place.
So “credible” as used in this context stops before actually asserting ‘true’. And the reason for that would have to be that ‘possible’ or ‘plausible’ (depending on the parameters you draw for those concepts) does not in and of itself demonstrate ‘true’.
Anyone ever heard of the Apostles' Plause? As compared to the Apostles' Creed?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 554PM:
A decade and a half ago I recall reading somewhere that one set of Church protocols defined “credible” according to this simple parameter: if the priest and the allegant can be shown to have lived in the same geographical area at the time of the alleged incident, then the allegation could be considered credible.
And of course, that “same geographical area” is itself a rather fuzzy and perhaps elastic parameter in and of itself.
Some readers might be familiar with the difference between a road-map and a topological map (such as the military or surveyors use): the road-map or general map simply shows the general relationship among various geographical locations or sites; the topographical map shows the actual complexities of the ground on which and over which you have to conduct operations.
Road-maps are thus simplified to the point of simplistic if you have to really work on the ground that the map is supposed to portray. They are in that sense ‘cartoons’ of the actual ground.
Thus in the Stampede where actualities have to be determined and truth discovered, the complexities of language are necessary hurdles to be dealt-with and ‘cartoons’ are hardly sufficient.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1244PM:
Here ‘Dan’ doth assures us that “there are definitely some participants in this forum who were sexually abused” and so on.
And how might ‘Dan’ actually know that?
Short answer: he doesn’t, but that won’t stop him from bloviating ‘supportively’ if it helps his cartoon.
This bit of ‘Dan’s is a demonstration of a familiar Stampede gambit: you believe my story and don’t raise any questions and I’ll believe your story and won’t ask any questions, and the Game can go on from there.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1244PM:
And sure enough, ‘Dan’ – having fulfilled his part of the bargain – now proffers yet again his own cartoon that is not-to-be-questioned: clutching his pearls he confides that he hath ‘been falsely accused and slandered by the cult” and so on.
I would say it’s fair to imagine that a number of responsible adults (and not just clergy) have raised concerns about some aspects of ‘Dan’, probably along the lines of his not being altogether well.
What we get here is ‘Dan’s solution to all that: he’s merely “been falsely accused and slandered”.
Readers can, of course, judge as they will.
‘Dan’ – of course – does bear a somewhat unusual significance: he is his own “groupie” in the ‘Dan-church’ cult-of-one.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1645:
Here he tries a juvenile gambit to try to twist a comment of mine to some sort of convenience for his own cartoon.
My point was that a cartoon – already unbounded by any constraints of reality or actuality or veracity or accuracy – need not quibble over numbers when one is already far down the rabbit hole.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 510PM:
Prescinding from the epitheticals, we see that ‘Dan’ again slyly and manipulatively (might we also say ‘deceitfully’?) creates a straw-man statement for his own purposes: I never questioned “whether Hitler could have been catholic”. Rather, I pointed out that he was baptized Catholic but a) rarely demonstrated any indications of maintaining his Catholic identity in the postwar era of his life and b) actually persecuted the Church as part of his program when he acquired the power to do so.
That ‘Dan’s own personal history would demonstrate the possibility of someone being baptized Catholic but later departing from the Church … he’d rather not draw attention to that since it won’t help his cartoon.
And then a Scriptural pericope – as so often – to lend a patina of authority to his stuff.
Why would I want to draw attention, to the fact that I was smart enough to get the hell out of a false, apostate cult. Thankfully I wasn't around your pedophile priests long enough to be molested or raped, because our church had a majority of known pedophiles and thievin' priests, some were both. I served mass with two of them, Fr. Charles Durkin and Fr. Peter Keegan. So quit trying to claim that it's only allegations, you lyin' frauds. servant, tired of your lies.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dans’ of the 5th at 510PM:
Then another straw-man statement: I have not ‘denied’ “any connection” – whatever that might mean in this context and in ‘Dan’s sketchy comprehension.
But – hey! – ‘Dan’s going to “investigate”. Let’s see what he’s got.
Oops, he’s got another pericope, apparently to preemptively lend that patina of authority.
To what will that patina be applied?
Why to a “list of qualities” from the Book of Revelation. And even then, his “investigation” also leads him to say that on top of being a “liar”, I am “a terrible liar”. Readers may consider ‘Dan’s jigs and jags in comments over time and consider who is “a terrible liar” here.
Then that “Hitler” also “qualifies”. And here ‘Dan’ concludes that therefore Hitler “would definitely qualify to [sic] being catholic hierarchy”. Not quite grammatical but you get the idea. And it’s ‘Dan’s same old idea and the usual gambit.
And on that basis of fantasy and fevered stringing-together, ‘Dan’ can then happily riff on from there.
Smart enough to correct someone's grammar, but not intelligent enough to keep from mocking God. Your brilliant ignorance is so impressive, at least to your groupie, catholic clones.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 935PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will – as JR recently has – clutch the pearls and with back of hand to forehead wonder why he would even bother to “answer”. He simply cawn’t think why he takes the time.
Most mature folk know why they do things and they don’t expend their energies and time on things if they can’t come up with a good reason for doing so. But we’re dealing with ‘Dan’ here (as we recently dealt with JR) so we’re already beyond the left-field flagpole.
He claims that in those court-ordered psychiatric evaluations he “averaged less than 3 minutes per hold”. Thus then that each time the psychiatric facility ‘held’ him for less than 3 minutes. Court-ordered evaluations are not usually stipulated for so short a time; “ten days observation” or some such period of time is usual; a court ordering ‘three minutes of observation’ is rather well beyond the credible. (And who, again, is the “terrible liar” here?)
Taken out of context, "I averaged less than three minutes per hold, speaking to a psychiatrist." My next sentence says. "a psyche saw me within 10 hours", and the next one said, "One hospital kept me for 5 days". Now how could I be talking about 3 minute holds. Are you really that stupid or do you just try to be? You are definitely the big liar of this forum, so quit trying to make a liar out of others.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 935PM:
As for his denial of my characterization of his “rather extensive and unhappy misadventures with psychiatric examination”: he’s had six of these court-ordered stays, by his own report. And was it the same court that simply kept sending him back time after time? To the same institution? Despite the fact that – if ‘Dan’s assertion here be believed – the institution kept releasing him?
Readers may judge this entire story here as they may. ‘Dan’ was quite plausibly “there”, but whether he is a reliable narrator and reporter is another question altogether, as is demonstrated by his foregoing bits of ‘explanation’.
And his proffer here isn’t helped by the further attempt to wish-away his misadventures as being due merely to “lies” by Catholics. Are all these people (“hundreds”, he once said) simply picking him out of a phone book and lying about him? How did he come into their range of concerns? What did he do to raise such concern?
These are all the questions raised by his material. It’s a poor liar whose attempt at a story actually raises far more questions than it answers and further undermines the liar’s own credibility.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 929PM:
Here he tries to bolster the foregoing bit by making reference to “low-grade derangement” and that the staff “didn’t see much chance for improvement”.
Does he try to get us to infer here that his (alleged) quick releases indicate that he is altogether well?
In what way does his claimed quick release (from the six court-ordered episodes) demonstrate that the staff did not judge it worthwhile to waste resources and time on him because they deemed him altogether well?
Simply because they “didn’t see much chance for improvement” doesn’t indicate that he is altogether well. A fixed and deep-seated and chronic delusion or web of delusive beliefs about himself (or Himself) merely indicates that the prognosis for recovery is poor and it wouldn’t be worth the resources keeping him (when there are acute psychiatric cases that might benefit and present a more hopeful prospect for the institution’s limited resources).
And this isn’t the first time we’ve dealt with this bit of ‘Dan’s here.
Readers may consider it all as they will, taking into consideration all of ‘Dan’s material as it is now in the record here.
More of peewee's insistent lies, "the staff 'didn't see much chance for improvement'," That was your lie and quote, not the staff's. And again we witness a plethora of added ignorance, slander, nonsense and let's not forget stupidity. Well done, Mocker.
There was only four times, where the lying creeps of yours, and 1 other cult, falsely accused me and made citizens arrests or accusations, and I was sent to 6 hospitals, twice because the first hospital was full and had no beds. My 5150 holds were from 1 to 5 days long, and as I stated, the 5 day was longer because of a holiday weekend. After 1 to 3 days, they would finally have you speak to a doctor, and this led to my releases. Quit trying to make me out to be the terrible liar you are. Awful strange how liars believe everyone else is a liar, but themselves, and their little groupie clones. servant of the Truth, wasting time with a blatant liar
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1218AM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to run another variant of the old I’m Not/You Are bit, specifically that it is ‘Dan’ who cannot get his questions answered here.
And what questions might those be?
Well, the usual questions that (slyly and manipulatively) cannot be answered unless one first grants their presumptions.
So my answer is – as it always has been – that I don’t grant his presumptions in the first place and thus consider his questions meaningless as having any credible relation to actuality.
Nor are his questions rendered any more cogent by the usual Scriptural patina.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1218PM:
He then tries to claim that those ‘questions’ are “just a few examples, proving …” and so on. Which gambit would merely take us further down ‘Dan’s deep and fixed rabbit hole.
And then tries to conclude that “all this proves” and so forth.
Readers may consider for themselves just who here doth “play … silly, ignorant childish games”.
But it does become even more clear here why psychiatric staffs – while accepting the court’s authority to send ‘Dan’ for observation – didn’t really want to get mixed up with him: a review of his (or His) material in the record here indicates that rationality and any attempt to boundary (let alone loosen) his delusions with even the merest semblance of actuality and veracity and accuracy are not going to be of any help at all.
And you're still under the impression that your ignorance and nonsensical excuses, and lies, show some semblance of actuality and veracity and accuracy. Keep deceiving others, while being yourself terribly deceived. And now being informed for the umpteenth time that all accusations were from lies, mostly from your cult, maybe all you idiots can shut-up. No, I don't think that's possible, because you all seem to absolutely love the lies, liars. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1032AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try another I’m Not/You Are gambit, asserting that I “really don’t know the One True God at all”. ‘Dan’, of course, equates that “One True God” with the apparitions or voices emanating from his bathroom mirror, directing him (or Him) to amass the pile of Scriptural 3x5s and to go out to at least one schoolyard (and wherever else ‘Dan’ did whatever he did to occasion the five or six court-ordered stays for observation).
And I would say that it is very clear that ‘Dan’s “God” doesn’t “question just about everything” since that “God” hasn’t directed ‘Dan’ to question himself (or Himself).
And the whole bit is topped off with another God’ll-getcha bit.
peewee, I have never seen "apparitions" or heard "voices", so I guess we'll just add that to your stack of lies. Did you ever question, that your cult followers have the majority of visions, being your Queen of Heaven, Ever Virgin, Sinless Mary. Did you ever realize that the Almighty God sends you weirdos visions of the Idol you creeps just happen to worship. So looking forward to you standing before Him, to expose all your foolish ignorance and lies. Keep bowing down to Satan and his cohorts, you mocking, dumb creep. servant
On then to JR’s of the 7th at 403AM:
Any reader who can suss out the sense of this JR comment is welcome to share it here.
I'm directing this to all the unbelievers in this forum, but especially to publyin', malcolm and jimmy. I understand that your being catholic, negates the fact that you're Christians, and I'm willing to accept that you have no clue to Biblical truths. Though I believe this to be a waste of my time, I'm going to give you all a quick little Bible lesson, and I'll even teach from your catholic bible, NAB. 1 Corinthians 14
"1) Pursue love, but strive eagerly for the spiritual gifts, above all that you may prophesy. 5) Now I should like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. 24) But if everyone is prophesying, and an unbeliever or uninstructed person [this would mean you 3 dweeb twits] should come in, he will be convinced by everyone and judged by everyone, 25) and the secrets of his heart will be disclosed, and so he will fall down and worship God, declaring, "God is really in your midst." So are all you geniuses going to deny your catholic bible and tell me I'm wrong to prophesy, to whomever God sends me. God sends a True Christian to school children, to deliver to them a beautiful message of His love, and you creeps want to make something disgusting of it. But at the same time you have no trouble making excuses, enabling and lying for nasty, old pedophile and perverted priests, who molest little boys and minors. Boy, your catholic cult is sure a gathering of a bunch of lying, sick, and disgusting perverts, and I think it's become an epidemic. They ought to quarantine the whole bunch of you.
I guess God just doesn’t understand Dan. He sends him to harass children but neglected to tell him the correct way to instruct these poor helpless children that led to his being arrested. That would be six times if I can quote him accurately. I mean, six times? Really? How nice and neat it is for Dan to blame God for sending him to do His dirty work and get himself arrested for just doing what He instructed him to do. I guess God forgot to instruct Dan on how to deliver that love filled message to those hopeless little children. Unless, of course, Dan’s entire story is embellished and none of what he says actually happened. At least not the way Dan describes it. It’s one thing to scream in the face of adults but quite another when you do it to children who are minding their own business. But that’s not how Dan sees it. He was just donning a messenger outfit with a pretty little bow tie and a hands full of cotton candy with beautiful prophecy emanating from his lips that could not possibly concern the adults in charge of protecting these lost children. I'm guessing the police report doesn't match Dan's testimony. But according to Dan, the Police officers were in on the conspracy to bring him down and in turn, bring God down with him. TAH DAH!
Jimmy, You been sippin' on some of publiars Kool-Aid? Or has your brainwashing, lying cult raised another idiot, to slander and falsely accuse anyone innocent who stands up against all you creeps, idolators, pedophiles, perverts and especially liars, the cult's elite. I'll leave you with Matthew 5, the beatitudes, to describe what the wicked will do to the Lord's 'chosen' children.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matt. 5:10-12
You creeps might think you can bring me down, but none of you lyin' punks can harm one iota of God's plan. He won against all of Satan's demons when Christ went to the cross, the Lord's victory procession. "TAH-DAH!" "But thanks be to god, who always leads us as captives in Christ's triumphal procession and uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of Him everywhere." 2 Cor 2:14 Contrary to you hypocrite creeps, the stench from your lyin' garbage, brings a disgusting odor to all mankind, let alone to God, your Creator. It will be a pleasure to deal with another of publyin's groupie clones. "TAH-DAH!!" I'll be waiting for your mocking, Mini-pee.
And I never blamed God for sending me and he wasn't the cause for my being arrested, it was the lying creeps of your cult, similar to the way you and the publiar slander me. Hypocrite liars.
Dan claims to be falsely accused but all of the assessments made come from his own material. We get Dan’s own testimony as to the events that led to his being held on 5150 4 or 6 times. He claims he was just spreading God’s truth to children at a school playground and I’m guessing his message wasn’t well received. We see what happens when Dan is challenged. No doubt the same tactics were used at the playground and after being asked to move along and leave the children alone Dan just couldn’t help himself and became less than loving. 5150’s are not for gentle, nice and loving people. There is truth to what Dan posts here but the truth he sees and the truth that is reality are not synonymous.
The Apostle's Creed, as any real Catholic would know, is the litany of the cardinal beliefs of Catholicism. The "must be held" beliefs required to be a Catholic. The words credible and credence and creed all stem from the same Latin word, credo, which means I believe.
JR, on the 8th, surprised me that he has done research about a relevant word… i.e. "credible". Wonder does he have help?. Anyway, in the language of the Church authorities… "credible" means that the allegation merits further investigation. As opposed, for example, when the allegant has never been anywhere near the accused person. That would result in rejection of claim on the basis of "not credible". But SNAP'S David Clohessy has been examining Church documents for thirty years and would know the meaning of this particular word. Yet he told his media buddies that the priest had been found guilty?…. …. a deliberate falsehood.. …and he knew it. His real intention was to stoke the fires of the witch-hunt.
Malcolm, You just have to love you catholics. You think you can change and twist the meaning of the Bible and now you think you can even change the definitions of words. Is there not anything you're willing to do to fool your brainwashed sheep, or are you just one of the many lying deceivers of your cult. Welcome back, we've missed you. servant
I’ll deal with this batch of ‘Dan’-stuff in the order that the comments appear on the site when scrolling down the list.
Thus to the 8th at 226AM:
As usual, ‘Dan’s primary effort is now to toss up a chaff of myah-myah bits, consisting of epitheticals and convenient and self-serving distractions.
Thus his opening question qualifies as one of the latter: Why would he want to draw attention to himself, bleats he. Seriously? He’s got nothing if he can’t draw attention to himself (or Himself).
The problem he’s having here is that attention is being given to precisely those aspects of himself that he has developed his fixed delusional system in order to evade and avoid.
As for what his (parish, presumably) church did have or didn’t have: at this point, what of all his stated stuff can be considered credible at all?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 201AM:
Here the myah-myah epithetical is to the effect that while I am “smart enough to correct [‘Dan’s] grammar” yet I am “not intelligent enough to keep from mocking God”.
So there it is.
‘Dan’s fixed delusional contraption has apparently kept him from noticing that I never mock God; I only mock – if you wish – ‘Dan’. And as far as I am concerned, there is a stupendous amount of vacant space between God’s material and ‘Dan’s material and – for that matter – between God and ‘Dan’.
"There's a stupendous amount of vacant space between" your ears. That's why your capable of filling it with lies and slander, ignorance and stupidity. Mocker of God and all that is good. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1229AM:
Suddenly he-who-detests-persnickety is eager to get into specifics. How nice, although I doubt he can afford to maintain such a devotion to detail for very long.
Here’s the thing: suppose your dear great-aunt Flossie is suspected of having cancer and an exploratory operation is planned; on the morning of the operation the surgeon opens her up and within – say – three minutes closes her up and concludes the operation.
Would you more prudently imagine: a) Flossie is so very purely clear of cancer that the surgeon could make that determination within three minutes or b) Flossie’s cancer is so metastasized that her cancer is inoperable and there’s nothing for it but to close her up … ?
And we thank you for another of your ignorant analogies. Your stupidity becomes you! Book for you to read: Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free
The Three Great Premises of Idiot America: 1) Mr. Know-It-All can research this one. Amazon.com 2) Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough, [or repeats the lies enough times]. 3) Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it. – Apparently many of your groupie clones believe your lies. Being members of your cult and it's brainwashing, is probably a pretty good testimony to their gullibility. Have you been checked for brain cancer, or is it just cancer of the mouth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1229AM:
Thus ‘Dan’s bits now asserting (to the extent any of his assertions can be considered credible at all in the first place) that he only spent a couple-three minutes with this or that clinician in this or that court-ordered psychiatric stay.
When you are (and by your own design) committed to defending a skein of cartoons, then before long you are going to wind up looking like a “big liar” and someone “really stupid”. It goes with the territory when you are trying to pass cartoons off as actuality.
‘Dan’, however, had so invested himself in constructing his skein that he forgot to wonder if – when all was said and done – he would wind up looking like that. And now it’s happened.
And you should know all about it, being you're such a stupid liar.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1217AM:
As usual, the ‘Dan’-defense: it’s all “lies” and “lies” and more “lies” (clutch pearls with one hand; other hand raised to forehead with palm facing outward).
Either the staff “didn’t see much chance for improvement” or else the staff decided that ‘Dan’ was as sound as a dollar (as they used to say). But then they would have made that report to the court and then would the court not have refused to send ‘Dan’ along to the shrinks for the other five times?
Bottom line, I would say: ‘Dan’ – through words and/or actions – has consistently attracted the concerns of citizens, police and courts on multiple occasions; the psychiatric folks entered into the record that he is not at all well but also that there wasn’t a good prognosis; and yet as ‘Dan’ keeps doing whatever it is that he does in actual life the court keeps sending him for psychiatric evaluation, for lack of any better option.
Readers may consider it all as they will.
Liieeeesss and Liiieeesssss and Mooorrrreee Liiieeeeeeeeessss. Now do you understand, LLLLLyyyiiinnn' Douchebag.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 153AM:
Here the old I’m Not/You Are gambit, as he tries to somehow work “some semblance of actuality and veracity and accuracy” for his own convenience and purposes. Good luck with that.
Nor by being merely told by ‘Dan’ that “all accusations were from lies” are we actually ‘informed’ that such was the case. We only have ‘Dan’s claims and story and assertions – as manipulative and incoherent as they are – and that’s not going to pass for actual and true ‘information’.
‘Dan’ – much to his irritation – provides more actual and true material when he isn’t trying to do so than when he is trying to do so.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1131PM:
We are ‘informed’ that ‘Dan’ hath “never seen ‘apparitions’” nor hath he “heard voices’”.
So he (or He) expects that such possibilities are now definitively off the table.
He does have a rather magical concept of the process of inquiry: he waveth his magic ‘Dan’-wand and all the inconvenient stuff must disappear forthwith … but then ‘Dan’ is in the cartoon business, is he not?
How often do you get these "apparitions" of Satan, little peewee.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1121PM:
Trying now to get things back on to his preferred track, ‘Dan’ will now put on his Wig of Declamation and declaim, “directing” this pronouncement “to all the unbelievers in this forum” … but especially to those who don’t fall for his stuff.
And then a passel of the usual epithetical bits, topped off with the now-familiar it’s-a-waste-of-time bit: the divine diva doth know it’s a waste of time but will once more give it a try. Such a trouper! Such dedication and selfless devotion! I’m verklempt, as the Yiddish brothers and sisters might say.
And what will ‘Dan’ try to do? Why – by amazing coincidence – ‘Dan’ will deliver “a quick little Bible lesson”. (Note: Readers must bring their own popcorn for this performance.)
You sure do favor throwing in your german crap, you lying, mocking, Nazi creep.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1121PM:
In 1Cor14:1-25 Paul is trying to convince the Corinthians that it is not ‘speaking in tongues’ (of which they had become enamored – much as some fundamentalists groups have much more recently) that serves the Holy Spirit.
Instead, Paul would prefer “prophecy”, which he contrasts as not being the mere babbling of ‘tongues’ but rather is a clear and coherent conceptual presentation of the Good News.
Well and good, as far as it goes.
Which is not far enough to save ‘Dan’s fixed delusional skein of cartoonery.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1121PM:
Because the ‘unstated middle’ in all of this here – as in all of ‘Dan’s highly selective and skewed readings of Scripture – is that ‘Dan’ therefore is a genuine Pauline example of Christians prophesying.
But that is a presumption that cannot stand on its own at all.
First and most obviously, one can rather legitimately opine that the approach underlying “you 3 dweeb twits” is not an approach Paul would ever have condoned (although the term ‘you dweeb twit’ is quite likely a term ‘Dan’ has often encountered in his life).
Second, we cannot logically assert that since i) Paul prefers “prophecy” to “speaking in tongues” then ii) anybody who comes along claiming to ‘prophesy’ is therefore the genuine article. Because to do so would be to paint this picture: Paul will accept the ravings of anybody who claims to be a ‘prophet’ as being valid and validly-inspired and genuine Christian prophecy.
Paul wasn't having to deal with "you 3 dweeb [lyin'] twits", either.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1121PM:
And therefore – to repeat a point I have made on this site more than once – it was precisely for this reason that the Church too was cautious about people who read the Bible and suddenly discovered that they themselves were nothing less than true-blue ‘prophets’ and that their words should be heeded as true-blue prophecy and (often) that they themselves should be accorded the respect and authority that accrues to all Biblical Prophets.
With the arrival of the printing press in the 16th century things got far more dicey than ever before, and – hardly surprisingly – the Church and Christians have been dealing with precisely that problem. As are we here even now.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1121PM:
In vv.3-6 Paul puts forward arguments to establish the difference between ‘speaking in tongues’ and genuine ‘prophecy’.
In verse 4 – and profoundly relevant to the matter at hand here – Paul says “Whoever speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but whoever prophesies builds up the church”.
Surely ‘Dan’ is in no way ‘building up the church’ with his cartoons, since ‘Dan’ has pretty much obviated the need for any church or community of believers by creating himself (or Himself) a religion or cult of one.
And since in all of his stuff ‘Dan’ is ‘building himself up’ (styling himself (or Himself) as “Chosen” and so forth) then it would seem clear that for all practical purposes ‘Dan’s stuff actually would qualify here as ‘speaking in tongues’ rather than ‘prophesying’.
The Biblical meaning of church, is not a building at all. It is the gathering of believers or the assemblance of His 'chosen', with Christ as head. It could never be the gathering of cowards, the greedy, idolators, sexually immoral or liars. So, NO! I will never be "building up [your] church". And if I qualify here as 'speaking in tongues', then you would also qualify as "speaking in forked and lying tongues." servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1121PM:
‘Dan’ builds-up nothing (except himself). He has constructed a self-serving skein of cartoons – posing as Scripturally warranted – in order to vent his own destructive, frothing excitements in order to get back at a world whose inhabitants consistently find him rather deeply disturbing.
Hence ‘Dan’ will deploy Scripture in order to vest himself with the mantle and authority of the Bible and of God’s authority, and thus simultaneously a) place himself (or Himself) beyond the judgment of those inhabitants and b) give himself (or Himself) a platform and authority to get-back-at those inhabitants and everything they have built and upon which they rely.
If that isn’t diabolic, then nothing is diabolic.
Regarding your last 4 posts – I have absolutely no problem with God deciding who His true prophets are, and who the lying creeps are, in this forum. And I'm so "diabolic", oinks and hisses Satan's offspring. Crawl back under your Devil's Postpile.
Hey dummy, I'm going to once again deploy Scripture to prove how wrong you can be. Peewee oinks and hisses, " 'Dan'….[wants] to get back at a world whose inhabitants consistently find him rather deeply disturbing." Well is that a fact, Mr. Know-It-All.
Scripture – "If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me first. If you were of the world, it would love you as its own." John 15:18-19
"You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved." Matthew 10:22 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and killed, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name." Matthew 24:9
"The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know Him." 1 John 3:1 You idolators were too busy bowing down and worshipping your false gods and goddess, Mary. Never really knew Jesus, so you won't deserve His grace or forgiveness.
So your making the claim that the "world[s]… inhabitants consistently find [me] deeply disturbing", because I speak the truth, is the very proof that I'm one of the 'chosen' of God. The only way they can justify their hatred, is through blatant lies, slander and false accusations, thinking that these slurs will show proof of my derangement. Evil, slimy, wicked liars, who think they're clever, slandering the innocent, in order to make their phony, apostate cult and it's crooked catechism appear to be teaching the truth. Mocking, lying, hypocrite creeps. Destination - Lake of Fire and the stench of burning sulfur. Their will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Justice served at last. servant of a Just God
Don't forget to send out the grammar police, and have publyin' pig correct 'their' [sic]. He's so smart, for a lyin' hypocrite! servant
SMOKE SCREENS SHUT UP. RELIGION IS A LIE.
Whew! Just sayin'.
Religion being a lie, doesn't make God, Jesus Christ or the Bible lies. Whew! Just saying.
Per Dan on March 5, 2017 at 9:35 pm and March 8, 2017 at 12:17 am
He stated he was on a 5150 hold 6 times or 4 times depending on which story he prefers.
A 5150 hold is “Detention of Mentally Disordered Persons for Evaluation and Treatment”. The reason someone would be detained under a 5150 is: When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled…. This is per California Law.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=WIC§ionNum=5150
Obviously, there were concerned individuals who witnessed Dan’s proclamations and deemed him to be a tad off kilter.
Six hospitals, four 5150 holds. All based on lies, just like yours, Slimy Jimmy. And how mentally disordered and gravely disabled are blatant liars, deceivers and manipulators of truth? You all have probably deceived yourselves into thinking your sane. Your a bunch of lying creeps. Welcome to your catholic club. servant