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)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 255AM:
As to what his signs say, we are apparently to be shocked, shocked, that ‘Dan’ merely accused them of being “Catholic Church, liars, hypocrites, pedophiles, parasites” (ragey scream-caps omitted) and yet they went and got all upset at him.
But but but but but: we may rest assured that if the Catholics hadn’t “threatened and cursed” ‘Dan’, then ‘Dan’ would “doubtfully … ever have made one sign”. Leaving aside the doubtfulness of that “doubtfully”, it has to be asked: which came first, the threats and curses or the signs. Why did they – if ‘Dan’s story is to be followed here – threaten and curse him in the first place?
And if any such treats and curses were the sole cause of ‘Dan’s ranting, then how unbalanced was he to begin with? Because a few threats and curses certainly don’t seem a rationally sufficient cause for the depth and scope of his vitriolic rants.
I was threatened and cursed at several apostate catholic churches, and I had every right to make the signs, seeing that every word on those signs is absolutely the truth. I'm not the insistent, disingenuous hypocrite that you are, and refuse to lie. After this happened at several churches, I added one saying violent pagan thugs, which would possibly apply to you, if we ever met in person, but for right now your just an internet, lying coward, that thinks you can add to your disgusting lies and play the bully, without suffering consequences. Still patiently waiting for your Judgment Day. servant of the Almighty
Just noticed I misspelled CASTOLIC CHURCH, but anyway you spell it, it's still the cult of liars, hypocrites, pedophiles, parasites and idol-worshipping creeps. So enjoyable to communicate with the bunch of you. servant
Five of those several and not few "threats and curses" came from an armed catholic police officer (better known as a pig), in uniform, three times, once in his private vehicle, and once while exiting the church on Sunday. So I'm not sure how much guts you have, seeing your cowardice lies on this forum, but I doubt you'd have the guts to go protest with any sign. Not to sure if you're aware of this, but there is something called freedom of speech in our country, and I had more than a right to protest after the chicken punk thugs of your cult threatened me the way they did. I'll be waiting for your version of the circumstances, because we all know you know better, because you weren't there, but swami knows everything.
The threats and curses came first, as I had stated. Also told you why they threatened and cursed me. You'll have to pay more attention, or are you still suffering from a lack of reading comprehension.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 255AM:
But all this incoherent spinning is basically designed merely to further the self-serving ‘preferred narrative’ that ‘Dan’ is not only the heroic and truthy Chosen but also the ‘innocent victim’ in all of this.
And apparently, not getting what he wanted from the adults, he then went after their children at school.
And then he now says that he “never protested at any catholic schools” … so what then was the bit at the school-yard? (We are, I suppose, to accept that what ‘Dan’ was doing at the school wasn’t ‘protesting’ but simply ‘delivering’ that “beautiful prophecy” … ).
‘Dan’ – it would appear – is the well-known village-idiot in his locale, although one whom “hundreds” consider somehow to be more than irritating and something more along the lines of dangerous.
And it is clear to see just how a nice tight delusional system doesn’t preclude a notably sly mendacity in describing events.
Fuck what Dan was doing at the school yard!
The question is what are you doing here? Why are you, P, so hostile to people trying to tell you their truth? Who appointed you to hate people and judge people here? Aren't you God's Servant too? aren't I? You need to respect your fellow man. disagree if you must but your total lack of respect for those opposed to your fantasy is truely anti-Christian.
Reading your March 14, 2017 @ 3:01 pm upset me yesterday, so I went back today to see why it had bothered me so. In almost total disbelief of what you wrote, I decided to respond again, yet I'm not sure why I even bother. I have never met such liars, as I have from talking to the hierarchy and parishioners of your church, but I must say that you take the cake. I've never realized how "dangerous" lies can be, but to deal with the consistent barage of lies and insinuations, that others and I have had to field in this forum, this has become beyond ridiculous.
You claim myself to be dangerous? When have I ever threatened you? I realize, as a lying coward, the Lord's Word seems to be quite the threat to you. Problem is that your conscience is condemning you, yet instead, you seem to think it's cool to add to your despicable sins with not only lies, but mockery. For some reason, though I've yet to understand why, it seems like you think you're tougher than your Creator, or that the evil power behind you is strong enough to back up your cowardice.
Any catholic, who is possibly reading the posts on this forum, and thinks that this is the type of fellow parishioner you'd like to be sitting next to or have for a neighbor, well I wish you much luck. A blatant liar, as we are witnessing here, will not only lie with a straight face, but turn around and stab you in the back, when he thinks he can get away with it. If this is an example of a good catholic, then the systemic brainwashing you catholics have suffered, is far worse than anyone could ever imagine.
I would like all to know that I had never used the descriptive words that I've had to resort to on this forum, to describe anyone in the past, but I've never run across such an example of pure wickedness, either. Even at the catholic churches, who have unjustly cursed and threatened me, I never came back with the words that I've had to use towards this publyin', or even the threats from God, towards this lying creep. These are some of those words – slimy creep, perverter of truth, fork-tongued snake, dweeb twit – not very nice but terribly appropriate. The quotes from the Bible, I claim no responsibility for, for this is God's Word, and they also were befitting towards the evil, demon possessed person that I happened to be responding to. As a servant of the Lord, I refuse to say anything that would be against truth, and will be waiting for a response that will be plastered with more lies, slander and insinuations. servant of a just, honest and loving God
I explain simply and in detail, and you call it "incoherent spinning". And how is what I speak "self-serving", if opening someone's eyes, may help them seek salvation. Asking others to read the word, and come out into the light of truth, is self-serving to you? Never considered myself heroic, but you're right that I am of the truly "Chosen", and right again to my being an "innocent victim" of every lie charged against me. Thanks for getting half of it right. You were doing so well, and then you throw in a ridiculously, blatant lie, that after fielding a slew of lies from the adults, I "went after their children at school". How sad to think you must insistently lie in order to achieve your goals and deceptive agenda. So I would suppose that if I'm the "village-idiot", then you would definitely qualify for being the nations-liar. Hope that pleases you. I do believe you'd be proud to wear that badge. Nazis usually like medals and decorations. Wouldn't surprise me if you have a swastika on your forehead, or 666. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 341AM:
And now – oh dear – whatever is ‘Dan’ going to do about his revealing use of ragey scream-caps?
Easy-peasy: ‘Dan’ only deploys ragey scream-caps so “that the blind might see”. And I can surely say that his usage helps people to “see” alright; to see just what we’re dealing with here.
And from there and on that basis of sand, ‘Dan’ can launch into a typical riff.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 319AM:
Here – oh dear – whatever is ‘Dan’ going to do to evade the point made with the Star Trek illustration?
Easy-peasy: I am “immature” because I “to [sic] often revert to fantasies, cartoons, and very immature, childish, science fiction”.
Easy but not very effective. The point of the illustration remains and nothing ‘Dan’ has proffered yields any reason to doubt the accuracy of that point.
Ditto my illustration from Alice in Wonderland, which is commonly considered to be a very adult work cast in the form of a fairy-tale. Surely the exchange between Alice and Humpty-Dumpty deals with a very significant and substantive point familiar to many adults and relevant to the adult world.
And somehow I am also a “lying Kraut”. Go figure. But any plop is better than none for ‘Dan’.
Sorry little peewee, I'm not much into fairy-tales, too busy living in reality and actuality. Wish I could say I know about your little cartoons, fairy-tales and fantasies, but I somewhat grew out of them when I was a young child. Much prefer Biblical stories, that teach me true lessons and how to cope with ignorant liars, knowing God will have my back, and set all things straight come Judgment Day. servant of a true, just and honest God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1205AM:
‘Dan’ – for once – labels some ‘false accusations’ he is going to make. How refreshing.
But there is a method to the madness here: he’s setting things up to manipulate readers into imagining that they – like ‘Dan’ – would not “respond with kindness and forgiveness” if they were bethump’t with “lies and insinuations”.
What “lies”? What “insinuations”? ‘Dan’s material itself reveals the probabilities. And probabilities properly explicated are not quite the same as “insinuations” … but as I have said, the actual meaning of words means little to Abuseniks and other manipulative types.
As to whether he was “falsely incarcerated” or just plain “incarcerated” remains to be seen and nothing he has proffered here supports the “falsely” bit at all. Indeed, just the opposite.
And there is nothing in any of my material that supports the (self-serving cartoon) characterization to the effect that I am attempting to “whitewash all” the “sins” of such offending priests as there may have been. My point has always been that we need to look at every allegation closely so as to ensure that the Stampede’s grossly deranging effects are not permitted to wreak their purposes.
Let's "look at every allegation closely", so we can dispute the facts, claim there was no witnesses, as if pedophiles do their nasty to be seen, and when cornered send in the bishops and lawyers to deny, manipulate, deceive and lie, even when the perpetrator has admitted guilt. Maybe hopefully, by the time anything is exposed, the Statute of Limitations will be up or possibly the criminal priest will be dead. If these solutions are not possible, then we'll blame the victims, claiming they're insane, deranged, unhinged, manipulating liars. All for the good of Mother church. We'll say 10 Heil Mary's, and all will be forgiven.
And then JR weighs in on the 14th at 1239AM:
First he doth declaim that he has “never claimed all priests nor Catholics are perpetrators” (are there a couple-three he exempts?) and then that I “paint all victims as liars”.
As to the second bit: I have only said – many times here – that in light of the dynamics operative in the Stampede, every allegation has to be looked at with a readers’-version of “strict scrutiny” – which is precisely what the Stampede has always sought to preclude.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1239AM:
But this bit gives JR a pretext for rehearsing yet again some of his own ‘preferred narrative’ 3x5s:
He was “questioned by the church, it’s [sic] lawyer, psychiatrists, police and his ‘own’ [oddly in quotation marks] lawyer and her former FBI investigator”.
We’ve been over all of this before several times:
Once JR joined the huge 500-plus plaintiff lawsuit a decade or so ago, the Stampede legal mechanics strategized by the torties would have kicked in: given the number of allegants, the Insurers would have insisted that a settlement be reached to avoid the expense of conducting a trial of each allegation / at that point ‘questioning’ by Church and Insurer counsel would have been merely for the purpose of getting basic information and not in any sense a sustained adversarial interrogation of the allegation(s) and claim(s) / the settlement would have been drawn up in counsel-conference, and the only role of the court would have been in approving the final settlement that was agreed-upon.
Under no circumstances could those allegations be now claimed to have been thoroughly and adversarially examined and found by legal process to have been veracious.
Readers if there are any, This asshole, P, invents an argument I have never made, that he might destroy what I've never said or held true."I only discount 2 or 3 priests of all priests"( or is it all priest abusers?) of being abusers? I say, according to numb nuts that 97% of Catholic clerics are abusers?. Now that's fucking amazing! because i didn't know I thought that stupid anti-Catholic way.
(As an aside. I must be doing something right by posting here because mucho smoke is continually being blown here and they do it to cover, as always, the church.)
Dan who won't convert anyone calling the church names like cult and his Mary loathing etc. And damning you all in God speak and Biblical quotes i.e. sacred numbers i.e. 666. I mean what a fucking joke! Why is Dan here, to save our souls? Not the subject Dan.(Isn't he just a hair too convenient at this blog right along with P himself? P who invents political analysis on stampedes that are not there and on real victims of real sex abuse that are.)
I have never been committed for observation and I hand cuff myself to things as a political act of defiance. (Which of us could not be called crazy if some bad authority wanted us seen as such.?) Yet I've never been led to be observed (Not that I don't deserve to be just sayin' to nutty old me that aint happened yet)
This narrative on the church's version is so very low burlesque. The church scripted (had to) Das Bible thumper, (May your God bless you Dan but bible thumper you are) vs. P and the Dignified Church. and you the readership, have the Protestant Reformation and argument re enacted before your very eyes by P and mini Catholic Co vs. Dan.The Bible Man.
The Church again, beats back the Dragon like "Reformation" to the world of wrong and the church comes out "right" thanks to P's long narratives and the always taught Catholic church "views" of Protestant truths. Who asked him?
For what reasons do Dan and P's interchanges exist here. For a saving of the church, by P and his conservatives? By "saving" innocent Catholics from Hell by Dan? Who cares?
Dan appears here, late in the game,and quickly winds up the whipping boy for P Princess to rail against (in her most dignified Catholic yet at the same time amazingly un Christian manner) when the debate winds up being talking about which faith is more blessed by their founder the "dignified" church rep'ed by P vs. the "shouting" in the street and "committed" for "observation" "lesser",Protestant. Dan. I'm left wondering: Who asked these two to debate faith?
Both these two are bringing you a rehash of " Oldie Arguements from the Reformation"
Child abuse is the subject here not the Reformation. Child abuse has nothing to do with what you believe in. Nothing to do with faith. Child abuse is a criminal and civil matter. Believe what you will but don't fuck your kids. again it has nothing to do with what the church has done or does to and or for it's still living very real victims.But that's what's being talked about here for 200 + comments!!
This is a fakegument by fake enemies to impress the stupid with a narrative that goes nowhere. And again it's an fakegument about faith rather than victims injuries and whether or not priests are perpetrators.. Supposedly that's the subject of this article on TMR.
(Why SNAP, a "survivors" lawyers" front ,according to you, fucked up so much legally that most of SNAP's leadership resigned. How would a lawyers front be so ill advised by their owners after 29 years? It makes no sense. )
So instead of men of good will settling our differences as best we can. Enemies are invented where no enemy need be.
P, like his church, sees and treats victims as enemies of the church and SNAP, purposely re Enforced in the Conservative Catholic mind that, by having us demonstrate in front of churches, rather than at Archdiocesan offices where the faith would never be the subject but the individuals and the system that allowed this abuse to continue over and over again, would.
Subject changed. outlook changed. Who wins?
The myth created is victimisation coming from mad men outside the church against "the faith" but somehow never caused by mad men inside the church. Mad men who refuse to be held responsible for what they did and do.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1239AM:
Further, it is utterly unsupportable to claim that “my perpetrator had every chance to defend himself”: decades later, with an allegation that had no witnesses, in a public and even legal atmosphere where the allegant is presumptively a ‘victim’ whose claim has to be presumed veracious, and with the Church informed by its Insurers that no defense would be acceptable because no money would be expended on trials … no individual accused could have mounted a defense in such circumstances.
As for the “written letter of apology” – again – we have no way of knowing just what the letter indicated: it could have been a standard form letter required as part of the settlement (the classic apology-to-the-victim requirement) or – less probably – a outright formal and complete and specific admission of the veracity of the allegation(s) … which would have been an impossibility, actually, since the allegations were never tested and proven at trial and not even the Church could have pronounced definitively on that score.
But there were witnesses to my case P.
Me, the Perpetrator and 2 other boys at the time.
(Now assbreath will say something discounting of those facts. FACTS. That's what he's here to do. That's all he's here to do.)
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1239AM:
And then, in an effort to bolster his foregoing bits, JR actually goes for this gambit: the 800 sets of remains found at Tuan were caused by the Church.
The Tuan facility was a large home for unwed pregnant mothers, run in a place and time with little medical capacity available and less government funding. That over the course of years a number of the women and/or infants died cannot be surprising.
But to suggest – well, what does JR suggest here? That the Church tortured and killed them? This is precisely the type of stuff JR traffics in.
That's Tuam not Tuan. You stupid drunk. You can't even respect where children were let die by the church they were sent to for saving. If the Nuns couldn't save these children because the state wasn't giving them enough money why didn't they beg for it publically and ask for help in saving those children? Why no funeral masses for those children?
When you see the church as never doing wrong even when it does do wrong? You're a lying fascist.
On then to JR’s of the 14th at 317AM:
I “chose not to believe [his] answers” because they were not plausible: first it was ‘rape’, then it was a hand stuck down his pants, then it was not just once but several times over a period of weeks … in addition to all the other problems with his material over the years here.
I would say that his answers insisted that they not be believed because they themselves demonstrated their unreliability.
I had “decided” nothing “long before” JR posted them here. The answers themselves convinced me.
And thus he tries to bring the performance home by bleating ‘Dan’s “lie” bit. Readers may judge as they will.
LOL! My experiences of what happened to me have never changed ever. You don't even get my story straight. Are you retarded? Only the mentally damaged could insult me with millions of words yet still get my claims wrong every time he writes about them. If you aren't damaged why you must be getting my facts wrong on purpose? Why would you do that? If you are really for truth and justice why only at my details do you stumble and yet at the same time mock? What's all that in aid of?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 221AM:
All ‘Dan’ dares to note about the Alice-Humpty exchange is some self-serving word-play on Humpty’s fall. But Carroll’s point is very relevant to the Stampede/Abusenik looseness with meanings of words. And for ‘Dan’s looseness with the meanings of words as well.
Please refer to March 16 @ 5:18pm
Thus to JR’s of the 14th at 322AM:
Here JR will try his hand at evading the Alice-Humpty illustration.
The word-play about “master truth into lies” a) makes no sense as written and b) slyly and manipulatively seeks to presume what has yet to be demonstrated, i.e. that JR doth “tell the truth”. Actually, JR’s material would indicate somewhat the opposite.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 109AM:
Here ‘Dan’ demonstrates one of his presumptive little game-bits: since he quotes Scripture accurately, then the point he is trying to put over with his pericope must also be accurate and veracious.
And also that since he applies a pericope to such of his rants as he chooses, then his rants are accurately and veraciously applied.
And lastly, he presumes that since he has said it, then God also says it.
That’s what a nice tight delusional system will do for you.
And then ‘Dan’ huffs and puffs and he cawn’t think why what is so clear to him seems otherwise to so many others. And that’s also what a nice tight delusional system will do for you.
I actually enjoyed your assessment for the 1st 3 sentences. Right on the money. This shows you are capable of knowing and stating the truth. Well done.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 141AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will again try to whomp up a story supporting his claim that he didn’t talk ‘Dan’-trash to the school-children.
But a) we haven’t at all established that ‘Dan’s “adult liars” characterization is accurate and b) it hardly seems plausible that the ranting rage we see in ‘Dan’ can be turned on and off like a faucet.
And the more I think about it, the more I wonder if even the “moon was full” actually is relevant: I think ‘Dan’ is always in full-moon mode regardless of the actual phase of that celestial entity.
And again with the you-weren’t-there bit, and readers may judge as they will.
Would be nice if we could turn your lying off like a faucet.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 156AM:
Here ‘Dan’ again tries to wave it all away with his magic ‘Dan’-wand: It’s all “ignorance and nonsense”.
The school-children, he now rather pathetically declaims, would be too smart to check out a “genuine looney-toon on the hoof”.
Well, they would be too smart to stay around once they realized it. By his own report, half of them didn’t even bother with him and of the other half, only a dozen or so (the conveniently apostolic dozen) stayed around.
Perhaps those were the future psychiatrists. Or perhaps they enjoyed the show.
And it ends – as usual – with epithets and a threat.
Possibly the ones who weren't interested in hearing the beautiful message from the Lord, will turn out to be the future liars of the church, like you and Jimmy, preferring the false teachings of your cult, over God's truth. servant of the Lord's Truth
Could someone explain to me how Dan became the issue here? Who cares what he thinks or does? He has nothing to do with sex abuse and your church. He criticises child abuse and he doesn't like Catholicism. And? So? You like Catholicism and pretend that abuse wasn't rampant in your church and that the majority of us victims are lying. All you are is wrong.
Explain the 800 bodies found in Tuam, Ireland, if love is Christ's and your message to the world. 800 dead children buried sans funeral masses says what about you and yours and your ability to express this "light of Christian Catholic love " ?
I think it is now clear that what we now get from the Abusenik or ‘Dan’-verse peanut gallery here is a) simply a juvenile myah-myah effort at a ‘comeback’ for this or that specific comment, but therefore not a response that reflects a coherent position. Their minds are satisfied if they can just put up a comeback.
And b) they are deeply and even inevitably – although unwittingly – involved in the dynamics of clinical projection: what they most surely don’t want readers thinking about them is precisely what they claim to clearly see in others.
Thus if one were to take the usual epitheticals and – purely as a mental exercise – apply them to those who claim to so clearly see them in others … one can get achieve a rather clear impression of just what it is that we are dealing with here.
So strange that you think you can criticise others of only looking for a 'comeback', when all you seem to 'comeback' with are lies, slander and manipulations of the truth. You call us liars, manipulators, deranged, unhinged and whacked. You claim we're falling back on "clinical projection". Even your false claims as to us "involved in the dynamics of clinical projection", would be defined as clinical projection. When's the last time you visited your shrink. The possibilities and probabilities of your being a whackjob are exponentially high. How's that for 'Dan's assessment? You shall know the truth, and it shall set you free, even from a disturbed, twisted mind. Not sure if habitual liars can change? servant
As per Dan on March 14, 2017 at 1:56 am
Dan has a problem with, what he considers to be guessing, how his story has been assessed. If we take his word for it and assess his own material it’s easy to come to the conclusion that Dan is someone to be concerned with. Four 5150’s are nothing to just wave away as though they are just lies from the hundreds of witnesses to Dan’s performance. No, Dan was sent for evaluation because hundreds of people deemed him to be a danger to himself or others due to his being mentally disordered. Just from reading his posts can lead one down that path and confronting Dan in person is not something I would be eager to pursue. Dan further revealing that the school in question is a Catholic school adds more credence to a belief that Dan was unhinged during his delivery because we see how Dan feels about Catholics. Judging from his post on March 13, 2017 at 2:55 am one can see what Dan’s agenda entails.
He seeks out Catholic Church’s on Sundays to insight a reaction form the parishioners. When he gets the reaction he came to seek he then dials it up a notch and continues to poke at the “violent”, “potty mouthed” followers, priests and nuns with signs that are not as creative as he thinks they are. Once again, give Dan time and more of the truth will be revealed although that truth is more justification to the conclusions made based on his own material. Dan reveals a little more when he claims to never protest at schools with a caveat, when children are present. Dan does protest at schools, and Catholic Schools in particular. Dan seems to believe that as long as he is on a public sidewalk then all of his concerning behavior doesn’t exist. Four 5150’s and an overnight stay in jail are the result of his conduct. I didn’t make this up, this is all from Dan himself and since this is the truth as to how things have transpired I have respectively understood Dan clearly.
Jimmy, what slimy hole did you crawl from. Did the church realize the failure of publiar's false accusations and decided upon stereo harassment, or bookend liars? Let's send in a Mini-peewee. Would love to go down, line by line, and expose the individual lies, slander and false accusations in your stuff, but quite frankly I'm terribly tired of responding to both of you lying deceivers. I'll make this very easy for both you and myself, and you can refer to my response to publiar, on March 15, 2017 @ 5:51pm, substitute Jimmy in place of publyin', and just about all of it will apply to you.
I would like to make perfectly clear, something I have posted previously, that I bear no animosity towards decent catholic people and surely have no desire to harm innocent catholic children in any way, verbally or physically. I do not care for the false teachings of your cult, and can't stand hypocrites, greedy that claim to love the poor, pedophiles and perverts, and their excusers and defenders, who turn out to be the liars that attempt to destroy anything of truth, demeaning, disingenuous, deceptive creeps. Got that? servant
On the 14th at 1229AM we get another demonstration of ‘Dan’s devious duplicity: he merely doesn’t like ‘my’ lies and other than that … why, he’s just the very soul of niceness and rationality.
Sly but hardly credible. Since ‘Dan’ considers anything that doesn’t conform to his cartoons to be “lies”, then he’s going to be ‘not-liking’ a whole lot of stuff from a whole lot of people, as is evidenced then by all of his imprecations on this site against a sizable chunk of the people he has ever encountered.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 506AM:
Here he tries to evade the which-came-first question by simply rehearsing his 3x5s about his ‘victimizations’, therefrom deriving and platforming a) his “every right to make the signs” … which again evades the question at hand.
And b) that “every word on those signs is absolutely the truth” and we are back down the rabbit-hole of the ‘Dan’-verse and that’s where a nice tight delusional system will take you.
But wait! There’s more!
‘Dan’ – doncha see? – is “not the insistent, disingenuous hypocrite” that I am and – the pearls here tightly clutched – doth indeed “refuse to lie”. Readers may consider as they will.
And all this “happened” … “at several churches”. What was he doing at any churches, given that he isn’t into organized religion? But on this basis – as it were – he can now try to justify yet another sign, this time about “violent pagan thugs”.
And if you don’t buy their stuff, and instead question and examine it, then you are an “internet … bully” too. Ever the victim, never the perp … that’s what these types are styling themselves as.
And the ‘victim’ ends – as so very often – with a threat, on God’s behalf, of course.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 905PM:
Now, in another effort at mimicking actuality and factuality, ‘Dan’ claims that in “five” of the instances, he was also subjected to “threats and curses” by “an armed catholic police officer” (do uniformed police officers come in an un-armed version?) … and – in a helpfully revelatory aside – ‘Dan’ reminds us that he is of the mentality that would call a police officer “a pig”. So many criminals would agree with him.
And then – trying preemptively to bolster the weakness of his bit with snark – ‘Dan’ alludes to “freedom of speech”. And yet there are laws against harassment and libel and slander and creating a public nuisance and disorderly conduct … so obviously the fact that there exists freedom-of-speech doesn’t quite cover the topic at all.
And we still find that in the chicken-and-egg question of why was ‘Dan’ ever threatened in the first place, there is no reply.
I would say: a certifiable, low-grade looney-toon who deliberately created some form of public nuisance on a number of occasions, which merely fed his already-established fixed delusional system.
This is a self-sustaining feedback loop and will give ‘Dan’ something to do from now until his own recall Fax spits out of the speshull machine next to the bathroom mirror.
My calling him a pig is not because he's a cop, but because he's a corrupt, lying pig, just like yourself, Porky. I refuse to answer to the rest of your repetitive ignorance, nonsense and stupidity, today. servant
P.S. You must be clairvoyant, Swami, the Lord had a Fax to spit at you, before your post ever came up. Just happened to mention about unjust, corrupt, lying pigs. And fake people and "The Lord knows everything and can see right through you.", fits you, too.
On then to JR’s of the 15th at 1107AM:
Here JR tries yet again to change the subject. He opens with a brawny scatological bit, always an indication that he’s trying to make some room for a bit that won’t have the strength to make its own way.
He cawn’t think why ‘Dan’ is the subject here (and perhaps doesn’t see anything off-key about what ‘Dan’ was doing “at the school-yard”).
And – rather – JR will try here to change the focus to me, insinuating – as is his way – whatever it is that he would like to insinuate.
Neatly, while donning the Wig of Innocent And Truthy Victimhood, JR again slyly inserts the ever-fungible and ever-handy Victimist bit (i.e. “their truth”) about there being not only i) an actual and factual and objective “truth” but also ii) a perceived and imagined and personal and subjective “truth”. (JR’s game requires that we operate in the universe of the second type of “truth” and evade and avoid the first.)
As might now be clear to the readership, the second universe of “truth” is also capacious enough to provide room for the ‘Dan’-verse, which is why ‘Dan’ can carry on as he (or He) does.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 15th at 1107AM:
And all that leads into yet another sly insertion: that in questioning and assessing, I am indulging in “hate”.
Nope. JR and ‘Dan’ put their stuff up on a public site and I – as a member of the public – just examine it and follow the material where it leads.
JR doesn’t like what examination reveals about his stuff, ‘Dan’ doesn’t like what examination reveals about his stuff … if they don’t like the heat they can stay out of the kitchen or cook up better vittles.
But that’s not how they want things to go. The game was supposed to be: they tossed up their stuff and everyone would swoon in empathetic and credulous agreement.
"Examination"? You call lying about my very real abuse an "examination"? You are one sick mother fucker. You don't need to swoon or even believe me about my abuse but what's your excuse for disrespecting me with absolute zero proof that I lied about any of it?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 15th at 1107AM:
And all of it leads up to JR once again declaiming and instructing about Christian propriety: I am bound to “respect” … but respect what? the material that has been tossed up here?
But the Victim-y pose has a comeback to that: it tries to conflate the plop-tosser and the plop, such that the plop must be respected because the plop-tosser is “God’s Servant”. Which is pretty much the basis for ‘Dan’s whole delusional system as well.
Two frogs croaking from the same swampy pond.
On then to ‘Dan’s extended bit of the 15th at 551PM:
A different Wig this time, now the Wig of Honest And Innocent And Hurt Exasperation: we’ll see how long this Wig can stay perched on his head once he gets going.
He was so “upset” reading mine of the 14th at 301PM and – as so often – he just couldn’t think why. But now he has ‘thought’ and here’s what he’s got (though in “total disbelief” he’ll give response another try, though – pearls clutched and back of hand to forehead – he simply cawn’t see why he even tries).
But first – just to make sure he might manipulate readers’ response – he preemptively rehearses just what huge “liars” he has to deal with my “beyond ridiculous” material and so on.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 551PM:
Thus, finally, we get down to cases in the second paragraph:
First, I do not “claim” he is “dangerous”; I infer that from all the material we have, and that inference (with all its accompanying explication) will stand until ‘Dan’ might demonstrate its insufficiency or inaccuracy.
And then he simply tries to evade himself by claiming that it is “the Lord’s Word” that “seem to be quite a threat” to me. Not at all. God’s Word doesn’t constitute a threat for me; ‘Dan’s material – which is not at all the same thing – constitutes something of an affront to rationality and credibility and I deal here with that.
The fact that ‘Dan’s fixed delusional system absolutely requires that we accept his ravings as being “God’s Word” is ‘Dan’s problem, and I am not bound to accept it. Indeed, I am bound to refute it since it is all put up in a public forum.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 551PM:
Thus the paragraph continues along the lines of ‘Dan’s now-familiar delusions: he will work from the angle that I am actually opposing God, and ‘Dan’ will thus defend God. That’s what a nice tight fixed delusional system will do for you.
On then to the third paragraph: nothing but epithet for an opening – and for a middle – and for an end.
Although the “stab in the back” bit is curious: apparently ‘Dan’ was quite taken aback when at some point some congregation that he had been attending decided he was seriously off-balance.
And apparently on that basis, ‘Dan’ created the ‘Dan’-verse.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 551PM:
On then to the fourth paragraph:
Here he will try again to run the gambit that it’s only because of the “pure wickedness” that he’s encountered here (i.e. that his material is questioned and examined) that he’s “had to resort to” such florid vitriol. (Otherwise, of course, he’s just the very soul of sweetness and light.)
But – he failed to realize – this is precisely the excuse he’s used to try to whitewash his ‘demonstrating’: he was “stabbed in the back” and if it hadn’t been for all the “lies” then he would be the very soul of sweetness and light. He’s never the perp – doncha see? – only the ‘victim’, responding to intolerable thumps. And since those who “lie” about him are so intolerable, then he’s quite justified in indulging in florid vitriolic rants. Because he’s only a victim of “lies”.
And, but of course, since he’s God’s own mouthpiece then if ‘Dan’ is bethumped, then God is bethumped, and ‘Dan’ must and will defend God with heroic and truthy florid and vitriolic rants against anyone who doubt’s ‘Dan’s sanity because if you doubt ‘Dan’ then you mock God.
An example of as tight and neat a self-sustaining fixed delusional system as any textbook could provide.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 551PM:
And as an ancillary but also necessary element of the delusion, ‘Dan’ must and does insist that his use of Scripture is not only accurately quoted but also – the biggie – accurately applied (how could it not be, since God is secretly informing ‘Dan’?).
Thus the Chosen Servant will mush on, grinding out his rants in his heroic and truthy (and floridly vitriolic) way.
And the whole bit trails off in ‘Dan’s lovingly sculpted encomium to himself.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1146PM:
In yet another demonstration of what a nice, tight, fixed delusional system will get you, ‘Dan’ here again bleats in self-commiseration that although he doth “explain simply and in detail”, yet I call it “incoherent spinning” and he cawn’t think why.
We have been over all of this before, even on this thread, and matters have now reached the basal point where the fixed delusional system is merely spinning around and around, circling the drain at its very foundation.
And the whole bit trails off as usual.
And JR again gives it another try on the 15th at 1100AM:
He cawn’t see how ‘Dan’ “became the issue here”.
Since they participate in the same sort of dynamics and are basically in the same trade, then that’s not so surprising.
Ever-shifting stories, increasingly skewed proffers suddenly tossed-up to cover demonstrated incoherences, vastly un-unsupported global claims and assertions and presumptions … these to JR are not red-flags. Indeed not; they are his and ‘Dan’s basic stock in trade.
The trouble for them is that their stuff is being assessed here. That was never supposed to happen.
I have proffered a quite rational explanation for the presence of a cemetery in a long-run facility for poor and unwed mothers and their infants. Has JR proffered any alternative explanation? No, nothing beyond an insinuation.
It was “the light of Christian Catholic love” that created the hospice in the first place.
Your "Ever-shifting stories" paragraph, sounds an awful lot like your 'clinical projection' problem is back, or should I say never left.
In San Francisco, Ca., 30 years ago I did a little tour of Mission Dolores. The backyard was full of infants, buried at young ages. Thinking these may be the children of the nuns, disposed of so no one knew they were normal and having sex, possibly with priests or bishops, so I had to ask? Why were all these children buried at such young ages? The nun in charge told me these infants were part of the Irish Potato Famine. Why weren't they buried in Ireland? She had no answer. servant of Truth
"[c]hristian [c]atholic] love" – what a book-ended oxymoron that is.
catholic cult = anti-Christian + unloving
As per Jim on March 15, 2017 at 11:00 am
Jim wants to know how Dan became the issue here. Jim can read over his posts and see why Dan is an issue if he so chooses and that should clear up his dilemma. If Jim does not see a problem with Dan’s story and further has an issue with how Dan’s story is dealt with, that’s an issue for Jim to deal with. He further wants to know who cares what he thinks or does. Dan seem to care otherwise he would not go out of his way to post what he does. As far as caring what Dan thinks, the reports from his four 5150’s should shed light on that question. As far as Dan criticizing child abuse and Catholicism is concerned, Dan has his own agenda and it has nothing to do with child abuse. Dan’s hatred for all things Catholic are what causes Dan to slide of the rails and if he can somehow squeeze himself on the abuse train, all the better for Dan. That’s Dan’s prerogative but there are consequences to his actions and four 5150’s and a night in jail are the result.
Jim tries to simplify the issue by making it an either-or proposition. Either you hate Catholicism and therefore hate child abuse or you like Catholicism and are not concerned with child abuse. The issue is not weather one is concerned with child abuse but rather if the problem was as rampant as Jim would presume one to believe. Based on Jim’s own account of his alleged abuse, the details changed. We find out that Jim wasn’t raped. Could it be that rape would garner a bigger payday and make it much easier for the Attorneys to get the biggest settlement possible? Jim got his million based on that slippery misdirection and we are to just excuse Jim for that little mistake in definition. That little misdirection makes his entire story non-credible. If Jim’s story is not credible and he received a million for it, how many stories are out there amongst those class action lawsuits that are not up to snuff as well. No one dismisses the scandal but the rampant label may not be so. The few stories presented in the comments here certainly raise cautions towards that distinction.
"Dan's hatred for all things [c]atholic are what causes Dan to slide off the rails", Jimmy mini-pee falsely accuses. Is your claim that I "slide off the rails", based on the fact that I haven't purchased a ticket on the catholic hypocrite express, barreling it's way, non-stop towards the Lake of Fire? I posted a response March 16 @ 4:54pm, before your post ever came up, that answers to this accusation. I have both catholic family and friends, that I get along with very well. My best friend of 47 years, is a judge in Sacramento, Ca., who has offered me free legal help, even the former Distict Attorney of our county, and I've refused. I've had no problem in standing up to the slew of catholic liars on my own. I was just terribly unaware of how many there were out there, kind of simular to the fact that we are totally unaware of how many pedophiles, perverts and hypocrites are out there, stalking our children. I will not allow liars, excusers and deceivers, make false claims that few are accurate or veracious. servant
Jimmy your declaration as to what I do and or who I support is nonsense.
Real Catholics really want to protect their real children from real sex abusers and those who enabled those abusers to do it over and over again, to and around, their Catholic children. I'm therefore with the majority of Catholics around that issue.
Matters of faith are your business.
Literally.
As this false fight continues, check your wallets folks that's what this fight's all about.
It's to distract you from helping the people, your own Catholic children, who were harmed. And to keep giving money to the criminals who both raped and enabled the victimisation of those children. That's the truth of all this.
Jim, How many years have you been jousting with these lying fools? You've yet to figure out, that they could care less about their own catholic children, who were harmed? Since you've been posting comments has anything changed? Has there been any progress in payoffs? Shame you have no God or His Word to lean on, because you'd be able to figure out that everything is going according to His plan, even the exposing of wickedness in all it's forms, systemic in all the false churches of this world. I believe Babylon Rome will be destroyed, before you'll see any honest change or future financial compensation for victims. They have learned and played their deceiving games for so long, it's the one thing they're good at. Now they can turn around and sue for defamation, flat out deny charges, and claim no witnesses. They refuse to believe, "The Lord knows everything and can see right through you." I think they will stand before Him and think they can lie their way out of Hell. Apostate Cult. I wouldn't even want any of their filthy, dirty money. Best to you, Jim.
Glad you wouldn't want their dirty money, Dan. (Were they asking you to take some?)
Money and religion tsk tsk! Not to be mentioned?
Well you see Dan it's not the church's money. It's the people who gave them the money's money. The parents, My parents, relatives and friends co faith members who paid our insurers money in case something like child abuse happened. And it happened, most certainly, to me.And money's almost the only compensation that's possible to give to victims. Money or services like nursing home care or health care. But all that's happening here is imagining that you're terrible, which you may be, I don't know. And somehow using your prejudices or truths if you will, as an excuse for them and their behaviour to seem rational. Comparative to the mad man they make you out to be, Dan. Only benefits them because the issue of child abuse is off the thread. And the issue of prejudiced insane anti-Papist becomes the thought du jour. And their sins are promptly forgotten only to be mentioned by the leper at the gate. That's you Dan. They gave you spots, pejoratives. they invented you as enemy because you are their enemy and so what? You have real issues with Catholic beliefs and P would much rather argue religion with you. How do I know this? Because that's all he does when he's not busy insulting both of us.
Todays prophecy for the Lord's Chosen, or Fax From Beyond, for sarcastic, mocking liars:
Do we really mean it when we say the word love? Or is it to impress the world, so we can always look good, at all times. Do we care about the homeless, or do we just want to show the world that we care? Do the doctors in this world really want to heal us or kill us, or just make their money on drugs and get rich? Do the police take a righteous person's side, or will they standup for the ones who are doing the false convicting? Don't you think the Lord is fair and wants to do the right thing, with these fake people? You haven't realized yet? The Lord knows everything and can see right through you. Thanks be to God
Catholics – from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops – USCCB> Bible
"Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. So do not associate with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light, for light produces every kind of goodness and righteousness and truth. Try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them, for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light." Ephesians chapter 5
Catholics – Are you willing to allow deceivers to fool you with empty arguments and lies. Notice the sins of those who will not inherit God's kingdom. We are here to expose the works of darkness, "for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret". Their pedophilia and perversions were done in secret, and in darkness. When the light was shone in on their crimes against innocent children, they settled cases and everyone had to promise secrecy, both victim and perpetrator, so these horrible sexual crimes, could remain in the darkness, kept secret. The light has come into the world, and is exposing the things of darkness. Your choice is to come out into the light, or remain deceived, lied to and in darkness. Don't let hypocrites fool you. Liars only care about deceiving, as they are deceived.
I suggest all catholics should closely read 2 Peter chapter 2, False Teachers and Their Destruction, describing in detail your catholic hierarchy and it's destructive heresies. Our loving God, speaks very often in the Bible, of the characteristics of false cults, deceptive teachings and the deceivers and liars, interested in brainwashing their followers in order to keep them in the darkness. Don't let them convince you that I'm only here to trash catholicism. My work is to stand against any false teachings, the enemies of God, of Jesus Christ and basically anything of truth. Be ye not fooled by deception and deceivers.
Before publiar tries to twist and change what I'm saying, I'm against the false teachings and enemies of Christ and the enemies of basically anything truthful, which would include all the liars of your cult. Not against catholics, but against lying creeps, that happen to be catholic or of any other false religions.
I’ll go down the list of comments as they appear on the site.
Thus to JR’s of the 16th at 510PM:
JR had a problem: once again readers had to be distracted as his ‘preferred narrative’ about the veracity of his allegation and the elements that worked against it were once again put forward.
So what do we get?
First a pearl-clutching J’accuse that I have put into his mouth an argument or claim he never made … but then he neglects to say exactly what his real position would be. I’ll stick with my characterization until he can put up material that will convincingly require a change.
Then, “As an aside” – doncha see? – a commercial for his veracity: he must be “doing something right” because of all the “smoke that is continually being blown here”. Actually, it’s because he’s doing or saying so much incredible stuff that so much assessment is aimed in his direction. His claim about “smoke” is the only “smoke” here, designed to distract from the gross incoherences in his material and claims.
Per Dan on March 17, 2017 at 12:20 am
Dan has a problem with his own material. He seems to believe that I have falsely accused him of sliding off the rails with no proof of such a slide. He seems to think that I have based this slide on something I have never accused Dan of and that is that Dan is not a Catholic. Catholic or not, Dan has shown that he has issues and he has admitted that he has had issues and has strongly verified this on March 13, 2017 at 2:26 am. For those uninclined to click the link to find his own words here they are:
“I have clearly stated four 5150 holds, went to six different hospitals, because twice I was transferred to a second hospital. That's FOUR 5150 HOLDS, four 5150 holds, 4 of 5150 holds.
He can wave that away if he so chooses but it’s there for all to read.
I made that statement to help publyin' with his reading comprehension. You two are excellent liars and slanderers, but seem to have problems with small numbers under 10. Born and baptised catholic, and now definitely not catholic. Tried many other christian religions, and found them to be spin-offs of the catholic church, with the same cowardice, hypocrisies, greed, perversions and at times, similar cloned liars like you two creeps.
Regarding all of the Catholic family and friends is concerned, he directs me to his post on March 16, 2017 at 4:54 pm. Dan claims he has no animosity towards Catholics. Well, as long as they are decent Catholics, nor does he have a desire to harm innocent Catholic children. What he deems to be “decent” Catholic people he does not define and the insinuation is that, if you are not decent, all the animosity Dan can muster up will be headed your way. As far as verbally or physically harming “innocent” Catholic children is concerned, I am sure Dan’s intention was not to harm anyone but four 5150’s and a stay in jail would lead one to believe that there was a cause for concern that Dan was going to harm somebody. Either himself or someone else. His performance had people concerned enough to call the authorities who then deemed it wise to apprehend Dan. He can claim it was all based on lies but for it to happen on four separate occasions, it sounds more like Dan just can’t help himself.
Dan tells us he has a friend who is a judge and knows a former district attorney who has offered Dan free legal help and Dan has refused it. This begs the question, how serious are Dan’s issues for a judge and a former district attorney to offer free council to Dan? Why would Dan refuse their help? This does not sound like a rational mind at play here.
Dan informs us that he has no problem standing up to the slew of Catholic liars on his own. We know how that story ends. Four times. Again, there was cause for concern on those four occasions to have Dan removed from the situation. He can spin it any way he so chooses. His inability to recognize his own issues that lead to these four situations further presents a picture that would lead one to believe that Dan’s accusations of lying Catholic creeps doesn’t hold water.
1) Decent catholics wouldn't be deceitful, blatantly, lying ones. 2) All lies against me were misdemeanors, and not holding water. This is why I was able to fight them with no problem, and didn't want justice based on who I knew. Unlike "lying catholic creeps", which does "hold water", you and publyin' being perfect examples and evidence. And you two think you are examples of "rational minds", surely not by any biblical definition. servant
Dan asks Jim on March 17, 2017 at 1:41 am how many years has Jim been jousting with these lying fools and would further like to know if anything has changed and has there been in payoffs. The tort Attorneys would be glad to know that Jim’s story is right here on this website and not sitting on a witness stand. I don’t know how well Jim’s message would be received by a jury after Jim being cross examined. We have seen how he responds to a challenge here even when he has plenty of time to think, type and hit the post button before responding. I wonder how well he would do under pressure. Dan then continues with his usual anti Catholic script followed by a revelatory bit towards his mental state. Dan has an issue with Priests who would have the Gaul to defend themselves from a claim of abuse. Dan just knows their guilty despite any lack of evidence but Dan flat out denies any of his own issues when there is plenty of evidence pointing otherwise.
You lying catholic creeps would fit well in our corrupt justice system. Judge, jury and hangman, catholic liars (some pigs), believed by catholic cops (one lying pig) and corrupt, one-sided judges, not seeking truth or justice, but only trusting in the lies of hypocrite priests, nuns, catholic deceivers and slanderers. Talk about a cartoon of ignorance. servant
Lol! Jimmy you're a laugh riot. You should be writing comedy or maybe you are.
You invent trial scenarios where I wouldn't do so well. Lol! Bravo!
But there's one funny little thing, when you are telling the truth. It's the truth.
How other people take that truth or judge that truth or play with that truth is next to nothing to me. Why? Because I know it's the truth because it happened to me.
Dan has a prophecy for us on March 16, 2017 at 6:30 pm. After reading through this prophecy it easy to conclude that this prophecy has not come from above but has come from Dan’s self-serving mind. There is a nice progression in the message. He starts by asking about love and caring and then goes into Dan’s personnel testimony in the form of questions. Should Dan take the medication the Doctors prescribed to him or are they out to make a quick buck on him? Take the medication. Are the Police capable of discerning the righteous or the unrighteous? That’s not their job. Their job is to bring order to an unorderly situation and apprehend those who appear to be a concern to others. Finally, Dan blames God for not stepping in and correcting Dan’s unfortunate situation but Dan finds solace in knowing the God is going to do right by Dan and come down on those who have read Dan correctly. Dan’s hope is that he will one day stand in hell to see all those suffer who have read him correctly. That’ll fix em!
Allow me to educate your disturbed, imaginary fantasy world of lies and insinuations, Jimmy, Mini-peewee. Absolutely, almost every accusation made against me was by catholic liars, just like yourself and publyin'. Is it necessary that insistent liars, must find some way to assume or accuse anyone who does not agree with their ignorant lies, think that others must be liars, similar to them. You'll be happy to know you've been wrong about my jail times and even more happy to know that I was sent to jail 6 times and not once. That should give you plenty more to falsely accuse me of. Why do you catholic liars not think the Bible has your lying asses pegged. Do you ever read it yourself, or just like the publiar, think you can twist it's meaning to fit your deceptive agendas. Why were the apostles and Jesus beaten and thrown in prison several times. You're not aware that the accusations were based totally on lies, insinuations and innuendo, just like yours. Jesus speaking in the beatitudes, before any trouble against His teachings occur, tells His true followers, after some deep and wonderful statements, the following. I'll give you the lines that pertain to you lying creeps, against any of the Lord's chosen, but maybe you ought to try to read the book for yourself. Matthew 5: 3-12 Beatitudes USCCB – (NAB) your catholic Bible
10 "Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you." note: I did not add [falsely], before you liars accuse me of that.
"Dan flat out denies any of his own issues when there is plenty of evidence pointing otherwise." Yours, publiar's, and your fellow catholic, lying, creeps lies, show NO evidence of anything except despicable, disingenuous hypocrisy, on all your behalfs.
Sorry that I won't be able to join you blatant liars in "hell", and though you may deserve it, I don't believe I can find enjoyment in seeing anyone suffer Hell's eternal fire. Only thing I can say is, I tried my best to warn all of you. Maybe you'll be able to find some solace in the fact that your persecutions and lies helped to catapult me towards my God and Savior, and gave further proof that I was one of "His Chosen". You can watch from hell, while pointing towards me in heaven, saying, "That'll fix em!" servant of the Just True God
You can wish and hope that the prophecy came from "Dan's self-serving mind", just like your mentor, publiar. If you're going to play, Pete and Repete, why don't you put my name in quotes, like your hero (actually zero), and put quotes around my name, i.e. 'Dan' (He, Himself, God and Jesus), all packed in one. When are you going to start mocking and blaspheming God, His Son and the Holy Spirit? Don't miss God's description of you two and the hierarchy of your cult; "Don't you think the Lord is fair and wants to do the right thing, with these fake people [liars]. You haven't realized yet? The Lord knows everything and can see right through you [creeps]." Now that's more like I would write it. You're fortunate that God is more forgiving of you "lying catholic creeps". Next time he sends a prophecy, I'll pray that He adds a little more fire and brimstone to His message, for you fools.
And by the way, Jimmy, Know-It-All, the 2nd, police officers are supposed to discern between the righteous and unrighteous. That's why they brought me in and not the "threatening and cursing" liars of your Klan. You should do a little research on the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, how they're "to protect the innocent against deception. the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence and disorder, and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice." (Ca. Code of Ethics 3-2) If I was a coward and a tattle-tale, like your violent catholic cult members, I could have called the police on them, for their first threatening me and getting in my face. Instead I turned the other cheek, and the lying creeps falsely accused me of things I didn't do. I questioned the D.A.'s office as to why they don't follow their own Code of Ethics, and was told by several detectives and investigators, after they laughed and shrugged it off, "Yeah, we don't really abide by that." That's some justice. They feel they don't need to follow their own Code of Ethics. Similar to how your cult thinks they don't really need to follow God's Word, when they've forged their own idol-worshipping, catholic catechism, book for liars. Nothing could say it better than the book, Catholicism for Dummies. Bet you guys read and abide by it. Lyin' creeps. servant
I'm going to clue you in on some of what happened to me, so you guys can move on to other ignorance and nonsense. The church that accused me of saying I want to kill them, sent me to one of my 5150 holds. Two weeks later, the police did a follow up visit to my accuser, and he admitted that, "Dan never said he wanted to kill me." I had already spent three days in the psyche ward, had to eat pig slop, the damage from the lie, already done. The DA's office didn't give me that information until 8 months later, and I have the statement of my accusers reversal, in writing from the follow-up visit. I have statements from court, where those who accused me of trespassing or screaming obscenities at children, had conflicting stories that differed from their original lies. Liars seem to somehow, sooner or later trip over their own tongues. If these lies hadn't insistently and repetitively happened to me, I would never had become so disappointed in the church. Add to that my original disgust with the pedophilia and child abuse and it's cover-ups, and you should understand my situation. Instead the two of you have added to the lies, slander, insinuations and innuendo, which I had already suffered from the church, the police who believed the false accusations of priests, nuns and liars, and a court system forced to believe all of the above. Injustice and hypocrisy at it's finest. servant
To this day, I have never threatened or physically harmed anyone. Have sought no revenge or damaged any properties, of those who falsely accused me. Am not a danger to myself or others. Take care of not only myself, but also my disabled friend. There was no legal basis to put me on any 5150 hold, aside from the fact that I defended myself, frustratedly explaining to the police officers that my accusers were lying. I even pointed out to the officers, that what they wrote as to my being a danger to myself and others was not true, and they told me it was just a formality. They believed lying priests and nuns and on a few occasions, a corrupt catholic cop and refused to listen to my side of the story. On one occasion they even told me, on a 5150 hold, I had no rights to give a statement and no phone calls whatsoever. Does this surprise any of you? My only wish is that you may someday walk in the shoes of the victims of your church, ones you refuse to believe, and have to suffer similar injustices. My heart goes out to the sexually abused children, who have had to suffer the undeserved humiliation and disgust, unjustly brought upon them by the church and it's hierarchy. No monetary amount would be sufficient to compensate for the damages done to them. Can't you at least show some true compassion and understanding?
Dan, would they have a site like this if they could do those things?
Why do they behave so callously?.Because they with no proof believe victims are lying .
Could they behave differently? Just aim a bit towards respect and impartiality in all this. It seems the either can not or will not.
Real people would be wavering back and forth between respect ,kindness,and doubt; and questions. And when asked, questions were answered and resolution should have been finally reached. (Even if resolution meant agreeing to disagree, some respect would have been shown to us ). But no. I've seen no evidence here of them being able to show any respect to anyone but themselves. Pretty weird and very very unnatural and excruciatingly un-Christian.
Well said, Jim. The only thing I can add, is your expecting common decency from a cult and it's followers that are not Christian. Thinking they're Christian in Word, but not in deed. Talking like they worship God and Jesus, when in reality worshipping the Queen of Heaven, their ever-virgin, ever-pure, full of mercy and grace, false goddess. Do not be fooled.
We know that a boxer's training involves working out on punchballs. Figuratively speaking, I reckon that some journalists work out on Catholic priests. It's not hard to imagine the surprise of a boxer…. if the puchball hit back? So these journalists are bewildered that they now have to go on the defensive. Which brings me to Fr. Kenneth Kaucheck. Now normally the journos fight in the 'Court of Public Opinon'. In this particular court they are masters of the message, and the narrative. Even the meaning of some words. They always use the words 'child' and 'victim', even when the accuser is actually a middle-aged criminal, doing time for robbing banks. But the journos have to front up to a real court this time. In which there is an impartial judge and jury. Again figuratively speaking… a referee to penalize those foul punches. My prediction is that Fr. Kaucheck will win on points. But from the opposing corner will be heard curses.. and mutterings of "we wuz robbed". The journos will be sore losers. Knowing that the resulting financial cost will anger their bosses.
Malcolm, where you been? The church is all for the media, when they're advertising for donations, when they can brag on themselves for feeding the poor (unbiblical by the way), or when Papa hypocrite comes to town, but cross them and tell the truth about their hypocrisies, and they'll work on destroying you. Simlilar to how the hypocrites on this forum attempt to do. I'd love to see the church abide by the same standards, send pedophiles and creeps "to a real court this time", where "there is an impartial judge and jury." Quit handling cases within house, but I'm not sure that they haven't already corrupted our justice system. Seems like cops and judges refuse to listen to both sides and judge with fairness. Heard of several cases where the DA's didn't want to pursue charges against the holy, pure, catholic cult. servant of Truth
Per Dan on March 18, 2017 at 9:45 am :
“Absolutely, almost every accusation against him was by catholic liars”. I’m not buying the liar label but there should be no surprise that the people lodging a complaint against Dan would be Catholic being that Dan brought his show to a Catholic church. Not one time, but several times. How many times at this Catholic church remains to be seen but Dan provides information that would lead me to believe that it may be as many as six times. Like I have said, give Dan time and more of the truth will come out, he can’t help himself. To point it out that Dan has now been arrested six times will further label one a liar. Dan has proclaimed four 5150 holds and six incarcerations and we are to believe that Dan is the truth teller as to why he was apprehended?
On March 18, 2017 at 1:02 pm Dan claims that he could have called the police on them, for their first threatening him and getting in his face. Instead he turned the other cheek, and the lying creeps falsely accused him of things he didn't do. Dan’s own material has got him in a pickle. He claims that he turned the other cheek but on March 13, 2017 at 2:55 am Dan shows that he is not one to turn the other cheek. No, Dan dials it up and goes right back at you if you don’t like what he has to say and how he says it. He will make signs and protest outside of your church to garner a reaction. When Dan gets the reaction he came to seek he will default to scripture and quote the beatitudes and in particular: 10 "Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
The problem with Dan and his emphasis on [falsely] being accused is that we have only Dan’s story to go on. Based on that story and Dan’s own legal record, it’s not difficult to come to the conclusion that Dan’s version of the events and their corresponding results of incarceration don’t add up to Dan being a poor victim.
On the 18th at 1055AM (as with the rest of them as well) we are treated to yet further examples of what a nice tight fixed delusional system will do for you.
Anyone who doesn’t buy ‘Dan’s stuff is “deceitful, blatantly, lying” (sic).
The charges were all “misdemeanors” – soooo, it’s good – doncha see? – that there were no felonies and what’s the big deal?
Also they were “not holding water”. But if they didn’t ‘hold water’ then on what basis did was he sent to court-ordered psychiatric observation those many times?
That was “why [he] was able to fight them with no problem”. He has a court record rather longer than “the common man”, and the psychiatric record to boot. So the only way “easily” enters into it here is that – thanks to his fixed delusional system (and its accompanying and necessary deceit) – he can wave it all away with his magic ‘Dan’-wand.
As to who is a “perfect example[s]” of what here, readers may consider and judge as they will.
Matthew 5: 10-12 Persecuted by deceitfully, blatant, lying, catholic, forked-tongued snakes.
Ditto the 18th at 1114AM, where once again ‘Dan’ simply waves it all away by blaming it on the usual suspects, i.e. everyone but ‘Dan’.
Talking about a cartoon of truth and “servant”.
Ditto to Matthew 5: 10-12 They will "falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me", for they are deceitful, blatant, lying, catholic forked-tongued snakes. Let's not forget mockers.
On then to the 18th at 945AM and here once again we simply get a rehashed compendium of all of ‘Dan’s excuses and self-serving, self-exculpating bits.
Thus too the 18th at 1142AM. Which ends, nicely, with epithets, a ‘prayer’ and a threat. Even in ‘prayer’, ‘Dan’ is trashy, violent and aggressive.
On the 18th at 102PM ‘Dan’ will slyly try to assert that police officers are “supposed to discern between the righteous and the unrighteous”. Not in the Western world they aren’t, no. Perhaps the Islamic Police of Virtue and Vice, which are sworn to uphold the theocratic law system of that culture and exercise the authority of the State as regards an individual’s soul as it is expressed in words and acts. But not here.
Here, the police are supposed to distinguish between the law-breakers and the non-lawbreakers. And the police – and the courts – seem to have been of one mind as to where ‘Dan’ fits on that spectrum.
Thus the police would only have violated the California Code of Ethics if we presume that ‘Dan’ was “innocent” and so on. And that would be a presumption that runs contrary to everything we have seen of ‘Dan’ here and – more importantly – against what the police and the courts and all those “hundreds” of people saw for themselves with ‘Dan’ right there on the hoof.
As to ‘Dan’s story about what detectives and investigators told him, it’s just another ‘Dan’ story and readers may consider and judge as they will.
Lies, liars and more lies. Even the catholic cop was a deceitful, blatant, lying, corrupt hypocrite. I was never, in any incident, accused of anything that was truth, so I wouldn't care if there were a million cases, if they all stemmed from lies from you catholic, disingenuous, nasty, evil creeps. It matters not how I answer to you phony liars, after being frustrated from all the obviously blatant lies and liars of your cult, priests, nuns, cops, layman and all you lying, insinuating douchebags in this forum. Believe whatever you want, because we will all have justice on Judgment Day, and you will rightfully pay for every lie and wicked slander ever spewed from your disgusting, deceitful mouth. Justice at last. Thanks be to God
And on the 19th at 1207AM ‘Dan’ continues with his rehash of his hash.
The Church doesn’t have the legal authority to send anyone to a 5150 hold. Only courts do.
As to ‘Dan’ story now about what his accuser later said, it’s just another ‘Dan’ story and readers may consider and judge as they will.
But there’s the method in the madness again: if it weren’t for what was done to him (i.e. “the lies”) why … then ‘Dan’ would just have remained the very soul of sweetness and light. He’s a victim, doncha see? (But a heroic and truthy one, authorized by God to do what he does – that’s what a nice, tight, fixed delusional system will get you.)
Oh, but and also as well … there’s ‘Dan’s original and abiding “disgust with pedophilia and child abuse” – so even without “the lies” ‘Dan’ was going to be in need of some object upon which to project … whatever it is inside that he needs to project outwards.
" 'Dan'…He's a victim, doncha see? But a heroic and truthy one, authorized by God."
Well said, maybe you're not the ignorant, disingenuous, lying jackass that I think you are.