Anti-Catholicism is real: Michigan AG Dana Nessel
Today, Detroit, Michigan, is the most violent large city in the United States. Missing children are strewn all over the state, with some being trafficked for sex.
Yet Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel continues to have a different priority: attacking the Church over decades-old cases against ex-priests who were laicized ages ago. As we have reported previously, Nessel is at least an honest hater. While most anti-Catholic bigots will not admit their bias, Nessel has proudly broadcast her hatred of the Church. Nessel has already:
- referred to the Catholic Church as a "criminal organization";
- cited Catholic adoption agencies and their supporters as "hate mongers"; and
- announced her bigotry to the public by stating, "If an investigator comes to your door and asks to speak with you, please ask to see their badge and not their rosary."
Now, despite already phonying up cases last year against a handful of long-gone ex-priests, Nessel has declared yet again to the media that she is continuing to pursue old cases against priests who have long left the priesthood. According to news reports, Nessel has more indictments to follow within the next six months.
Catholics need to understand: The year is not 1985. Here in 2020, investigations into the Catholic Church have nothing to do with "justice for children" or "holding leaders accountable" but everything to do with attacking the last institution in the world that stands for traditional values when it comes to sex and marriage.
If you haven't already, check out the new book: The Greatest Fraud Never Told: False Accusations, Phony Grand Jury Reports, and the Assault on the Catholic Church … available at Amazon.com.
The following quote from Attorney General Dana Nessel doesn’t sound right: “We have an investigation, we are ready to go to prosecution and then sometimes we’ll have a victim that will back out and decide that they don’t want to relive an experience from decades ago”, implying that because the victim chooses not to press charges, the alleged sex offender cannot be arrested and brought to trial.
It’s my understanding, as also confirmed at https://www.michiganprosecutor.org/victim-faq, that “ONLY the Prosecuting Attorney can issue or dismiss charges. This is important because it takes the responsibility for prosecuting the wrongdoer off the victim's shoulders and puts it on the Prosecuting Attorney's, where it legally belongs”. In other words, even without the alleged victim’s testimony, if the case is strong enough, the prosecutor has the power to “prosecute the wrongdoer”.
Perhaps (but I am not in the Law business, so I could be mistaken) some of the cases where the alleged victims decided to “back out” did not have such strong evidences as the AG tries to suggest. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, given the recent history.
It is true that in the final analysis it is always up to the preosecting attorney or the attorney general as to whether or not to move forward with a criminal case. It is not the "victims" choice. In many of these cases however the only real evidence of the crime is the testimony of the "victim". Without that testimony the prosecutor or AG is unable to proceed with a case. It is usually not the only piece of evidence but it is always the most primary piece of evidence. How can you prove a sexual assault occurred without someone coming forward and saying that they were sexually assaulted? Plus no prosecutor or AG that I have ever seen is willing to proceed with a case where the "victim" says they will feel traumatized by being required to testify about an event from decades ago and does not want to testify about it. The prosecutor or AG would then find themselves of being at a minimum "unsympathetic" to the plight of the victim.
Hi John,
thank you for the feedback. I would argue that since sexual predators usually target multiple victims during an extended time window, prosecutors could have multiple reports pointing at the same individual, with corroborating evidences provided by external witnesses. This, of course, in absence of actual physical proofs, such as residual DNA, videos or photos, etc, probably more easily obtainable in case of recent crimes.
“How can you prove a sexual assault occurred without someone coming forward and saying that they were sexually assaulted?” = this is not what I said, nor what the AG was saying. In fact, she says that the victims would back off after originally reporting the crime, and after the investigation had started.
I also agree that most AGs would think twice before requiring a victim to testify against his or her will, and rightly so, but at the same time, if this is the only way to bring a criminal to justice, you can bet you last penny that they would.
My point, however, is that the Michigan AG has proven in the past to be quite “trigger-happy” when it comes of accusing Catholics of crimes. Perhaps a more balanced approach is needed, and it would greatly benefit the cause of punishing past crimes and prevent future ones.