Thursday, July 19, 2012

Defense Lawyers Argue Judge Should Give Monsignor Minimum Sentence and Let Him Out on Bail Pending Appeal

Msgr. William J. Lynn poses "no danger to the public," his defense lawyers argue, so putting him away for a maximum prison term of seven years would amount to "cruel and unusual punishment." Lynn's defense lawyers are also asking that Lynn be freed from jail pending an appeal.

On Tuesday, Lynn will stand before Judge M. Teresa Sarmina, and be sentenced for his June 22 conviction on a third-degree felony of endangering the welfare of a child. He is facing a prison term of between 3 1/2 to 7 years. Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington has already said that the prosecution will seek the maximum sentence of seven years for Msgr. Lynn.

Lynn's defense team, however, argued in a sentencing memo filed Wednesday that Lynn has never touched a child, and that "no reported Pennsylvania case has ever dealt with a situation where an individual had been convicted of EWOC [endangering the welfare of a child] without ever knowing the child that he or she was accused of endangering."

"Msgr. Lynn has never harbored any intent to harm a child," Lynn's lawyers argued. "To the contrary, letters from friends, teachers, fellow priests, nuns and family members extol Msgr. Lynn's love and respect for children and their safety, offering in supporting innumerable examples of the care and protection he showed the children he has come across."

"What is more, the lengthy legal ordeal, which started for Msgr. Lynn in 2002, with the onset of the first grand jury, has raised his awareness of sexual abuse of children in the Catholic community and taught him to act with an overabundance of caution in his subsequent job as pastor of St. Joseph's parish in Downingtown," wrote defense lawyers Thomas A. Bergstrom, Jeffrey M. Lindy, and Alan J. Tauber.

"The teachers of St. Joseph's elementary school and the parish parents have written of the rigid Safe Environmental program that Msgr. Lynn has instituted at the parish," the defense lawyers wrote. "Many parents have insisted that they would entrust their children to Msgr. Lynn's supervision without hesitation. To say that Msgr. Lynn has not adopted and internalized the lessons of the grand jury and his subsequent trial would be absurd. The last ten years of his life were a time of reflection, penance and rehabilitation."

"Msgr. Lynn, now 61 years of age, has served as a priest for 36 years," the lawyers wrote. "He has never inappropriately touched a child. To the contrary he has led a life of selflessness, devoted to service to his fellow men."

Lynn was convicted of endangering a former 10-year-old altar boy, who was sexually abused by Father Edward V. Avery. Avery has already pleaded guilty to involuntary deviant sexual intercourse with a minor, conspiracy, and endangering the welfare of a child. He was sentenced to 2 1/2 to five years in prison, a sentence that Lynn's defense lawyers argue should not exceed Lynn's sentence.

Lynn's offense was allowing Father Avery to continue in ministry after he had been accused of sexually abusing another victim in the 1970s. After he received the report of the previous abuse from a former victim who came forward in 1992, Lynn confronted Avery, who denied it. Lynn sent Avery off for nine months of hospitalization and psychiatric evaluation, where he was diagnosed as an alcoholic, but not a pedophile.

"The treatment team indicted to Msgr. Lynn that Avery was fit for a return to ministry," the lawyers wrote. "As a result, Msgr. Lynn had no choice but to recommend Avery's return to ministry," the lawyers wrote, because Cardinal Bevilacqua had a policy that only priests "diagnosed with pedophilia and ephebophilia were permanently removed form ministry."

Msgr. Lynn helped put together an aftercare integration team, which included Father Graham, the pastor of St. Jerome's parish," the defense lawyers wrote. Avery was under the care of two therapists, and also attended weekly AA meetings.

"In sum," the lawyers wrote, "Msgr. Lynn did not suspect, and had many valid reasons not to suspect, that Avery was anything but rehabilitated. He certainly never foresaw the tragic events leading up to" the abuse of the 10-year-old altar boy.

Lynn recommended to Cardinal Bevilacqua that Avery be allowed to continue in ministry as a hospital chaplain, and reside at St. Jerome's Parish, where he sexually abused the 10-year-old altar boy.

"Incarcerating Msgr. Lynn, especially for a prolonged period of time, can do no good," the defense lawyers conclude. "Msgr. Lynn has already suffered eighteen excruciating months of public scrutiny, shaming and vilification. A sentence of time served, probation, work-release, or house-arrest, would ensure that Msgr. Lynn can still use his priestly gifts to improve the lives of those around him."

In support of their argument, the defense lawyers submitted statistics that showed of more than 3,000 people sentenced in Pennsylvania for EWOC between 2005 and 2010, the mean minimum sentence imposed was 20 months, and the mean maximum sentence imposed was 61 months. On Tuesday, Lynn faces a minimum sentence of 42 months, and a maximum sentence of 84 months.

In response, Barbara Dorris, a spokesman for SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said that Lynn had engaged in "unprecedented, shameful deceit, callousness and recklessness about children's safety."

"Once again, a high-ranking cleric is saying, "I'm different from and better than the rest of you,"
Dorris said. "Once again, a top church official wants special treatment, even though he [was] basically putting children -- hundreds of them -- in harms's way and helping perhaps dozens of predators stay hidden, employed and around kids."

Lynn's defense lawyers have also filed a separate motion seeking bail pending an expected appeal of Lynn's conviction, and what the defense says is an unusual likelihood that Lynn will be successful on appeal.

In their motion, Lynn's defense lawyers argue that the monsignor "was convicted of child endangerment based upon a novel theory of liability that held him criminally responsible for inadequately supervising a priest who was alleged to have sexually abused a child and who exposed others to a similar danger."

"Defendant Lynn has argued to this Court that the EWOC count [endangering the welfare of a child] should have been discharged because he is not a member of the class of persons covered by the statute," the defense lawyers wrote. "This argument will be one of Defendant Lynn's principal claims on appeal and there is a substantial possibility that the Pennsylvania appellate courts will agree and discharge this case."

Lynn's defense lawyers have argued that under the old EWOC statute, since amended, that Lynn did not fit the definition of a supervisor of child care under the law. It's a fascinating argument, as the past two Philadelphia district attorneys disagreed completely over the issue of whether the old EWOC law applied to Lynn.

"The high potential for appellate discharge is surely no less than a 50/50 proposition as exemplified by the prosecutor's own recent contradictory interpretations of the [EWOC] statute," the defense lawyers wrote. The lawyers point out that a 2005 grand jury report, issued under former District Attorney Lynne Abraham, decided that the "archdiocese hierarchy [was] beyond the scope of the EWOC statute. Then, a second grand jury in 2010, under a new district attorney, Seth Williams. "recommended that Defendant Lynn be charged under that self-same statute."

"While Defendant Lynn submits that the likelihood of appellate relief is far higher than that, even a fifty percent chance that he could serve a prison sentence where appellate discharge looms so high manifestly warrants release pending appeal," the defense lawyers wrote. In other words, Lynn could serve a minimum 3 1/2 year sentence before his appeal case is heard.

"The chance of unjust incarceration is simply too great not to grant bail," the defense lawyers argue. They maintain that Lynn, currently being held in jail without bail, poses no flight risk. The defense lawyers also ridicule the idea that the monsignor, if freed, might flee to Vatican City:

"Defendant Lynn poses no risk of flight," the defense lawyers wrote. "Lynn has surrendered his passport. His picture, name and story have been published for the past several months in the media across the country as well as abroad. He is without property or wealth. There has been some fanciful suggestions that Defendant Lynn could flee the country and seek refuge in the Vatican which has no extradition treaty with the United States."

Judge Sarmina previously asked the district attorney to research whether they could draw up a legal waiver of extradition for Lynn to sign, in the event that she let him out of jail under house arrest, and he fled to the Vatican. Lynn offered to sign such a waiver, but defense attorney Blessington said his research showed such a waiver would be worthless, even if signed by Lynn.

"Though technically possible, such an action is far-fetched," Lynn's defense lawyers wrote of the monsignor's possible escape to the Vatican. "Leaving aside the practical impediments to such a journey, and that such a move would be completely contrary to Defendant Lynn's proven character, legal interests and future ambition, there is absolutely no basis to believe that the Vatican would harbor an American fugitive," the defense lawyers wrote. "A search of all reported legal cases in the United States failed to turn up even once instance where the Vatican harbored an American fugitive. The suggestion of refuge in the Vatican cannot be given any serious credence."


52 comments:

  1. As time goes on this case gets even more sickening as more and more revelations come out! Reportedly, the jury said they agreed there was a conspiracy involved, but it just wasn't a conspiracy to endanger children. I don't understand! It may have been a conspiracy to protect the Roman Catholic Church from SCANDAL and the end result was endangering children, but the jury couldn't convict!!!!!! Was it because "endangering children" was not Monsignor Lynn's and Cardinal Bevilacqua's primary goal, that it doesn't count? I don't understand. Would someone please explain it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I explained it in detail in another post Jeannie. The elements of conspiracy that the jury was given included language that we had to believe Lynn along with Avery and at least one other person intended to facilitate the crime of Endangering the welfare of children.

      The judge explained that the endangerment had to be the goal of the conspiracy not the result of it.

      Delete
    2. I repect and admire how you served, Missmeem, and really apppreciate your contributions to this blog. To be able the read (hear) the comments of an actual juror is invaluable.

      In my opinion, the Jury's instructions were so confusing and rigid...well, I wasn't surprised at the length of deliberations. It also says something about the character of all of you - as a whole - that you didn't just throw your hands up and say, "Let's get outta here!" What a painful process.

      Please keep your insights coming. You are very much appreciated.

      Delete
    3. Sorry Missmeem: I hadn't seen your length reply. I am not faulting the jury, by any stretch of the imagination. I think that prosecutors in this trial have learned a lot about "framing" their charges, in language that the judge and jury can reasonably agree upon. I don't think this will be the last trial in the Philly Archdiocese! Hopefully, other convictions will take place! Thanks for serving! Jeannie

      Delete
  2. You know what, Ralph, I have so much respect for you.

    But:

    After all that's been said in comments here, I'm surprised you would still resort to a press release from SNAP to get the survivors' side of a story. That's what mainstream reporters do, in the charade that is today's news coverage. Instead of going to a nonprofit spokesperson, why not take the time to find individual victims who have something to say. Most of us never get a voice. No matter how much SNAP claims to "give voice to victims," you never hear from anyone except the two or three people from SNAP in the news.

    I'm just disappointed, Ralph, that you don't realize how much the corporate control of information, which you claim to be defying, is connected to nonprofits that claim to speak for a group of persons, the way SNAP claims to speak for pedophile priest survivors.

    Someone is approving those press statements before they get released. SNAP press statements are edited and cleaned for public consumption... by someone.

    I'm not saying call on me. I don't claim to speak for anyone.

    But, Ralph, it's just too easy and, I hate to say it, kinda lazy, to go to SNAP and copy and paste one of their press statements to get the survivors' side of a story. SNAP has been using the same adjectives for years over and over, and a lot of us do not feel SNAP speaks for us.

    I'm surprised you would not realize that, Ralph, since you are part of the non-corporate media world. SNAP is part of the problem, and they do not move the story forward with their statements. Most of the time their press releases are a collection of subjective adjectives that really don't say very much. SNAP rarely reflects the rage and frustration and sense of "justice interruptus" of the victims, especially those of us who have been systematically ejected from SNAP for being too vocal.

    Please do a little more footwork, Ralph, and find someone who is not getting their statements cleared and edited for safety in advance when you want to get the survivors' side of a story.

    Thanks
    -Kay Ebeling

    ( http://cityofangels12.blogspot.com )

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Callous and reckless" ad nauseum.

    Someone decided about two years ago SNAP should keep using those two adjectives. Look it up. They've used those two words about a thousand times since 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As a parishioner and school parent, I can say that the "rigid Safe Environmental program" WAS NOT instituted by Lynn, but by the Archdiocese. It was a mandate!
    If he comes back, I am out of the parish and school! And I know that I'm not the only one. Unfortunately, his main supporters are the bigwigs/money people of the parish & school and no one wants to speak up for fear of a backlash -- especially if it could be directed at our children.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thomasina, I agree with you about "Safe Environmnent." It was and is a mandate of the AOP. I'm a member of another church in Chester County, and a Volunteer, so I have to keep up to date on all my clearances and education.

    Msgr. Lynn will never be coming back to St. Joe's. The man, the priest, has lost everything. Do you understand what the loss of one's reputation and ability to continue in their chosen profession does to a person? He is serving his sentence now, has been serving it since he was on trial, and will serve it for the rest of his life.

    Maybe you should leave your Parish and your School for other reasons, but not for the reason that, Oh my God!, Monsignor Lynn might come back! Run for the hills!!! Let's be serious now, he's not a threat to you or your children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Archie... I read the 1st grand jury report and Lynn’s name was in it more than Bevilacqua’s so I never embraced him as my "pastor". But it was my parish and school long before he came along, so I stayed.
      You question his loss, his grieving and his sentence, but what about all of the victims? THEY ARE LIVING WITH A LIFE SENTENCE worst than anything Lynn is experiencing!
      I have no faith in him. How do I know that if he came back, he wouldn't hide illegal activity in our parish or school? So if he does return, I will run for the hills, screaming all the way in the name of all of the victims that he failed to protect due to his blind obedience and for the protection of my children!

      Delete
  6. Who will speak for the children and the direct link to health failures ,premature death and suicides ,murder from abuse by the clergy.
    catholic cemeteries?,catholic hospitals?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Archie writes re Monsignor Lynn:

    "The man, the priest, has lost everything. Do you understand what the loss of one's reputation and ability to continue in their chosen profession does to a person?"

    Get real.

    Lynn will never have to worry where his rent or food will come from, he will probably always have servants and drivers, access to cars, and luxurious vacations, plus a stipend that is higher than most people's Social Security check, and he won't have any real living expenses. He will never have to get up and commute and go to a real job where layoffs and outsourcing could make him homeless.

    Priests are priests for life and even the ones known to have committed horrendous crimes live out their lives in luxury.

    Don't kid yourself. The priests who serve a little time do not suffer. They are coddled 'til they die, and the Monsignor, now that he's taken the bullet for the cardinal, may kick back in a cell for a year, but he won't suffer.

    Not anything like the victims suffer our whole lives.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kay, I am not minimizing the victims and the horrors they have suffered! I pray for the victims every day, and am thankful that I, and my two brothers and sister are not among them!

    I met Msgr. Lynn just once, but one of my best friends is best friends with him. And, he was a HUGE help to her family when her brother was sick, and eventally died. You never forget kindnesses to your family, and Msgr. Lynn was the King of Kindness to this particular family.

    Death is so painful, sad, hard on everyone. Monsignor Lynn was an Angel. That particular family will always be grateful and never forget his tireless efforts, and friendship and love and tenderness.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I just popped awake knowing I have to write this:

    That statement above from SNAP is exactly the same as every statement they've made in every city about every priest for at least the last five years, almost to the word.

    They say the priest is "reckless and callous" and that (INSERT CLERGYMAN NAME HERE) compromised the safety of children.

    That's it, city after city, the story breaks, the reporter goes to SNAP and SNAP makes that same comment, the reporter dutifully copies it down and publishes it and ... that's the news, folks, and now let's see what the Kardashians have been up to.

    I would never deign to comment on the cases in Philadelphia, I've never been to Philadelphia, and I'll bet Barbara Dorris, SNAP spokeswoman, never has either, but she will release that same generic statement about Philadelphia or Des Moines or Boulder or wherever, and reporters- even you, Ralph, dammit- will dutifully write down what she says and publish it as the survivors' point of view.

    And the true and total story NEVER GETS TOLD!!!!!

    Ralph, go to the plaintiff attorneys, get the names of victims in Philadelphia, interview them. No, they won't be picture perfect on camera, we are not corporate spokesmodels.

    The real victims swear, lose our tempers, maybe even foam a little at the mouth. I've interviewed maybe a hundred victims over the past five years, and we are some of the craziest, most dysfunctional, messed up in weird ways persons you'd ever imagine to find on the planet.

    That's the story. Not Barbara Blaine looking perfect on camera. The damaged dysfunctional victims whose quotes you will have to bleep out for all the raging expletives that explode out of us, that's the story. The permanent damage that cut to us down to our very nervous systems so we twitch, and make strange noises, and erupt like we have Turret's Syndrome.

    That is the story. Not the corporate spokespersons with sanitized statements that can be applied to any city in the country and never really say a thing.

    PLEASE stop quoting SNAP's press releases and get out there and find the real story.

    If anyone can do it, it's you, Ralph, and I have a feeling I'm not the only person who wants to say this to you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see Kay DOES NOT understand 'Attorney-Client Relationship'

      Delete
    2. Bob is revealing the truth by letting it slip out of his hole again...

      Delete
    3. See, Bob, aka Minnesota SNAP, wants us to believe that all the victims who have filed lawsuits want to keep their stories secret and so do the plaintiff attorneys, who are incapable of deciding which clients it would be all right to suggest as contacts for an inquiring reporter. It's part of the behind the scenes effort to prevent the truth about these crimes from coming out while presenting yourself as a victims' advocate.

      Several of us have named Schwiderski SNAP's "muscle" as whenever a victim starts to question the role of SNAP, they get inundated with emails and other forms of cyber stalking by Schwiderski, who usually succeeds in making the questioning victim stop asking any more questions.

      Usually. Not always.

      Delete
    4. Amen to that.

      How about the e-mail I got from Schwiderski. Saying under my picture "This guy has AIDS"
      .
      I have the e-mail.

      This is the caliber of people SNAP gives credit to.

      This is the head of SNAP Minnesota and also someone who works with Father Bob Hoatson and his crew.

      Delete
    5. I'm surprised Schwiderski didn't say "The AIDS" like Tiny Tim used too.

      Delete
    6. Here's the bind I'm in: I don't happen to be infected. i know one of Schwiderski's brothers is infected and he is also a friend of mine.
      Imagine the support he gets from a brother like Bob.

      If I was infected I would think an initial confrontation mocking me sent by the head of SNAP Minnesota might put me off SNAP. But I was already there.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. This kind of talk is demeaning to the great work Ralph did in presenting us with this blog. Talking about things slipping out of people's holes, and who has AIDs and whatnot, is incredibly disrespectful to a reporter who made sure we were all able to follow the trial closely. He continues to work on weekends so that we can be kept up to date with sentencing. But I guess we are now to believe that Ralph made one error, he quoted SNAP, and now he is called a lazy reporter? Good grief.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. Sarah, you show up at blogs and websites and often engage as a defender of SNAP, yet no one knows who you really are, you never really identify yourself. In the above comment you display either selective cognizance or reading comprehension problems.

      Pay more attention, please. Both your criticisms above twist what was said into something that it wasn't.

      Who are you really?

      Delete
    11. It always amazes me how, when Jim and I and others try to find a way or a place to tell people what our Direct Experience was with SNAP, as soon as possible someone jumps in to repeat the media image of SNAP and deny that Jim and I and others had the experience we had.

      I do agree, however, that this is not the forum for talking about SNAP, but it came up here a few weeks back and I could not resist joining in.

      I really wish people would stop insisting we did not experience what we experienced, by pointing out the media image of SNAP and insisting that's the truth, and what we experienced is false.

      Aargh the whole thing is so convoluted. It's hard to explain and the knee-jerk refusal of people to believe us makes it even more difficult.

      Something is not right there, and it's the reason the survivor movement fizzled when it should have burned.

      Delete
    12. Sarah, DEMEANING to Ralph's work?

      You have completely lost your mind.

      What the hell are you babbling about?

      I'm a victim. Kay's a victim. Who the hell are you?

      The reason I came to this site and post what I post; is because there is no where else to do this.

      Ralph's site is the only place besides Kay's site and the Victims of Silence site. That isn't controlled by the Church.

      Where else is there to mention the horror that is SNAP?

      And I will write about anything I want to about the counter intelligence that is SNAP and the nightmarish insults and defamation monkey that is the Minnesota "leader of SNAP, Bob Schwiderski.

      Sarah, Ralph admitted he has taken SNAP at face value. Who are you to define the parimeters of the truth telling here?

      And when did Ralph become God's messenger here on earth? He hasn't complained. He has actually complimented what has been written here.

      Sarah again you seem to be a phony from baloneyville.

      F' off.

      Delete
    13. Kay, my name is Sarah Kleman. I live in Houston, Texas. Bill Donohue once vetted me and declared me a nobody. That's who I am. One girl, in Houston, Texas, who grew up in Rochester, New York. And had to get distance from her family so she moved to Texas, a place her family would never care to visit. Google me. I once had a scuffle with the Houston Police Dept. but nobody won. I hope to move to Canada, maybe marry a Canadian, who knows? Lord willin' and the creek don't rise. Sarah Kleman

      Delete
    14. This kind of talk is demeaning to Ralph's blog.

      Delete
    15. I read the article in the Houston Press about your arrest, Sarah.

      Looks like you made the cops so mad when they pulled you over that they trumped up a false reason to arrest you. Maybe you got too self righteous and they decided to teach you a lesson?

      But I'm just reading a news story online from another state, and I have no direct experience about the situation, so how can I know what really happened?

      I guess since I have no real direct experience in the situation, I should not comment about it as if I did....

      Delete
    16. Kay,

      You said it so clearly.

      People do not acknowledge the experiences we have had with SNAP.(Including Ralph)

      It reminds me of the common thread running through most victims lives: Who will believe me, if I tell what's happening to me?

      Perpetrators telling their victims:" Who will be believed here you or me?" or "I'm the man" says the perp. "Your a child" and "You just imagined it". "You took my 'kindness' wrong". Etc. Etc.

      So once again the "you've got it wrong" crew makes an appearance.

      The thread continues unabated; "Your experience never happened". "Your critiques of oppression by SNAP are off topic" "Your just getting this wrong".

      For all intents and purposes: "What you know. You do not know."

      Good Times!

      Delete
  10. Kay popped awake, Continued:

    Weird CNS diseases that perplex our doctors. Strange boils and hives, protrusions on our bodies that make us look... strange. Scars and permanent damage from self-mutilation and botched suicide attempts. Extreme obesity or extreme skinniness from a life of eating disorders. The 65 year old man who blurts out he's had bleeding hemorrhoids since age five when the priest sodomized him.

    Those are the stories that have never been published.

    Wake up, Ralph, wake up.

    Goodnight.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mark Bukowski has a police record? That's nothing compared to the levels of dysfunction you find all over the country when you track down the pedophile priest victims.

    Our screwed up lives are the main part of the story that has not yet been told. Yes, pedophile priest victims do not make good witnesses in the courtroom. Because of the deep visceral permanent unprecedented damages we live with.

    That's the story!!!!!

    Please write it. I need to be able to sleep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kay, this is now demeaning to victims testifying in court. Hundreds have testified in cases all over the country and done a remarkably able job. Yes, some can't articulate the damage done, but many others can. To say that they do not make good witnesses in the courtroom is an unfair assessment.

      Delete
    2. You are quoting me out of context.

      Why?

      Delete
    3. Sarah, Definer of Truth, not for herself but for everyone reading this blog.

      Queen of the Victim's Universe.(Roll over Barbra Blaine)

      Destroyer of Victims that She may save Victims.

      Defender of Ralph,( unusual since he hasn't been attacked)

      All honor to The Non Victim that is the Hidden Sarah.

      Delete
    4. Sarah,

      Of all the intelligent insights that Kay has posted here, this is the dreck you come up with?

      Why do you continue to change subject?

      Why don't you sign your real name?

      Kay does.

      I do.

      Who are you really in the context of this movement other than a supporter who continually obfuscates what real victims have to say?

      Delete
  12. One quick edit:

    "That's the story. Not Barbara Blaine looking perfect on camera as she says, 'Kids need to be safe.'"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, we're really letting it rip today, aren't we? Listen, I didn't get the prosecution's filings until a little while ago (I will put them up this weekend) so I couldn't quote all those defense documents and not look for something to shall we say balance it. But we have a lot more to cover, so stay tuned.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It was easy, I admit it, reaching for that SNAP bottle that's always on the shelf, and drinking an all-too familiar concoction. I blame it on the prosecutors, who were no-doubt hand-delivering their latest filings to the Philadelphia Inquirer, and couldn't get to me in time for deadline. But we will regroup!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks, Ralph. I just posted this at City of Angels Blog
    http://cityofangels12.blogspot.com/2012/07/sleep-disrupted-to-post-these-comments_21.html
    just for posterity, now gotta go back to work on Gatorboys...

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's so hard to read the misinformation and misdirection created by the "oldest and largest victims' group" in the U.S., year after year.
    Painfully hard.

    I've come to the conclusion that the dominance and counterintelligence of SNAP will always remain. As long as there's a Catholic Church supporting it financially, there will be a SNAP; and a press that will buy that SNAP is good enough for victims. SNAP has made it too easy for an eviserated public and press. Hand chosen "survivors" will never evaluate the "movement" with out praising the great god SNAP. And a castrated media will never look deeper into the truth of what we victims face every day..

    Other incidents will bring the abuse back into the spotlight year after year; but the story will remain the same.

    Ralph no editor will take this story on. Will they?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Many decades ago I learned that "the road to hell was paved with good intentions." While Lynn may have INTENDED to protect children the fact is HE DID NOT. He did NOT warn people in each new assignment he was sending a predator to; he did NOT notify local civil authorities; he DID however foster the protection of the CHURCH and its "image;" he DID go along with the flow of conscious intent of the hierarchy in keeping things quiet. He deserves the full SEVEN YEARS!

    ReplyDelete
  18. (Interesting post about "The Manual" and the origin of the cover-up, produced today at Renegade Catholic website, by scholar, former clergyman, and fellow blacklisted-by-SNAP pedophile priest victim Jay Nelson of New Mexico.)

    How "The Manual" Helped the Cover-Up

    Most survivors of clergy abuse by now have heard the woeful tale
    of "The Manual" (full title: "The Problem of Sexual Molestation
    by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting the Problem in a Responsible
    Manner").

    It’s widely known how back when the first scandal arose in
    Louisiana in the early 1980s, Ray Mouton, the attorney for the
    perpetrating priest Gilbert Gauthe, called for help. And how
    Fathers Tom Doyle and Michael Peterson responded. Together, the
    three men wrote a proposal on managing the already brewing clergy
    abuse crisis for the country’s bishops, and how, mysteriously,
    nothing ever came of it.

    Why? Could it be that was the entire point of the exercise?

    MORE at:
    http://www.renegadecatholic.com/blog/2012/07/manual-helped-cover-up/

    Enjoy and be enlightened...

    ReplyDelete
  19. quoted in another article: "A sentence of time-served, probation, work release or house arrest would ensure that Msgr. Lynn can still use his priestly gifts to improve the lives of those around him," lawyers Thomas Bergstrom and Jeffrey Lindy said in their filing. "

    While he was a priest, Lynn's actions created an atmosphere that enabled many innocent kids' lives to be ruined forever... WHY on earth should Lynn be treated any better than any other criminal? That special privileged treatment is exactly why so many children have been harmed, because priests have been put on pedestals and have been treated to be above human beings and above the law. This is why this cover up of sex crimes has gone on for decades.
    This is why Lynn and any others who have enabled and covered up sex crimes against kids, need to be treated as the criminals they are.

    Treating Lynn any different, would be an insult to ALL victims of clergy sex crimes. These victims do not deserve to be re-traumatized again.

    Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, USA, 636-433-2511. snapjudy@gmail.com,
    (SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests,)

    ReplyDelete
  20. .Lynn is a monster from a criminal organization.i viewed pbs documentary, the silence based on the Massachusetts area abuse crimes by priests.
    Same pattern of deceit,sexual perversions and greed they close the parish of the victims to compensate their liabilities.

    ReplyDelete
  21. After they dropped their latest filings at the Inky's prosecutorial intake desk, perhaps they lingered in the prosecutor's lounge ...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sleepless Nights, cont'd:
    Not all the pedophile priest survivors are too screwed up to testify in court, I stand corrected there. Many in fact function better than the rest. Many become military and police officers. They bottle inside the damage and often perform to high achieving levels almost to balance the trauma from early in life. Except even the multiple PhD survivors I've met, when you look closely, you see eyes that have cried more than is right for any human.

    I do stand corrected though, that a lot of of survivors do fine at testifying, and even at living functioning successful lives.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ralph a fellow victim has published (and I believe accurately so), that You and the Beasley Firm are another cul de sac for victims.

    A place where steam can be vented. And that's it.

    I can only guess what the truth is about this site and you Ralph.

    You have written regularly for the National Catholic Reporter.

    So has Father Tom Doyle and David Clohessy and Barbra Blaine all King and Queen pins in the obfuscation of victims movement.

    And though I have asked you, Ralph several times to at least speak to the questions raised here about SNAP.

    I get no response.

    Save silence from you.

    As a citizen and a victim I believe I, and others here, deserve better.

    Who are the Beasley Firm and why did they sponsor your blog?

    Do they have any connection to the Catholic Church?

    Ralph are you a practicing Catholic?

    I realize (if I get any response at all to this post) that people will leap to your defense. As though a question was an attack.

    Don't worry Ralph more praise will come your way from this post.

    That's what always happens when victims question authority. the "authority" is always validated by praise.

    Us victims and our questions? Not so much.

    We are almost used to this 3rd class citizenship by now.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 9 days ago, I asked the above questions and this site froze solid.

    Not a sound from you Ralph.

    If I remember correctly, according to St. Thomas Moore: Silence means assent.

    ReplyDelete
  25. An impressive post, I just gave this to a colleague who is doing a little analysis on this topic. And he is very happy and thanking me for finding it childcare seven hillsBut all thanks to you for writing in such simple words. Big thumb up for this blog post!

    ReplyDelete

Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

 

Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog Copyright © 2016 BigTrial.net

Privacy Policy: BigTrial.net does not distribute, share or sell email addresses, or any other personal information received from this website.