tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post1896405919034630607..comments2023-10-22T09:32:13.417-04:00Comments on Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog: Monsignor Lynn Takes The Witness StandAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04116104602505815614noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-32451740816528218912012-05-04T01:12:57.648-04:002012-05-04T01:12:57.648-04:00Of course he's not hiding. DPierre and "...Of course he's not hiding. DPierre and "temediareport" are here to sell books.neilallen76http://www.blogger.com/profile/04966954580793318142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-51488530130786359732012-05-04T01:10:21.599-04:002012-05-04T01:10:21.599-04:00Awesome analysis, kopride, but you are making it v...Awesome analysis, kopride, but you are making it very hard for DPierre to mislead the public so he can sell his books and profit off this pedophile scandal.neilallen76http://www.blogger.com/profile/04966954580793318142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-61915330029894190622012-04-30T09:17:29.869-04:002012-04-30T09:17:29.869-04:00To give you an example of what a Micky Mouse effor...To give you an example of what a Micky Mouse effort MacRae's Motion for New Trial based upon "new evidence," here is the brief:<br><br>"The new witnesses are, or were, Grover’s [the accuser] relatives and friends. He confided in them, shared his plans and admitted his lies and perjury – statements against his penal interest – precisely because they were with him then."<br><br>Ok, so MacRae's lawyers have come forward with people years later who say that one accuser Grover was lying. This is not grounds for a new trial in any jurisdiction. This is multi-level hearsay. Basically, the declarant, Grover, allegedly said something out of court to a friend or relative; and this friend or relative is allegedly willing to come forward and testify about this out of court conversation. And the original conversation was not recorded in any reliable fashion, and was not taken under oath. And the telling thing about the brief is that he lawyer does not cite any NH case where a NH court has accepted this type of evidence as grounds for a new trial. (Now if Grover, signed an affidavit saying "I lied," that might set up grounds for a hearing but that is also not uncommon in Habeas cases.)<br><br>Here is what the lawyer claims is the basis that the evidence is admissible:<br> <br>"Second, the evidence is admissible. Much of the evidence goes to Grover’s reputation for<br>dishonesty, as reported by his friends and family. N.H. R. Ev. 608(a). The evidence also contains<br>Grover’s statements against interest – admissions of numerous acts of perjury and fraud. N.H. R. Ev.<br>804(b)(3)."<br><br>As an initial matter, do you see how the lawyer does not cite a single NH case that says that this type of evidence is admissible? Do you know why, because its not. At best, the witnesses under 608 could have testified about their opinion of Grover's evidence of dishonesty at the time of the testimony--not years later, which would have opened the door to the prosecutor introducing reputation or opinion testimony that he was truthful. But the rule specifically bars evidence of extrinsic acts, i.e. the witnesses would not have been able to testify about all the acts that formed their opinion. See Rule 608(b). <br>Rule 804 b(3) is even more of a stretch to claim that the evidence is admissible as a statement against penal interest. First of all, Grover was available at trial and testified so the requirements of 804 are not even met because the rule only applies if the declarant is unavailable. If Grover is available then, the alleged "statement" to friends is simply something that he could be cross examined with. If he denies it, then there is little authority suggesting that you can call the friend to offer the alleged statement to impeach him on the issue of whether he ever made the statement to the friend. Moreover, even if Grover was unavailable, the alleged statement would have to be corroborated in some additional way. In most cases, these statements that come in under the rule are basically police statements or affidavits taken under oath or adopted by the now unavailable declarant. In other words, a confession to law enforcement. But something the declarant said out of court to random friends and relatives and unsworn would not come in as a statement against interest because those friends and relatives are not really in a position to punish him criminally--unlike making the statement to a cop or judge It's just rank hearsay. Really, this type of statement is usually proffered under 801(d)2(E) as an admission of a co-conspirator--because the lawyer claims that the friends and relatives were conspiring with Grover for financial gain; and it does not meet the elements of admissibility under that exception either. And if there was a single NH case that suggested that it was anything but hearsay, then the lawyer would have cited it.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-12636297544535853702012-04-30T00:09:22.629-04:002012-04-30T00:09:22.629-04:00Of course, the Catholic church sought out anyone t...Of course, the Catholic church sought out anyone that would say they could return their child rapists to places where there were innocent children. They paid them money, got documents saying that the pedophile priests were cured, and never, ever told the parents or the children that these were confirmed child rapists.<br><br>They were doing live experiments about child rapists with live children.<br><br>Every pedophile priest and every bishop or priest that was involved should be sent to prison and beaten like some of the pedophile priests already have been. Prisoners know more about child safety than the Catholic church.neilallen76http://www.blogger.com/profile/04966954580793318142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-15478268138370015672012-04-29T20:14:48.089-04:002012-04-29T20:14:48.089-04:00Thanks. The Paraclete fiasco could be a whole othe...Thanks. The Paraclete fiasco could be a whole other blog on itself. The Paracletes "cured" many serial pedophiles. The main church Club Peds were the Paracletes in NM, St. Luke's in MD, Institute of Living in Hartford, and one in Canada. In particular, the Paracletes created a separate ground zero for abuse cases in NM because they would send their patients out as guest priests at the Parish. They also took the view that it was pastoral and spiritual so they did not keep detailed notes of the counseling sessions or record the priests admissions in a clinical fashion. They would send reports to the bishops with instructions to destroy them Many of the patients, like MacRae became counselors to other troubled priests. Since some of the Paracletes were "professional" they would generate reports like the one referenced by Pierre that allegedly debunks his therapy sessions in NH. <br><br>Interestingly, their main historical leader in the 50s-60s was trying to buy an island to house pedophile priests permanently because he did not believe they cold be treated or cured. It is a very strange story, but a Paraclete report doesn't exonerate anybody. Instead, the fact he was there for over a year speaks volumes.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-46791146257907650072012-04-29T16:12:09.903-04:002012-04-29T16:12:09.903-04:00kopride, amazing research.I knew just from reading...kopride, amazing research.<br><br>I knew just from reading beyond the surface that Macrae was a dirtbag pedophile, and that themediareport and Dave Pierre would defend their pedophile pal even if he had sex with their own child in their own living room.<br><br>However, I never did the research to find out how much of a dirtbag he was, and you know that they only found 20-40% of Macrae's offenses.<br><br>It makes it even more cultish that he has a handfull of dirtbags that follow his pitiful stonewalls blog, which, by the way, is what themediareport and Dave Pierre use as the authoritative sourse above for one of his examples.<br><br>Macrae, the self-absorbed, self-admitted child rapist, has a recent blog where he compares himself to the victimization of Jesus Christ. However, in the same blog, he tells the story of redemption, when he entered prison and the inmates yelled "Kill the priest" in the days before they gave him his first vicious beating.neilallen76http://www.blogger.com/profile/04966954580793318142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-70174552025085386502012-04-29T15:42:56.685-04:002012-04-29T15:42:56.685-04:00Great insight, kopride.Great insight, kopride.neilallen76http://www.blogger.com/profile/04966954580793318142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-39096526509650476012012-04-28T17:28:21.147-04:002012-04-28T17:28:21.147-04:00I stand corrected. Here is what is on Amazon abou...I stand corrected. Here is what is on Amazon about David Pierre http://www.amazon.com/David-F.-Pierre-Jr/e/B004G3WE10/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0 and it has his picture. <br><br>So okay, he is not hiding behind a pseudonym... at least not since he started The Media Report...Kay Ebelinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13753284586265566961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-33432056373224275692012-04-28T16:34:08.182-04:002012-04-28T16:34:08.182-04:00In regard to the immediately preceding comment tha...In regard to the immediately preceding comment that "prosecutors are gutless", I would say that they have not demonstrated that at all.<br><br>It took a great deal of chutzpah to bring this case in the first place. The offenses-charged took place almomst 20 years ago, and between today and then a tremendous amount of highly relevant reform and repair has taken place, which by all extant indications has had the desired effect of breaking such patterns as may have existed and of preventing any pervasive repetition (and this presumes that those 'patterns' have been accurately described and explained, which is itself a generous presumption). <br><br>And Philadelphia has enough current crime on its plate, and its finances are in as poor a shape as any major American city's (with all due respect to the long-suffering citizens of that city). <br><br>So it was not 'courage' that the prosecutors lacked. Unless - as I have been thinking - it be the courage to have just said No to the hydraulic and extraneous 'interests' that pressured to have this case brought at this point in time in the first place. <br><br>Prosecutors in other jurisdictions have indeed said No (including those across the state at Pittsburgh). Even up in Massachusetts, site of Cardinal Law and the Shanley trials, prosecutors have not brought such a prosecution as Philadelphia has brought. <br><br>Is that because Philadelphia is possessed of the only non-gutless prosecutors in the country? That is certainly one possible explanation. <br><br>Another is that most other prosecutors sense not only the legal complications but also the moral question as to expending significant resources and monies on a fire - if I may use he metaphor - that has been pretty much put out, while other fires are burning. A fire chief who puts 9-alarms worth of apparatus at the scene of a now-extinguished fire while other major blazes roar away in other parts of the city would soon be cashiered <br><br>And related to that, as I have been saying, is the Question: what confluence of pressures, forces, cricumstances and interests might have driven the Philadelphia prosecutors to make such a calculation? <br><br>None of this is to deny crimes may have been committed (although it is most surely also not an 'admission' that crimes went on as described, nor that the Charged activity will support the Charges brought). But normal trial procedures could have been deployed, rather than this rather hyped thing surrounding the case at bar. <br><br>The Philadelphia trial at bar is - in my opinion - destined for at least a permanent footnote in the prosecutorial manuals and text-books. <br><br>But as to the reason Why it will qualify for that ... there is the real Question in this trial. And it is relevant even to the trial as it proceeds. And, I think, it is relevant to larger legal issues that I have been concerned about in my writing here and on my own site.Pertinaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15407357930254142688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-89709335514637897672012-04-28T15:58:49.002-04:002012-04-28T15:58:49.002-04:00Exactly, Dave Pierre is the Bagdad Bob of Journali...Exactly, Dave Pierre is the Bagdad Bob of Journalism. In the church's corner are a sex offender and a "journalist" who doesn't even have a student newspaper credit. In the other corner is reality.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-42633962672454324032012-04-28T15:45:08.078-04:002012-04-28T15:45:08.078-04:00"Based on the evaluation from Strafford Guida..."Based on the evaluation from Strafford Guidance, MacRae attended in-patient therapy with the Servants of the Paraclete in Jemez Springs, New Mexico. (B6739). MacRae began treatment with the Servants of the Paraclete on March 14, 1989, and was a resident with the facility for slightly more than one year. (B3090; B3347). On April 15, 1989, Bishop Gendron wrote to Dr. Peter Lechner, Director of Villa Louis Martin (“VLM”), the residential treatment center run by the Servants of the Paraclete. "<br><br>As anybody following the priest abuse scandal knows, MacRae was sent by the church to the Paraclete Retreat in NM; or as it is known "Club Ped." He actually worked as a director of Club Ped. <br><br>The Paracletes who challenged the opinion of the NH psychologists eventually disbanded all their US problem priest facilities because of recidivism.They also routinely destroyed records of priests in treatment. Given a challenge between the NH psychologists and the church's own special Club Ped, excuse me if I go with the doctors who have no long track record of covering up for problem priests.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-10064529370815793962012-04-28T15:22:28.797-04:002012-04-28T15:22:28.797-04:00LOL. Even in the WSJ article, MacRae admitted havi...LOL. Even in the WSJ article, MacRae admitted having sex with a 16 year old boy "Tony" "who was a dependent of sort;" and like all predators suggested that the minor initiated sex with the good priest. The link you cited acknowledges that the two psychological opinions from NH concluded that he was a fixated sexual predator, but says that doctors at the notorious catholic priest sex offender Catholic hospital in New Mexico reached different opinions. That's not "debunking" anything. This man pleaded guilty 4 times to sexual abuse of minors and admitted doing it with a 5th to the reporter. <br><br>Dorothy Rabinowitz is a RIght WIng conservative columnist and not a lawyer. It would not surprise me if Sean Hannity, G. Gordon, Liddy, or Rush Limbaugh supported MacRae as well. There is a list of liberal columnists and reporters who think Mumia is innocent as well, some of them award winning. Nobody with a law license and a reasonable reputation thinks MacRae is innocent. <br><br>But if someone is going to write an article exonerating a pedophile, an admission that he had sex with his 16 year old "dependent" kind of destroys any credibility. Ok, he abused a vulnerable kid, just not the other 4 kids he pleaded guilty to abusing.It would be funny if people like you didn't obviously believe such nonsense.<br><br>And again, in your world, a catholic detective, judge, diocese, and psychologists are trying to railroad the good padre. You'd rather impugn the names of people who have no blemishes against their integrity rather than accept that there was a reason to plead guilty 4 times<br><br>He was a problem priest. The records from pre-seminary in 1978 indicated reservations. In 83, he was the subject of an admitted fondling with a minor and was placed in a restricted ministry, he received treatment for substance abuse, he admits to two additional indiscretions to the reporter, one with a minor boy who he considered a dependent. He pleaded guilty to a sex offense and then went to the church's designated NM facility at the time for problem priests and spent more than a year down there in treatment and restricted ministry while he was also on probation.<br><br>Like every intelligent manipulative convict, he has found some gullible people who want to feel like they have special knowledge of an inside conspiracy. But the documents related to his case have not been "debunked." Debunked would be saying that the documents were a forgery; not that a catholic hospital disagreed with the NH psychologists. People coming forward later to say people lied are common in every criminal case because dirtbags attract dirtbags. <br><br>If this is your cause, I just pity you.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-91563281227376595252012-04-28T13:53:48.450-04:002012-04-28T13:53:48.450-04:00Your EXACT citations about Strafford Guidance have...Your EXACT citations about Strafford Guidance have long ago been addressed and debunked.<br><br>http://www.thesestonewalls.com/Files/Should%20the%20Case%20Against%20Father%20Gordon%20MacRae%20be%20Reviewed.pdf<br><br>Believe me, there are people who have looked at Rev. MacRae's case a LOT more than you, including Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dorothy Rabinowitz from the Wall Street Journal. She studied his case extensively, and in a two-part series for the WSJ in 2005, she concluded that Fr. MacRae was falsely accused. And that was YEARS BEFORE the various individuals came forward to affirm that the accuser ADMITTED he was lying.<br><br>And your line, "[MacRae] was always a problem priest and spent most of his ministry on various leaves for sex offenses," is simply false, and it again shows that you have a blatant disregard for the truth.<br><br><br>Do yourself a favor. Stay away from cases you don't know anything about. Anybody can go on BishopAccountability and look at a bunch of documents and say, "Here!" But that site is determined to tell only one side of the story.<br><br>You really don't know what you're talking about.TheMediaReport.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07605908176445177281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-58685637088097730002012-04-28T13:04:16.870-04:002012-04-28T13:04:16.870-04:00Here is the link to the PDF of the Manchester repo...Here is the link to the PDF of the Manchester report concerning MacRae: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/ManchesterReport10MacRae.pdf.<br><br>So, in reality, MacRae pleaded guilty to solicitation of a minor in 1988 for an incident that involved MacRae bringing a 14 year old minor to his apartment to take pictures of him. In 1983, MacRae was involved in another admitted incident that resulted him being placed on restricted ministry. He was accepted into the seminary for Diocesan priests with real reservations because his 1978 psychological profiles revealed deep seated psychological sexual problems. The first psychologist recommended that he be accepted with reservations; the second initially recommended that he be rejected, but was persuaded to change his opinion to "cautious acceptance." He was in therapy where he admitted to multiple issues of abuse of minors well before he pleaded guilty to three additional counts in 1994. The reason that he did not testify at his criminal trial in 1994 was most likely related to the fact that it would open the door to his prior sexual offense involving a minor and the reports of the various therapists that he was a pedophile.<br><br>So, in MacRae's case, is someone who admitted misconduct to multiple therapists, pleaded guilty to a sex offense with a minor in 1988; and pleaded guilty to three additional sexual offenses in 1994. He is an admitted sexual offender and pedophile. If the RCC had any standards and listened to his pre-seminary evaluations, he should have never been admitted. He was always a problem priest and spent most of his ministry on various leaves for sex offenses, alcoholism, and other psychological problems. It's all in the NH report. <br><br>And yes, concurrent with the fact that MacRae is a dirt bag with tons of baggage is the fact that some of his minor victims may have developed baggage or been dirtbags themselves. It doesn't change the fact that MacRae was a convicted admitted sex offender long before he pleaded guilty three additional times in 1994. His prior history is probably why the judge's sentence was so harsh and why he keeps getting denied parole for not admitting his problem. <br><br>Now I am sure that DPierre will explain that MacRae's long tortured history well before the guilty pleas are all part of a conspiracy that involved the psychologists that first evaluated him for the seminary in 1978, the prosecutors who coerced a confession and guilty plea from him in 1988, the psychologists who diagnosed him as a pedophile and serial sex offender long before his 2, 3, and 4th guilty pleas for misconduct with a minor.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-2461064759326087132012-04-28T12:39:36.463-04:002012-04-28T12:39:36.463-04:00Agreed. Cardinal Bevilacqua was the mafia "do...Agreed. Cardinal Bevilacqua was the mafia "don" of the philly child rape mafia. They should dig him up and throw his body in a cesspool.<br><br>Cardinal Rigali hid known pedophiles for years, and lied to a full congregation, saying there were "no accused priests in ministry", just two weeks before the grand jury report showed that there were at LEAST 21 that they absolutely knew about. THAT is child endangerment.<br><br>Bishops Cistone and Cullen were there when the document listing 35 known pedophile priests was shredded in 1994. <br><br>Most of this only came out because they found some of the Catholic church "secret archives".<br><br>Prosecutors are gutless, and are afraid of losing the Catholic pro-pedophile vote. They know Catholics don't care, and probably assume that if Catholics don't mind their priests raping their children, why should the law?neilallen76http://www.blogger.com/profile/04966954580793318142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-66512162001522612242012-04-28T12:38:24.776-04:002012-04-28T12:38:24.776-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.This comment has been removed by the author.neilallen76http://www.blogger.com/profile/04966954580793318142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-1628320430222280002012-04-28T12:10:33.189-04:002012-04-28T12:10:33.189-04:00A second therapist at Strafford Guidance reached s...A second therapist at Strafford Guidance reached similar conclusions in February 1989:<br><br> Mr. MacRae appears to fit the description of a fixated sexual offender, a man who has a primary sexual interest in children, usually males, though with the possibility of attraction to and sexual activity with adults; who identifies with his child victims and who relates to children as peers, scaling his behavior to the child's level or acting in a "pseudo-parental role." Other characteristics of fixated offenders which apply to Mr. MacRae are the lack of a precipitating stressor, the compulsive quality of the behavior, and a pervading characterological immaturity.<br><br> As fixated offenders do not respond to outpatient treatment and have the best record of recovery when treated in an inpatient setting, initially in a program specifically tailored to sexual offenders, it is important that Mr. MacRae undergo [page 149 begins] treatment in such a modality. It is important that Mr. MacRae not be deferred to as special in treatment because he is a priest.<br><br> It is of great importance that Mr. MacRae not be allowed to place himself in a position of authority over minors in the future, and that he continue to take responsibility for this and for other potentially dangerous behaviors.<br><br>(B6738-39).kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-88949779846775961102012-04-28T12:08:09.459-04:002012-04-28T12:08:09.459-04:00From the NH AG Report: Following MacRae’s convicti...From the NH AG Report: <br>Following MacRae’s conviction for endangering the welfare of a minor in 1988 with Doe XX, he was sent for psychological evaluation. MacRae was first evaluated by the House of Affirmation in Massachusetts in December 1988. (B3063). Despite Dr. Guertin-Ouellette’s earlier assurances that MacRae’s behavior had been adequately treated, the House of Affirmation issued a blunt report about MacRae’s inability to control his sexual behavior:<br>Father MacRae reported several inappropriate sexual encounters with adolescents. Although he experiences intense shame and guilt for the behavior, he indicated that he does not feel in control of such behavior. Father MacRae is in the early stages of understanding and arresting the inappropriate sexual encounters with minors. Although alarmed by it and very frightened of legal and personal consequences, he has little awareness of the impact of the behavior upon the adolescents, and he has little confidence that he can cease such involvements. He still tends to transfer some responsibility for the behavior to the adolescents and has difficulty acknowledging the sexually addictive nature of the behavior. These factors indicate that Father MacRae is a sexual offender who currently is not able to curtail such behavior without professional support. We recommend that he receive professional support immediately.(B3068).<br>MacRae received further psychological evaluation from Strafford Guidance Center in January 1989. Despite Dr. Guertin-Ouellette’s earlier assurances, Strafford Guidance issued a scathing report about MacRae’s sexual problems:<br>The above data are indicative of severe and deep-seated psychopathology that has had many ramifications in his recent past and in his present psychological condition. The data indicate a severe personality disorder with related serious psychosexual and substance abuse problems. He has tremendous difficulty in intimate relationships, sexual or otherwise, and in fact tends to sexualize most relationships in one form or another. While he longs for sexual and emotional intimacy with others, he appears to be almost completely incapable of establishing and maintaining such intimacy in any real way. As a result, he has an extremely active and involved fantasy life, which I suspect is driven by only semi-repressed sado-masochistic drives. . . .<br>I strongly recommend long-term intensive psychotherapy. He fits the profile of what is known in the literature as a “fixated” sexual offender. For this reason, he may not be appropriate for the SATP of the Strafford Guidance Center, which is not geared specifically to deal with sexual offenders of this type. He is in clear need for insight-oriented psychotherapy to address the psychodynamics as outlined above, as well as a program specifically geared to deal with fixated sexual offenders. . . .<br>(B6746-47).kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-40446201276741298592012-04-28T10:42:26.781-04:002012-04-28T10:42:26.781-04:00I just finished reading Thursday's post by R. ...I just finished reading Thursday's post by R. C. above. (I have not read the comments which follow.) This message is directed to R.C. about his article.<br><br>I do hope the focus on Lynn results in a guilty verdict but I hope he will not become the scapegoat for the many abuses by the Phil. Diocese. Lynn reported to two bishops as identified in the Grand Jury Report. My hope is that this trial eventually leads to further indictments from high ranking clergy who were active during that time, one of whom is now the Bishop of the Raleigh Diocese. I hope this is only the beginning....cdrwxwnghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05984818945373007472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-21059864953058896162012-04-28T10:32:50.366-04:002012-04-28T10:32:50.366-04:00Think of a building: it has both non-load-bearing ...Think of a building: it has both non-load-bearing ‘decorative’ walls and it has vital, load-bearing ‘carrying walls’. You can take down or puncture the former more or less at will, depending on your preferences. But you cannot do that with the latter because you derange the integrity of the structure’s ability to remain standing. <br><br>Now imagine that for whatever reason some ‘interest’ insists on punching through a wall – and so controls the discussion that nobody is allowed to ask whether this wall is a decorative or carrying wall. The wall is – alas – punched through or perhaps so largely swiss-cheesed with punctures that it no longer functions as a wall. <br><br>Then the building starts to give indications of structural insufficiency and yet nobody is allowed to wonder if perhaps a vital carrying-wall had been breached. <br><br>This, I would say, is pretty much what has happened in the emergency-laws of the past two decades in this country. <br><br>And the only solution certain ‘interests’ can come up with is to keep on doing what they have been doing all along (which led to the derangement of the wall in the first place). <br><br>Additionally, it is quite possible that even most of the adherents of that ‘interest’ also didn’t allow themselves to consider – or perhaps were so naïve so as not to imagine it possible – that there might be negative and indeed lethal and grave consequences to the agenda of their cherished interest and their good Cause.<br><br>This, I think, goes a long way to explaining the genuine befuddlement and anger expressed by many who are now being confronted with the possibility that there were serious costs and consequences to what they had for many years imagined was simply the wonderful Cause in the service of which they have found purpose, meaning, status, role, and some form of communion with other like themselves. <br><br>Which – from a purely logical point of view – does not preclude the possibility that some such adherents will respond to this situation not with efforts to put out the fire (that they helped to start) but simply with efforts to shut off the noisy and irritating fire alarm. <br><br>Nor does it preclude other ‘interests’ which benefit from the whole mess also seeking to shut off the alarm. <br><br>You see where this type of thing can go.Pertinaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15407357930254142688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-52674739362488786202012-04-28T10:08:13.423-04:002012-04-28T10:08:13.423-04:00In regard to the most recent spate of comments:I h...In regard to the most recent spate of comments:<br><br>I have never said it is "anti-Catholic" to take action against priests who have committed crimes. Once again the willful or ignorant creation of some sort of "straw-man" position - convenient for one's purposes. And again: I get the strong impression that in certain circles this passes for knowledge, wisdom, and smarts. <br><br>It is no wonder these folks are enraged so much: they keep seeing their 'knowledge' fail to pan out in the real world and conclude that this can only be because of a conspiracy. That their own failures to accurately comprehend are setting them up for misreading of matters ... does not, and probably could not, occur to them. <br><br>I "bemoan" the rise of the Domestic Violence and Sex-Offense matrices of laws for precisely the reasons I gave in my comment (a few up the page here) about the Eichmann trial. Had this commenter not read my thoughts before putting something up here? <br><br>Thus the conclusion that "we should all" is ... what it is. In light of what I said in my Eichmann comments above, what I have been pointing out about all this recent spate of laws is that there are consequences built into them which are going to create and have created damage to the legal and justice systems in this country. The consequences remain and have always remained, and they cannot be wished away either by an insistent and infinite regress to 'good intentions' or to 'the emergency'. <br><br>This is precisely what happens and has happened in 'emergency laws': the consequences for the polity that adopts them are automatically set in train, and yet the polity remains unaware of them - until it is too late - because the proponents of the emergency-law have stampeded the citizenry while simultaneously controlling public discourse so that no serious discussion of the consequences takes place. <br><br>In that regard, I would add, it is precisely the cartoonish, two-dimensional, one-note, either-or, straw-man type of thinking that was so useful to the most successful (for a while) propagandists such as Mussolini and Goebbels. (The Soviets did not so much propagandize their own people; they simply imposed their laws and shot anybody who disagreed; the imperial-era Japanese did not need to be propagandized because in accepting the divinity of the emperor they had pretty much divinized the government and its authority.)<br><br>And my point - again, do people not read comments or do they ignore them? - is precisely that these emergency-law regimes do not provide 'justice' in the first place. And even if they manage to get a small percentage of the cases right, the costs and consequences to the integrity and legitimacy of the Law are great and grave. <br><br>These are vital and profound matters we are dealing with here. One-liner thinking isn't sufficient to the matter. <br><br>Although I acknowledge freely the psychology of the one-liner approach to matters on general websites, I don't see how any such horseplay - to put the most charitable light on it - is going to advance comprehension and understanding at all.Pertinaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15407357930254142688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-49591398464792844322012-04-28T09:23:09.416-04:002012-04-28T09:23:09.416-04:00Because, isn't writing under a pseudonym the s...Because, isn't writing under a pseudonym the same as remaining anonymous? <br><br>Just asking...Kay Ebelinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13753284586265566961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-38813718164553231462012-04-28T09:19:28.317-04:002012-04-28T09:19:28.317-04:00When one Googles David Pierre, all that comes up i...When one Googles David Pierre, all that comes up is The Media Report and his recent writing on the Catholic clergy abuse crisis, nothing from before that time. <br><br>Could it be that David Pierre is not his real name? <br><br>With all due respect, I ask that question.Kay Ebelinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13753284586265566961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-70565412643290697172012-04-28T09:12:00.825-04:002012-04-28T09:12:00.825-04:00And you simply lied by saying MacRae confessed to ...And you simply lied by saying MacRae confessed to "multiple therapists." False, false, false. And there you are, lying again.<br><br>"Most of the people who are wrongfully convicted are poor indigent ..." <br>"Most" does not mean "all," does it?<br><br>"And I haven't said anything false about you." Nice try. I have cited lie after lie from you.<br><br>-TheMediaReport.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07605908176445177281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-37908884547253448532012-04-28T08:53:19.036-04:002012-04-28T08:53:19.036-04:00LOL! You listed four things you said YOURSELF, not...LOL! You listed four things you said YOURSELF, not that I said! Ha!<br><br>I never said a victim of Gana, Avery, or Scioli was lying. I've never visited any blog of yours. So there you go, lying again. <br><br>And you show the height of idiocy by criticizing me for not reporting on my blog what's ALREADY been reported in the newspapers! <br><br>My blog does not defend any wrongdoing whatsoever, and I have REPEATEDLY demanded justice and compassion for clergy abuse victims on my site, yet you continue to LIE about this by branding me disgusting names.<br><br>Yes, I criticize THE MEDIA COVERAGE and try to provide a perspective that I believe is not being reported by PI, the AP, C4Change, and others.<br><br>Don't like it? Well, too bad.<br><br>Meanwhile, you personally attack people and cast people in a false light while hiding behind anonymity. <br><br>-TheMediaReport.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07605908176445177281noreply@blogger.com