Thursday, July 5, 2012

Judge Denies House Arrest For Monsignor Lynn

Judge M. Teresa Sarmina denied a defense motion today that would have granted house arrest to Msgr. William J. Lynn.

The judge's decision means that Lynn will continue to reside at Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility, known as CFCF, on State Road in Northeast Philadelphia. According to his attorney, Jeff Lindy, Lynn is in protective custody there, and leading a contemplative life.

Judge Sarmina did grant one defense request, to move up Lynn's sentencing date from Aug. 13 to July 24, provided the monsignor was willing to waive a pre-sentence report. The theory was, after Lynn has been the object of grand jury scrutiny and a decade of investigation, there was nothing new out there to be dug up by an investigator that would affect his sentence. Lynn agreed to the request.

The 61-year-old monsignor is facing a sentence of three and a half to seven years after being convicted on one count of endangering the welfare of a child, a third-degree felony. Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington surprised nobody in the courtroom when he said he would be asking for the maximum sentence.

The judge had asked Blessington to investigate whether the commonwealth could draw up an extradition waiver that if signed by Lynn would prevent the monsignor from escaping to the Vatican. Blessington said he did investigate, and that such a waiver would be "worthless" in the event that the monsignor went on the lam.

Another Lynn defense lawyer, Thomas Bergstrom, told the judge that the defense was prepared to raise Lynn's bail from $50,000 to $100,000, meaning the family's ten percent deposit would rise from $5,000 to $10,000, if the judge was willing to grant house arrest.

Bergstrom, tried to assure the judge that Lynn was not a flight risk before she made her decision. "He's not going anywhere," Bergstrom said of his client, who was brought to the courthouse by sheriff's deputies, and was wearing a black short sleeve shirt and pants, minus his priest's collar.

Bergstrom tried to appeal to the judge's sense of fairness, but struck out looking. "If he were any other defendant he'd be out on bail," Bergstrom told the judge. "I don't think he should be treated any differently. I think he's entitled to it."

But if the monsignor made a break for it, the judge asked Bergstrom, "Would you serve his sentence?"

"Sure, absolutely," Bergstrom replied. "That's the faith that I have in this man."

Blessington stood and offered his rebuttal. "Counsel's word," he said, referring to Bergstrom, "quite frankly means nothing to me."

"Counsel can't serve the sentence," Blessington continued. "We all know that. It's absurd."

It was time for the judge to rule. She was brief.

"The motion is denied," she said. She did not state a reason.

Blessington also opposed moving the sentencing date, but was overruled by the judge. He did not want to mess with the vacation schedule in the district attorney's office, he said. Also, the prosecution has the right to put on at Lynn's sentencing testimony from "any and all victims" of the actions of the monsignor, Blessington said, adding, "That's a really large universe."

Get set for a lengthy sentencing hearing.

Blessington also objected to the last minute nature of the defense motion to move up the sentencing date.

"Once again, we're walking out the door and we're called back," he griped to the judge. But the judge told Blessington that she didn't mind "zealous" representation in defense of a client, although any defense attorney being zealous in her courtroom was also subject to "getting smacked down," the judge said.

Blessington, however, need not worry about that possibility, as he is obviously the teacher's pet.

Jeff Lindy reminded the judge that he had been the recent victim of a Sarmina smack-down, after he mistakenly told the judge that the monsignor did not own a passport, when he did.

Judge Sarminia told Lindy she had recently received his apology for that transgression by email. She did not seem placated. "Maybe the apology should be done in open court," she suggested.

Note to Lindy: time for more groveling.

The judge's decision left Lynn's family and supporters in tears. As Bergstrom was exiting the courtroom, he cracked a joke. "I just called the Vatican and said, give up a room," he said, meaning that his client would no longer be needing one.

Outside the Criminal Justice Center, Jeff Lindy was holding court with the press. He said the defense is planning to appeal the case once Lynn is sentenced. But the problem is, by the time the appeal is decided, Lynn may have served his sentence.

Lindy talked about his client's condition.

"He's in protective custody, which he should be," Lindy said. "He's in a contemplative position, which his profession has prepared him for." But Lindy said that the monsignor was also left feeling like the fall guy.

"He's upset because he's seems to have the weight of the church on his shoulders," Lindy said.

Victims' advocates, however, where cheered by the judge's decision.

"Given the Catholic hierarchy's ongoing protection of those who commit and conceal child sex crimes, we believe Judge Sarminia has made a prudent choice," said Barbara Blaine, president of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

"If Msgr. Lynn is behind bars, there's virtually no way that he can flee the country, destroy evidence, deceive victims, mislead parishioners or take other steps to further cover up wrongdoing."

"Some may view this decision as harsh," Blaine said in a press release. "We consider it just and smart. And we hope it will end current cover ups and deter future cover ups by Catholic officials across the country."


  1. I think Lynn is a fall guy and his conviction will be the last we'll see, when there should have been about a dozen trials like this of BISHOPS.

    Hope I'm wrong, but I'm pretty pessimistic.

  2. The Mosignor Lynn case is also having a very profound impact in another part of the world: Australia! This last week ABC Australia did a documentary called "Unholy Silence." It was a documentary of several altar boys, who were brutally raped as young children, who ended up committing SUICIDE as young adults! The documentary opened with a review of Monsignor Lynn's trial in Philly! Remember, this is AUSTRALIA, and they quoted the Lynn trial!!!!! They are currently setting up the basis for a case that is really shaking Australia up, and I predict there will be a trial of 3 senior clerics, who didn't report "Father F," one of the main abusers, to Law Enforcement! Heads are going to roll and senior clerics will end up in court in Australia! Finally, other countries are going to have their Monsignor Lynn-like trials! High ranking clerics and Members of the Hierarchy are going to be held accountable. It's about time!

    1. About that ABC Australia story:


  3. I forgot to include the link to the ABC Australian Documentary, "Unholy Silence:" Please notice the response of Cardinal Pell, the senior Primate of ALL Australia. He is either very confused, very misinformed or possibly even LYING! Here it is:

  4. Philadelphia priest, Msgr Lynn, is in jail because brave victims came forward and broke their silence.

    This trial and verdict sends a strong message to all church officials around the world that they can no longer get away with enabling and covering up sex crimes against innocent kids.

    It is time to start protecting children instead of protecting child predators. The Philadelphia Archdiocese is not unique in how they handle child sex crimes, all other dioceses throughout the world have secret archives and many "bishops are still NOT removing credibly accused predators from their parishes". Law enforcement needs to be investigating other diocese who are still protecting the predators. Children are still at risk of being sexually abused today.

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

    1. Yet again, Judy gives no hint at all that she even read the post.

    2. There appears to be a subset of people who hate the crime and also hate the advocates. I'm guessing that this subset wants everyone to go back to not speaking about this crime at all. So many of us, as children, were slapped in the face and told to "never speak of this again." Only those with an abundance of fortitude can overcome that.

      Judy Jones is not going to be silenced. Not by Jim, Pierre, or whoever the other one is. They ask for silence, but that shall not be given. Some of us aim to put a stop to this. And all of the divide and conquer tactics that can possibly be drummed up will not faze us. Waste of time, folks. My cousin's death will not be in vain. And Judy's brother's experience will not go gently into that good night. Not gonna happen.

    3. City of Angels 2 is at and it all really happened.

    4. To say I am sorry for both your relatives abuse is an understatement. No one should go through the hell victims bear.

      That said , who are you threatening and why? Did I or anyone else hear threaten you? And how are you "aiming" to put a "stop to this" Cowgal? All I am saying is the truth about SNAP. You and your cowpokes gonna kill free speech at long last? A Texan wet dream.

      No one here wants Judy Jones to shut up about anything. For some of us SNAP's platitudes and redundancies are simply BORING!
      By the way, you want to ban anybody? Ban yourself. Logic is not one of your strong points. You have no answers to legitimate questions about SNAP. You have no questions of SNAP fine. Let's just say your relationship with SNAP is faith based. I'll stick to the facts about SNAP. Believe me those are bad enough.

    5. Kay that was the truth thanks. Thanks.

    6. Jim, I grew up in Rochester, NY. No need to go off on a Texas rant just because you saw the letters "TX". Also no need to imagine that I am issuing "threats" or attempting to "ban" anyone. All of that is in your imagination. Your tendency to leap to conclusions does not endear others to your cause against SNAP. I'm guessing that SNAP had no use for your knee-jerk sarcasm. I myself have a great fondness for sarcasm, but I also know that it's not persuasive.

    7. Kay, I've read through many of your blogs in the past and, in fact, I tried hard to understand what the claims are against SNAP. I think I was actually on your side in that for awhile and I became disenchanted with SNAP because of things you said. But upon reflection, it seemed like it was really just different viewpoints as to how to go about getting things done. Some personality types are better with group-think and some are better with individual action.

      I think your City of Angels blogs are marvelous. I didn't see why City of Angels couldn't co-exist alongside SNAP's efforts and bishopaccountability's efforts and Catholics4Change's efforts, and One In Four in Ireland, etc. Did anyone really think that all victim/survivors' issues and hurts and endgoals could be lumped into one great big group where everyone gets represented exactly the same and every issue is equal?

      I'm just trying to say that in this effort to stop this church abuse, the more the merrier. I have absolute respect for your investigative journalism and your City of Angels blog.

    8. It has nothing to do with personality types, Sarah.

      Imagine what could have been accomplished if there had been a genuine network from the start. Over the last twenty years, there have been way too many survivors who tried to do things and were shut out.

      As a result, no bishop has been prosecuted and most of the public still think there were only a handful of priests committing minor crimes.

      Some of this marginalizing and stirring from within was being documented at the old SNAP message board around 2006. Then SNAP deactivated the board.

      Consider the Hague hoopla last year. There was a group in Germany working in Spring of 2011 on contacting The Hague to prosecute the Pope. Then in the fall of 2011, SNAP did its own version of contacting The Hague prosecutors' office, and, well, what ever happened to that? Meanwhile the project in Germany got swallowed up in the SNAP media blitz.

      Too many survivors got discouraged by SNAP's being unresponsive and noninclusive, and just quit. So those 2-3 persons who run SNAP guaranteed that the "movement" fizzled and was never more than the bare minimum it could be.

      There are a few sturdy souls who were able to keep on going, like the SNAP group in Northern California, who, from what I've been told, keep going in spite of the national SNAP office.

      A network is supposed to involve many, share resources, help people find each other... network. SNAP does the opposite, but the public only sees press releases and a website.

      Think for a minute who the bad guys are here, before you think what I'm saying is not possible.

    9. At the same time they are silencing the more vocal survivors, they are releasing press statements that say, "We give voice to victims."

      Who does that?

    10. PS, Sarah, thank you for your compliments about the work I did at City of Angels Blog.

      I needed a network and shared resources to continue to do it, and got the opposite. The support was never there.


    11. "Some of us aim to put an end to this" sure sounds threatening to me. Who are going to put an end to what this?
      If you realized an organization you shilled for was the exact opposite of what it claimed to be. What would you do?
      Please just once, could you answer one of my questions? Sarah? I'm sorry I took u for a TXan Nazi. Your analysis of me is total hogwash.Please what conclusions have I leapt to? You can't just drop these bombs on people and expect to get away with it uncritiqued. I and my behavior is not the subject here. SNAP and it's behavior is what's being questioned. Sarah, how much time have you spent with SNAP compared to Kay and I?

    12. They fly in wherever the story is breaking, take a position front and center for media and new survivors coming forward, then fly out taking all the contact information with them, leaving whoever originally broke the story at a local level in the dark, out of the loop.

      The end result is damage control and as little of each story gets out as possible.

      Who would do that?

    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    14. Hi, Jim,

      By "put an end to this," I meant the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church. I'm sorry that was misinterpreted. I don’t stand for or against any advocate or group of advocates. I do find myself looking askance at infighting among groups that are just trying to protect the dignity and innocence of children.

      I've spent very little time with SNAP. I've read thousands of local news articles quoting SNAP or about SNAP. I'm no expert on SNAP. What I can say is I would not know much of anything about the child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church but for SNAP because SNAP manages to get local news stories printed all over the country. I don’t know what I’d do if I realized an organization I shilled for was the opposite of what it claimed to be. The reason for that is because I’m an individual activist who doesn’t shill for anyone so I just don’t know the experience of trying to pull people together and put together an agenda that suits all members.

      For instance, my personal approach includes, to the chagrin of many, my belief that the parents of abused children are as much or more to blame than even the madmen in the Catholic Church who are taking advantage of really bad Catholic parenting. I haven’t come across anyone yet who likes my take on it. But I’m pretty intent on seeing the day when parents get hauled into court on criminal neglect charges. I’m pretty sure that is in no way part of SNAP’s agenda, but I don’t care. I’m still going to press the issue and I’m still going to be glad for what SNAP is doing.

      When such incredibly emotionally and physically damaging injuries happen to children, the first step for anyone delving into it is to find some way to even vocalize what occurred and articulate the outrage that follows. So what I see is that there are people trying to silence SNAP and I don’t get that since it’s because of SNAP that our society is knowing more about this. But I do understand that many people have had big problems with SNAP. I’ll try to stay out of it. I think the only reason I put a comment about sarcasm is because I felt bad that a passionate advocate for children like yourself is undoing your argument by trying to end the conversation, which is essentially what sarcasm does.

      Me and you are on the same page, Jim. In the big picture it doesn’t really matter how either of us expresses our outrage. We’re both spending much of our spare time trying to stop the abuse. There’s a virtual army of people out there doing the same. I am a wellwisher for every single one of them including you, Kay, David Clohessy, the Prime Minister of Ireland, Ralph Cipriano, every single one of them.

      I am optimistic every single day that with each day we have gone a step further in raising the awareness of this scourge in our society.

      Sorry for the long comment. I want to answer every question posed to me and I have to try harder to not be misunderstood.

      Best of luck to you, Jim.


    15. Sarah I apologize to you for the hate crack below.

      you don't deserve that at all. I ask for your forgiveness.

      I'm just so angry at the money spent by SNAP to appear to defend victims when they really don't.

      I'm crying........


      SNAP really has brought information to you and the rest of the public only when it benefits them. Not victims but SNAP. How that information is worded and or presented only underlines SNAP's "leadership". SNAP appears sad for victims. Who isn't? But sad aint connection. And SNAP eliminates that.

      I'm so fucking tired of trying to get the truth out...

  5. Kay: I do hope that you are wrong. Just this morning I saw a news flash on AOL done by Jim Flink. In it he mentioned that another civil case involving Lynn is coming up. Just maybe it'll involve other clerics within the enbarrassed archdiocese, possibly even a couple men who have been promoted to bishops. We can ONLY hope! I think that the people of Philly are going to want all loose ends cleaned up, in both the Lynn case and the Sandusky case. There are too many problems yet to be resolved, and too many people who knew things that they should have reported. Jeep the faith! It ain't over yet. The fat lady or a somewhat corpulent male has yet to sing!

  6. I didn't expect Sarmina to grant Lynn house arrest before the formal sentencing. She hadn't cut him any breaks up til this point, so I certainly didn't expect leniency regarding house arrest.

    I am curious, though, about the inevitable sentence. To Ralph, and the legal experts out there: Do you really think he could serve the maximum...a 7 year jail sentence? One count of 3rd degree felony, no prior convictions, 61 years old, and a Monsignor? What are everyone's best guesses for sentencing?

    1. Sarmina hasn't given him a break yet so I expect her to give Monsignor Lynn the maximum, as ridiculous as it would be to do that.

  7. Barbra Blaine's bullshit rap"Some may view this as harsh"? That statement alone says SNAP's the Church. What do victims care about what "some" (whoever the fuck they are) may view." Again never talking about victims. Deconstruct the sentence:Snap's saying readers view this sentence as harsh because SNAP brought up the subject of "harsh view"in regards Lynn's guilty verdict. SNAP tells you how to think by the words they choose to post to the public. St. John said, "in the beginning was the word and the word was made flesh." Your words become your thoughts become your actions become your views. A third of Barbras quote is about" maybe being to harsh" Lynn should send her a thank you note When your supposed enemy worries for you and uses "Harsh" to infer your sentence might be too stiff. Flowers and a thank you note seem more than appropriate.

    1. But I think what she's doing with this is trying to appeal to those who support this guy, those who just plain can't believe these things about the Catholic Church. I think this is the way you have to communicate when you're not preaching to the choir but instead doing the harder work of preaching to the ultimate cause of the problems, that being practicing Catholics. To make any inroads with them at all, you pretty much have to talk like a Catholic and frame things like Catholics do, with the hope that speaking their language will be persuasive.

      I'm not trying to be unduly supportive of Barbra. I'm just saying that I think that victims need all voices including those that are less combative and more conciliatory in seeking a resolution. I think we're not gonna get anywhere if we just pound the Catholics day in and day out and never give consideration to the real fact that Catholics fear hell and fear losing their religion, and it takes a compendium of voices to get their attention. We can't put them all in jail. We have to hope to get the practicing Catholics on our side acknowledging the rampant abuse in the first place and then aiming to stamp it out. We need them. I myself despise them, but I still try from time to time to not alienate them.

    2. Victims want criminal and civil suits against MEMBERS of the clergy in the Catholic Church and the corporation that is the Catholic Church.

      Not one victim has brought up one sentence in the Apostles Creed in any court case or press statement. Therefore we challenge nothing in regards to the faith of people.

      We challenge the actions of administrators and the corporation that allowed our injuries to occur.

      You want to reach the people in the pews? that's your choice. Not necessarily victims' choice.

      What Catholics think about is up to them.

    3. Also When you imply with words like: "Victims need all voices including those that are less combative and more conciliatory in seeking a resolution" Who do those words refer to?

      You are not appearing trust worthy.

      Why? Because it implies that our position is more combative and less conciliatory than who? SNAP?

      Billie Donahue says"(SNAP sic) wants to sunder the Church"

      He said it today.

      So confusion reigns.

      The poles are placed. Donahue vs. SNAP.

      Jesus this thing is more choreographed than "Riverdance".

    4. Want resolution? Buy a t.v. set.

      Here's the truth the Church doesn't want to pay the raped compensation.

      That's the whole story. The simple truth.

      Everything else is just muslin scenery and puppetry.

  8. then she says the old saw about "end current coverups etc." Yup that's just what'll happen alright alright. Keep the scandal about what the hierarchs do; not about helping the already injured. And She's paid almost 100,000 dollars a year for this shit? Oh Please!

  9. Over and over the response has been towards victim activists who question SNAP's veracity: "Can't you just work with SNAP?" "Stop fighting and work together." etc. We talk fraud. They talk reconcile yourself to the fraud.
    This," can't you all just get along" whine has appeared at Bilgramage and other sites as well as here. It's appeared so often I believe it's a PR talking point. It smells like one of Father Tom Doyle's brainstorms. Make those who challenge SNAP's legitimacy appear to be un-cooperative. When in fact the exact opposite is true. SNAP has destroyed event after event planned by real victims. So that it may continuously control victims and how we are seen publicly. SNAP is beyond uncooperative. It's deadly. SNAP ends discussion. It never encourages discussion. I and others were told at SNAP meetings, "Stay in your pain". I'm not kidding. We would talk actions. SNAP would say very sadly " Stay in your pain". We would plan actions; One was at the National Bishops Conference in L.A. in 2007 or 06. We had planned with SNAP's agreement to send women's pink slips to Bishops who had been hostile towards victims. Basicly firing them. And doing a press conference about the event. It never happened. Planed, prepared for but never happened. To this day , no one but SNAP knows why it didn't happen. It's a mystery as the good nuns would say.
    You just can't cooperate with a fraud and expect good things to happen.

  10. Sometimes the readers write a better blog than the writer.

  11. Off Topic.

    JPMorgan complicit with Vatican money laundering.

    Tony Blair did a lot of dirty dealings with this bank from dead Iraqi's and I would love to see them go down.

  12. Ralph are you noting the silence here? I think the SNAP supporters
    have shut up so the discussion would end.
    Ending discussion is what SNAP and the Church want more than anything. Especially from SNAP hating victims.

    1. Wrong conclusion. Keep in mind that everyone has limitations on their time.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. No offense but I hate you Sarah. I really do. I know that sounds bad in a world where Nazi's are nice. But I'll tell the truth anyway.

      Today SNAP spent $170,000 dollars more or less to buy a full page ad in the N.Y. Times. And your worried about what Catholics will think about victims!

      In 23 years SNAP has spent roughly $600 dollars on direct services to victims. That's $600 in 23 YEARS.

      And you'll still defend them as a voice amongst many voices in this "movement"

      I don't care about Catholics.

      I don't care about protecting kids who haven't been harmed.

      I'm neither a Catholic or a cop.

      I do care about those who have been raped and for whom nothing has been done.

      Sarah your cousin, had she and her family had some good therapy, might still be with you today.

      How much therapy could be paid for with $170,000?

    4. Again Sarah I'm sorry for the crack.

    5. Don't sweat it, Jim. It's a hate-filled exercise dealing with child sexual abuse. Hate is very much a part of the equation. As well it should be. I'm a bit encouraged today to read the story on ABC about the Sandusky report being so similar to the Monsignor Lynn trial. And that the West Virginia bishop is back under investigation. And I also liked the story in Ireland where a lady took her case against the government of Ireland to a European court. Ireland tried to push her case off as the problem of the Catholic Church, but the European court disagreed and took the case. There are steam rollers moving in various parts of the world, and they aren't prompted by SNAP. I'm sure you read the Clergy Abuse Tracker. I printed out the whole series of articles in the India newspaper. I see it all coming down, Jim. But I think it's especially discouraging here in the U.S. where we haven't even had a congressional hearing or anything. The U.S. may well be the last in line to do anything about it, as a country anyway. Who knows, maybe SNAP has cleverly stalled the effort. But even if that were the case, they're not going to stall the rest of the world. They're not going to cause the pope to decide not to resign. This is a worldwide religion, and the world doesn't have to wait for the U.S. to get on board for this train to travel. This train is taking down this filthy religion. And if SNAP is an imposter, it will be exposed. If that group is not right, they're gonna have to get right, Jim. Those are my Pollyanna words for the day. I'm crying too. My cousin wasn't the only one molested in my family. My brothers suffered also. Up there in the Rochester Diocese. All three of them. I will not be quieted by any person, group, or movement. So long as I can read and write, I remain a force to be reckoned with. And so do you. There's a dam army out there. And we are clutching victory from the jaws of defeat. You are too.

    6. Sarah every now and then one needs Haley Mills.

      Tell the truth though the heavens fall.

  13. Next trial to watch is this September in St. Louis (birthplace of SNAP) where Bishop Finn is charged by Federal prosecutors with failure to report Father Shawn Ratigan for having little girl porn on his computer... watch it to see how the whole process is being manipulated.

    Maybe one bishop will be sacrificed to placate the critics. It's still not enough, but it might be all we ever get.

    1. Also, the trial of Ratigan is in August and federal prosecutors are going to show evidence of further uncharged crimes. It sounds like an aggressive prosecution. Do you think it is not? I ask that sincerely. If it's all a big fake show, I want to look for evidence of that as the trials unfold. Also, does St. Louis being the birthplace of SNAP have relevance to these two trials? I ask that sincerely too.

    2. I think compared to all the crimes covered up by all the bishops, the Ratigan-Flynn upcoming trials are not where federal prosecutors should put their efforts. But it's probably all we will get.

    3. And yes, I do see a kind of strange symmetry, that the Paracletes moved all their perv priests from New Mexico to St. Louis and now the one trial of a bishop is going to happen in St. Louis, where SNAP was born. It just seems like more than a coincidence to me.

      Of all the archdioceses with all the horrible crimes, such as altar boys being sodomized in rectories between Masses in several cities, this seems like the least they can do and still save face.

      After my experience, I trust no one.

    4. Yes, and it seems to put us at opposite ends that I do trust that authorities are going to clamp down more and more with each successive guilty verdict. I can imagine, though, that my expressions of optimism are infuriating. I just don't know any other way to go with it. If it's all just a sham and can't be exposed or sorted out or stopped, then I have to go find a new cause. I don't think this is a lost cause by any means. And I suppose I do suffer from the malady of actually liking lawyers and prosecutors. I've worked all my life with both and from my window of experience, prosecutors are bull dogs who go get 'em, like Blessington.

      I consider it a huge victory that Blessington got any guilty verdict. Because I feel like, we're fighting the Catholic Church here, people, we're in the fight of our life. I totally hope the Pope resigns, as has been rumored. If he did, I would shamelessly proclaim that we drove him out.

      I believe the world is sickened by this and that the International Criminal Court will one day prosecute it. Whether it will be prompted by SNAP or a group in Germany or maybe even Ireland will put something together, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other which group triggers it.

      I'm just thrilled every day when I read something new. The best days of all are when the Prime Minister of Ireland steps up to bat. I consider Ireland Ground Zero, and I expect that the Irish, among whom we have some of the greatest writers on earth, are going to set this straight, whether in my lifetime or not.

      I know this is frustrating, but someone's got to express the optimism and I feel called to do that. At the same time, Kay, you're a victim of this dreadful injury and I am not. Jim is a victim and I am not. My knowledge is secondhand. I can't possibly advocate the same as a victim/survivor would. It would be presumptuous for me to even try.

      But I'm in this because I was in an intense written communication with my cousin when she killed herself, and her spirit jumped into me. That girl was not supposed to die. Ultimately, it wasn't the priest who brought her demise, it was her family that drove her into her garage with her rope. I may be grasping at straws, but I must keep asserting that even if there's no easy walk to freedom, freedom is around the corner.

      I even hold the maybe preposterous view that we have already brought some relief to at least some people by saying over and over that we're on this and we're gonna get these people who did this. I'm a hopeless optimist and every movement needs hope. We're both on the same side, Kay.

    5. I was optimistic too from 1995 to about the middle of 2008...

    6. Oh yea the International court will fix it. My ass! If SNAP went to the court it felt pretty safe in doing so.

      SNAP's action only outraged the faithful.

      Mama Church is under attack. Protect the faith!

      That Jesus "successor" would be put on trial????You are dreaming.

      A pyhric victory is no victory at all.

    7. Missouri is also the state where David Clohessy broke the gag order.

      So conveniently close to home for our David. David who was seen spending $200 for his single meal on SNAP's expense account.

    8. The victims in Ireland have been completely done in.

      The Irish government was co-conspiritors in ending law suits.For the governments benefit.

      Do you think $80,000 is a fair settlement?

      I do not.

    9. It should have read: the Irish govt. were co-conspiritors.

      P.S. I lived in Ireland.

    10. I'm kind of peeved about their ad as it uses words directly from my blog, the exact phrases pushing the envelope I've been writing for years, words that SNAP previously would never say.

      Now they use those words for their fundraising.

      But when I asked them to let me raise funds for my blog under their umbrella until I could get something started, they refused, in fact, just ignored my emails and phone calls.

      That's how SNAP got started. The Dominican Sisters at 8th Day Center for Justice in Chicago let SNAP raise funds under the Dominican's IRS 501c3 back in the early 1990s, so SNAP could get funds it needed to get started.

      But SNAP would not do the same for City of Angels Blog, which I think is strange.

      Now they use my wording to raise money... it's just creepy and eerie.

    11. Kay,

      I think you should sue SNAP.

      This is not the first time SNAP has stolen well written phrases from you.

      SNAP stabs you in the back by shunning you then robs your talents for their fraud. They steal your work to make them appear "real" in the public's eye.

      I can only hope that what we write here will finally end the SNAP represents victims lie.


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.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.