SNAP director admits to publishing false information
By Michelle Bauman
Clayton, Missouri, Mar 6, 2012 / 05:07 pm (CNA).- The leader of a group that works with clergy sex abuse victims admitted during a recent deposition that the organization has published false information and that he is unsure about whether the group employs licensed counselors.
David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, known as SNAP, was deposed on Jan. 2 in Clayton, Mo. amid accusations that the group had printed restricted information in a press release.
The accusations centered around concerns that an attorney violated a court gag order by revealing information about an abuse lawsuit to the organization.
Clohessy was ordered by a judge to answer questions in an out-of-court testimony that may later be used for legal purposes in an ongoing attempt to determine whether the gag order had been violated.
In the text of the deposition – posted online by The Media Report on March 1 – Clohessy was asked by attorneys, “Has SNAP to your knowledge ever issued a press release that contained false information?”
“Sure,” he responded, without offering any defense or explanation.
You can read the rest there.
I read the deposition. Gruesome.
The SNAP organization has problems, there’s no doubt about that… I sometimes wonder why those guys are bird-dogging the Bishops…and then I remember: $$$money$$$
Nicole is right on the $$$ (pun intended). Yes there have been some horrific cases of abuse….but there have also been a lot of false accusations motivated solely by $$$$$$ and as a result some innocent clergy have suffered horribly. What is most disturbing is Priests who have been accused, the investigation(s) have concluded no wrong-doing on their part and yet they are exiled to Siberia by their Bishops.
How odd that the Kansas City Star has not been able to obtain a copy of the deposition and report on SNAP’s misconduct. Back when the record was sealed, SNAP claimed that the witness was abused during the deposition, and that the transcript would prove it. The media was all over THAT story. But now the court has seen through SNAP’s PR scheme and unsealed most of the transcript. And the record demonstrates that the WITNESS was the only one acting improperly. Mendacity from anti-Catholic zealots is not newsworthy, apparently.
What gets my goat is how later in the story they say they demand “complete transparency” from dioceses, but then have the unmitigated gall to say they should be held to a “different standard”. Utterly hypocritical, especially in light of this revelation, which, I must add to appease any naysayers that may come along, was admitted in OPEN COURT!
Given the way the question was asked, and the penalties for perjury, answering as he did would have been a no-brainer. “Has SNAP to your knowledge ever issued a press release that contained false information?” Ever? Ever? A wrong estimate of attendance at a demonstration could be false info. I would like to believe that after that almost useless question, the attorney would have gotten more specific.
Clohessy claims to have had a homosexual fling with a priest when he was 15. He forgot all about this until he was in his 30’s. He suddenly remembered it after watching a movie called “Nuts”.
Blaine had a sexual relationship with a priest during high school.
The more info people get on these two and their organization the better.
Wmeyer is right, a good attorney would have a host of follow up questions, which would probably be objected to and left unanswered until the court rules that the deponent answer them. As an attorney I don’t care to read depos in my spare time, but this might be one worth reading.
Mr. Clohessy has marched headlong into this mess from the time he first filed suit against the Jefferson City Arch. in the early 90’s. He has spared no one and caused a world of hurt including his own family. One of his brothers was a priest of the Jefferson City Diocese when David Clohessy filed suit. I believed at the time he would move on after his own suit, seeing as how it was so hurtful to his own loved ones. Instead he is still at it 20 years later!
Mom2301: Thank you. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if this was not merely the intro to a series of questions drilling down into the specifics of their public lies, then there was no purpose in asking it.
wmeyer: You should read the transcript, which is available for free on the internet. I found it at http://www.themediareport.com. The lawyers did a fine job asking questions. Clohessy refused to answer most of them.