UnSNAPed

An Accurate Summary

2008-06-27T01:38:00.005-07:00

Back in 2000... before the Supreme Court intervened without even being asked and gave Bush the presidency, we had a balanced budget, healthy markets, affordable oil and low inflation.

And yet a petty, self righteous, amoral Republican party saw fit to impeach Bill Clinton over a goddamned blow job. We were told Bush was going to restore honor to the White House. Here is a brief review of the facts. For Republicans to ever speak loftily of things like "honor" again and be taken seriously, they have a colossal mess to clean up first. The only good thing to come out of the last eight years is that now just about everyone in this country sees them for what they really are.

Central Scrutinizer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How does President Bush lie?

Let Cy Bolton count the memos.

By Cy Bolton
June 27, 2008

» Discuss Article In the face of overwhelming evidence, it's astounding that people such as James Kirchick, in ",” continue to defend the president against accusations that he intentionally misled and outright lied to the American people in making the case for war with Iraq.

Consider first the implications of the famous Downing Street memo from July 23, 2002. Briefing Tony Blair about his recent talks with Washington, Britain's top intelligence officer stated that U.S. "military action was now seen as inevitable. ... But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

A month later, in August 2002, the administration set up the White House Iraq Group, designed solely to sell the public on the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In essence, it was a marketing campaign to sell the war by escalating the rhetoric and misleading the public. And lying.

And boy, did they. Here are statements from the administration in 2002 as they beat the drums for war. Dick Cheney said: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use ... against us." Condoleezza Rice: "We do know that [Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon." Donald Rumsfeld: "[Hussein's] regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons."

These statements were designed to cultivate in Americans fear of Iraq's imminent threat, the keystone of Bush's push to war. They were grossly and intentionally misleading, suggesting that the administration possessed incontrovertible facts on which were drawn these definitive conclusions. In reality, the facts were known to be ambiguous at best. Absolutely no intelligence existed at the time that would allow anyone to reach such concrete conclusions.

And Bush advisors aren't the only ones. His assertion on Oct. 7, 2002, that Iraq posed an imminent threat was beaten into the nation's psyche: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof." Yet the president possessed directly opposing information from the top-secret National Intelligence Estimate, released days earlier. Prepared by the CIA with input from 16 U.S. intelligence agencies: "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional CBW [chemical and biological weapons] against the United States."

The declassified summary of the NIE -- released by the administration for public and media review shortly after the full report -- was another lie in that it was grotesquely altered. The above point was not included. Also missing were several forceful statements from other intelligence agencies disputing the CIA's horribly overblown and inaccurate assessments. Finally, in at least half a dozen instances, conclusions were altered to make Iraq's threat more compelling. Language was added or omitted that changed CIA opinions to incontrovertible facts

Conclusion: The public document was rigged to support the push for war. The president intentionally misled the public. The intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy.

Another example is the now infamous nuclear reference from Bush's 2003 State of the Union address: "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Not only was this refuted twice in early 2002 -- by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and by French intelligence -- but the CIA's National Intelligence Council investigated and told the White House four days before the address that "the Niger [Africa] story is baseless and should be laid to rest." So the administration knew the claim was false, used it anyway and when caught, issued a collective "oops." Although these speeches are vetted by Bush staffers, State, Defense, National Security and the CIA, it just slipped through. Riiiiight.

Two weeks before the war, the president echoed statements made in January's State of the Union: "I've got a good evidence to believe that. [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass destruction," and "Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors." Ah yes, the mobile labs. And your evidence was from whom, sir? Curveball? The now fully discredited Iraqi chemical engineer who defected in 1999 and claimed to have worked in the labs? In 2002, German intelligence -- who debriefed Curveball -- told the CIA that the guy was “crazy” and “a fabricator.”

Yet in his push for war, Bush chose to voice the Iraqi defector's claims over proof offered by U.N. weapons inspectors who, with eyes and ears on the ground, represented the best possible intelligence. From November 2002 to March 2003, they were granted unprecedented freedom and conducted more than 700 no-notice inspections all over Iraq and found nothing. No mobile labs, no underground storage facilities, nothing. This should have been great news, but not for a president looking to go to war. Indeed, U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix flat out accused Bush and Blair of lying when he stated: "The Americans and British created facts where there were no facts at all. ... The Americans needed [to find] weapons of mass destruction to justify war." So Bush was creating facts to justify war.

If there remains any equivocation of Bush's propensity to lie, consider the Jan. 31, 2003, meeting between Bush and Blair. In a summary, Blair foreign policy advisor David Manning wrote that there was tension between the two over finding some justification for the war. In fact, Bush was so concerned about the failure of the weapons inspectors to find WMD that the president floated three possible ways to "provoke a confrontation" with Hussein. So here's your president very publicly using self-defense to sell a war while quite privately discussing how to provoke one -- with an allegedly dangerous foe who poses an imminent threat. Either Bush lied or he put us at grave risk. Or both.

Space constraints don't allow for a refutation of all the lies the president told about Iraq's threat, their weapons and their link to Osama bin Laden. However, consider this final point: Our government spent nearly tens of millions of dollars to try to impeach a president for lying about consensual sex between two adults. Compare that to this abomination: George W. Bush knowingly lied to the American people in selling his case for a war that has directly led to the deaths of more than 4,000 Americans. They are deaths brought about by his lies, deceit and deception. It is an American atrocity of monumental proportion, followed closely by the heinous fact that no one has held him accountable. Where is the outrage?

Cy Bolton is a former news anchor and military affairs reporter. His coverage of defense-related issues and conflicts in the Balkans and the Middle East has appeared on NBC Nightly News, MSNBC, CNN and affiliates across the country.

Blowback is an online forum for full-length responses to our articles, editorials and Op-Ed articles. Click here to read more about Blowback, or submit your own by e-mailing us at opinionla@latimes.com.

Back from the dead.

2008-05-29T10:53:00.007-07:00

Hello, yeah it's been awhile.

Well, I was content to let this blog languish forever out here in cyberspace, but lately I've really been feeling the need for a place to post. To post whatever the fuck I want, and this is the only place that fits the bill. It may never get read, but it's not the being read part that's so cathartic, it is the writing part.

When I last posted my case was awaiting the appellate court. Since then, the diocese of San Diego has, as part of it's bankruptcy case (ahem) has paid to settle my case The amount was determined by a judge who had the unenviable task of deciding what each case was worth. The judge, Peter Litchman, lamented afterwards that there wasn't enough money to fairly compensate all of the victims in his view, saying

"There was simply not enough money to compensate all of the high-end victims with a high-end dollar amount" .

....."The range, extent and depth of abuse in the San Diego cases are unlike any that this court has previously seen."

Wow

$198,000,000.....was not enough. Some people will think that that's bullshit I'm sure. .
For those of you out there who consider yourselves good Catholics and think the amounts to be excessive, and that the plaintiffs and their lawyers to be taking advantage of your church, consider this: If the Church had done the right thing in the first place, they would have saved at least $400,000 in my case alone.

The judge awarded my case $500,000 dollars. I took home almost $200,000k. I'm attending college and looking for work after being off for a few months to decompress. I am happy with what I consider a moral victory.

Switching gears, I read that Mahony has told one of his brother bishops not to come speak in LA. The Bishop in question, a Geoffrey Robinson from Australia, has spoken out against the church regarding it's pedophile problem.

www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12688

I think it's great whenever someone dogs the church for enabling and protecting it's pedophiles, I really do. I would especially enjoy seeing bishops fight with rusted swords. But I really don't know what to make of this guy or any other victim / survivor's activist that remains inside the church while advocating for survivors. It seems to me that if they truly saw the church for what it is they would just leave....but they never do leave though, at least no one with any rank does that I have ever heard of. Why is that? Wouldn't you leave? I don't know why this doesn't raise more red flags inside the community of survivors.

Actually, these guys have survivors falling all over them, which also makes me uncomfortable. A couple of years back a RCC bishop, Thomas Gumbleton, a professed survivor, was the keynote speaker at a SNAP conference. Gumbleton has a treasure trove of knowledge in his head that could bring a lot of victims in the Detroit area some justice, but the bishop keeps it all to himself. He also refuses to name his abuser. Yet he was embraced by SNAP like he was Jesus. I don't get it. SNAP tells everyone else to come forward and name their accuser.

I am eternally paranoid when it comes to the good ol RCC.

After six months off work, off the message boards and everything else, I once again have the need to type my thoughts, my rants, and some will undoubtedly say my hateful venom about the problem of pedophiles running rampant in priestly garb and the never ending PR tactics undertaken to protect them and their church. It is good to be back.

A New Chapter

2007-01-25T09:08:00.000-07:00

I am glad that I came here today, because I got to see Dawn Wells (scroll down to near the bottom of the page) circa 1960. If that doesn't lift your spirits, assuming you are a heterosexual male, you need to see a doctor.

Two days ago, after five years of litigation, my case against the diocese of San Diego was dismissed by Judge Haley Fromholz.

I offer my congratualtions to Brandy Cody Thompson and Dave Carothers, the attorneys of Carlton DiSante and Freudenberger who led Bishop Brom to his legal victory. It has got to be a happy day for you and your client.

Here is a story that ran in the San Diego Union Tribune:

Judge dismisses abuse case against Diocese of San Diego

By Mark SauerUNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITERJanuary 24, 2007

One of five clergy-abuse cases set for trial against the Diocese of San Diego has been dismissed by a judge who ruled there was no evidence that church officials were aware the accused priest may have been a pedophile.

Michael Shoemaker, who now lives in Kansas, filed suit in August 2002 alleging that the late Rev. John Daly molested him at St. Joseph Church in Holtville in 1977.

Shoemaker, then 16, said he and an 18-year-old friend were hitchhiking in the rain in El Centro when Daly picked them up and said they could spend the night at the church. After awaking to find Daly orally copulating him, Shoemaker said, he and his friend fled the church. They reported the incident to Holtville police.

Daly was arrested but never charged, according to Walter Dutton, the former officer who made the arrest. Dutton has testified that he remembered seeing police paperwork citing two prior arrests of Daly on sex-abuse charges.

But in dismissing Shoemaker's lawsuit, Superior Court Judge Haley Fromholz of Los Angeles noted that the plaintiff's attorneys failed to produce any documents from police files, or Daly's personnel file, corroborating previous arrests.

“Even if there were admissible evidence supporting the existence of these prior arrests, there is no evidence that (diocese officials) knew or had any reason to know of their occurrence,” wrote Fromholz in a ruling issued Monday.

Shoemaker tried to argue that church officials may have destroyed documents in Daly's personnel file which would have proved they knew he was a molester, said Dave Carothers, an attorney representing the San Diego diocese.

“But the court ruled there is no evidence that (Daly's file) was destroyed or mishandled,” said Carothers, who filed the motion to dismiss the case along with attorney Brandy Cody.
“The judge was not going to deny our motion based on speculation,” Carothers said.
Proving “notice” – that church officials knew, or should have known, that an individual priest was a sex abuser – can be a challenge, said Irwin Zalkin.

Zalkin is a San Diego attorney representing about 30 percent of 160 plaintiffs who have sued the diocese over allegations of sex abuse dating back decades. Shoemaker's attorney, Anthony DeMarco of Los Angeles, did not return phone calls.

“These cases hinge on the issue of notice,” Zalkin said. “In the (Shoemaker) case, there were no documents to rely upon. It's difficult to prove notice when the diocese destroys confidential files.”

About 60 of the 160 sex-abuse cases filed four years ago against the Diocese of San Diego have been released for pretrial investigation and depositions, a process known as discovery.
Four lawsuits are now set for trial, beginning on Feb. 28, at the main county courthouse in downtown San Diego. END OF STORY

For the record, I want to state a couple of things before I proceed.

1. It is without question that I was molested by Fr. Daly in August 1977. No one disputes it.

2. Something is terribly wrong with the justice system in this country. When Fr. Daly molested me, I went straight to the police to report it. I did my part as a citizen. But the bishop interviened and Fr Daly was not charged. I was polygraphed by the way about two days after the incident.

Fast forward to 2001. I learned that Fr. Daly had escaped justice after thinking he had gone to prison all this time. I was not happy. A law was passed in California soon afterwards that allowed civil lawsuits to be filed in cases such as these. Again, I followed the law and filed suit.

The evidence in this case is overwhelming, I assure you that no one who views it has any doubt as to the validity of my story.

But just as in 1977, powerful forces interviened and justice was destroyed, just as before.

It all hinges on "prior notice". I had to prove that diocese should have known that Daly was a molester. I believe we did that. Everyone believes that except Judge Haley Fromholz. In the coming days I will be posting several documents, depostions, and sworn statements. But for now, I will lick my wounds for few more days.

Msgr. Steven Callahan, admits in his deposition to destroying confidential files, he destroyed so many records that it took him months to accomplish this. While he cannot recall which files he destroyed, he is certain that he did not destroy Daly's.

Judge Fromholz accepted Callahan's testimony but rejected that of the arresting officers.

Even though a police officer who is now an attorney has sworn that he placed records about Daly's previous arrests in the investigative file, the judge calls that hearsay.

Truth has fallen in the street, and justice cannot enter.

Fr. Daly was a child molster. I know that I am not his only victim. There are more of you out there. I need you to come forward. I can be contacted at shoespike@comcast.net

UPDATE: 2/1/07

You can't believe the dates on these blogs. That is because there is no option to post in reverse chonological order, so you have to give your posts false dates, at least that is the only work around I have found so far. Now that I've digressed....

I will not be posting the documents that I said I would be posting due to developments in my case.

The decision was a big disapointment to be sure, but disapointments were made to be overcome. After a few days of whining, I feel much better. Most importantly, I remain determined to fight in spite of the decision by Judge Fromholz.

This would not be the first time he has been overturned for disallowing testimony if that should happen, so I remain optomistic.

Bishop Brom has very good lawyers. In my opinion they are ruthless. But I believe that the truth has a funny way of refusing to stay buried. And my lawyers are pretty good themselves, but I don't consider them ruthless. Dedicated, hard working, skilled, honest.....? Yes. I think that's all you need. It's all I would want.

Adjustments

2007-01-25T09:00:00.000-07:00

I deleted parts of this blog today for the following reason. While doing research into SNAP's finances, I have learned how to obtain them without difficulty. Now it is just a matter of doing it, which I will in the coming days ahead.

But for now I am going to let it rest. The reason for this is that I just lost my lawsuit against the Diocese of San Diego. It is a bitter blow. I am going to write about that instead for a while.

Safe at last.

2006-12-20T09:55:00.000-07:00

There is an old joke about a hitchhiker who gets picked by a truck driver who rapes him. He then proceeds to leave the man on the side of the road, nude, with his hands tied to his ankles. A Highway Patrolman pulls up and surveys the scene, gets out of his car and approaches the man.

"Thank God you're here". "This awful truck driver raped me and left me like this on the side of the road". The man was in tears.

The Highway Patrolman smiled, unbuckled his belt and dropped his pants, revealing his erection. As he inserted himself into the man he said, "I guess it just ain't your day son".

Run! They're coming to help!

2006-12-20T09:17:00.000-07:00

There are disasters of all kinds in life, and few of us, if any, escape them all. But it is not the disasters that you really have to look out for, one can buy insurance for most of them. No, what you really have to watch out for are the parasitic vermin that come in after a disaster, you know, the ones who say they only want to help you.

For instance, when there is a bad storm in the midwest, roofers suddenly decsend into the afflicted area. Many are legitimate licenced roofers whose services are desperately needed. Others are scoundrels, who wouldn't give you a decent roof for your money even if they did know how to nail down shingles in a straight line.

But if your roof was just destroyed, all you want is a new roof. If you are just a tad naive, you could be swindled. And so it is with victims of clergy sexual abuse.

You are dealt a blow. You hurt. You reach out for help. In this computer age, you just might reach out online. That could be a horrible mistake. You could end up feeling like the hitchhiker above.

SNAP

2006-12-20T08:49:00.001-07:00

SNAP is the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Or as a friend of mine said of SNAP, Someone Needs A Psychiatrist. SNAP is victim support group started by Barbara Blaine and is based in Chicago.

I have what I consider to be serious questions and concerns about SNAP. Thus far, SNAP has never felt inclined to address any of them, despite numerous requests.

Lest I be misunderstood, I am not denigrating survivors here, (or victims if you would rather call them that), of clergy sexual abuse in any way shape or form. I'm one myself. I know firsthand of the shame, the pain, and the daily struggles that cannot be condensed into a paragraph.

But at the same time, one's status as a survivor of clergy sexual abuse should never be used as an excuse to lie, cheat or steal either. In this day and age, personal responsibility is continually cast aside. Mark Foley gets caught diddling pages and it's not his fault, he was sexually abused by a priest. He is an alcoholic. Bullshit. No fucking excuse.

But if there is one thing in this world that is guaranteed to mess up your mind, it is being raped by a priest and then trying to get some kind of justice. It is an uphill fight all the way. Expect no help or sympathy from the church. They will fight you every step of the way.

Don't expect any help from SNAP either. Survivors who have been helped by SNAP is a very short list.

From the web, statements regarding Ms. Blaine's compensation.

2006-12-20T07:29:00.000-07:00

The organization grew as Blaine went to the media
to publicize it. Some money came in from victims
and their families, enough to pay Blaine a modest
salary and a salary to a national director,
another abuse victim, who lives in St. Louis as
well as some clerical support.-

Tom Roeser Blog 3-21-06

As a paid employee of SNAP, Blaine made $63,000
last year. She says this is comparable to what
she’d make working for Cook County except SNAP has
no benefits. She averages an 80-hour work week
with traveling and her ubiquitous media presence.
Blaine is one of four SNAP employees nationwide,
and with last year’s budget at less than $500,000,
her status is precarious. “One of the
misconceptions about SNAP,” she says, “is that
we’ve got a big, stable budget and a bunch of
employees: We don’t.-

Bishop Accountability.org 4-29-04

SNAP was started by Chicago social worker and
abuse victim Barbara Blaine in 1989 and had 1,800
members, six active chapters and an annual budget
of $2,000 until early 2002, when the clergy sex
abuse scandal exploded in Boston and spread across
the nation. The group now has 5,000 members, 60
active chapters and an annual budget of $250,000,
with five paid staff members.

MSNBC 12-18-2004

Speaking of money....

2006-12-20T07:28:00.000-07:00

The SNAP Support Survivors Ad Book for the Year 2006 will be utilized by thousands of SNAP members. It will be included in the program book for the 2006 conference and it will be posted on the SNAP web site. The Support Survivors Ad Book accomplishes three goals:
1) It is a tangible way for loved ones and concerned parishioners to show they care about survivors;2) It is SNAP's way of reinvesting in survivor businesses, art and services;3) The Ad Book sales will support a significant amount of SNAP's yearly operating budget. SNAP provides support to thousand of survivors every year through its 60 peer-led support groups across the nation and educates the public to help end the cycle of abuse.
SNAP's mission is to shine the light of truth by supporting one another in personal healing and to pursue justice and institutional change by holding individual perpetrators responsible and the church accountable. The SNAP board members and SNAP survivors thank you for your support.
Survivors and supporters may also use the ad book to memorialize or honor a loved one (see below).
Ad Book Prices
BASIC
SPECIAL
Full Page: $300(7 ½" x 10")
Centerfold: $2,000
Half Page: $150(7 ½" x 5")
Inside Front or Back Cover:$1,000
Quarter Page: $100(3 ¾" x 5")
Back Cover: $1,000
Eighth Page: $50(Business card)

Patron List: $10

The above excerpt is from the SNAP website. The word 'support' was cleverly used I thought.

Mary Ann or Ginger?

2006-12-20T07:27:00.000-07:00

With all due respect to Tina Louise,

I hereby cast my vote for Mary Ann.

Misplaced Anger

2006-12-01T11:16:00.000-07:00

Misplaced anger?

I see a term being used on the SNAP site to identify and describe those who would dare to question SNAP's methods and motives. Misplaced anger. Those with misplaced anger have to go.
They must be purged, and the fact these persons with "misplaced anger" are also documented survivors of clergy abuse is not a considration.

In 2005, SNAP raised over $800,000. (scroll to the bottom of this page and enter Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests)
www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/charities/search/index.jsp

They are tax exempt, and in thier finances have to be disclosed to both the federal goverment and the state of Illinois.

(By definition, the goverment must also suffer from misplaced anger for requiring this disclosure.)

In these documents, SNAP states it's mission in it's own words. From page two of form 990 where it is typed in caps:THIS ORGANIZATION ATTEMPTS TO REACH OUT TO AS MANY SURVIVORS OF CLERGY ABUSE AS POSSIBLE AND PREVENT FURTHER ABUSE THROUGH PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY

It is not my mission in life to question the fund raising practices of charities, nor do I care how much donated money Barbara Blaine and David Clohessy recieve in this life. Nor is it my mission, (or my fanatical obession), to try to insure that all charities in this country treat thier stated constituents and fairly and equally. I don't have time and I don't really care

Nor do I try to insure that they do in fact make reasonable efforts to comply with their self stated missions.

However, I am a survivor of clergy sexual abuse.

I woke up one fine morning to find a Catholic priest with a very personal part of my anatomy in his mouth.Whatever my past was up to that point in my 16 year old life is irrelavent, although the lawyers for Bishop Brom have sought to make an issue of that.

My life was adversely affected, to say the least. Damn near ruined it all. My late teens, and my 20s, 30s, and most of my 40s are gone, lost in a haze of pain.

So, if you are going to raise close to one million per year, as SNAP did in 2005, for the express written purpose of reaching out to survivors of clergy sexual abuse, I am going to hold you to it.
This type of charity, I do care about. I take this one personally.

If you are going to claim to advocate for me, I am going to hold you it. I feel that this is my right.

If I think I see a person or an organization claiming to support and or advocate for survivors acting in a questionable manner, I feel I have a duty to point that out.

If that organization is interacting with the very organization that abused me in the first place, the RCC, I feel I have a right and a duty to ask why.

I have done this to an extent with SNAP and so have a few others. The response of this organization through it's volunteers and it's loyal followers has been to say that we are troublemakers, who have a problem with "misplaced anger".

We have been banned from the SNAP bulletine board. Some have recieved threats of legal action from the board's moderator. SNAP's moderator has "outed" at least one survivor who had not gone public. Email campaigns have been undertaken to discredit survivors who are vocal about SNAP's finances and interactions with the RCC.

Threats of legal action from SNAP's moderator begs the question.... What's the crime and who commited it? Is it the person or persons who posted thier opinion on SNAP's sacrosanct message board after being banned in an attempt to be heard?

Or would it be that SNAP, an organization with 2005 receipts of over $800,000 dollars and a mission to support these survivors, has not only failed and refused to support them but futhermore has done all they possibly can to silence them and intimidate them?

Did I say fail? That's wrong, in order to fail, first you have to try. In my case (and many others), SNAP has not tried to do anything. Except in my case they attempted to discourage some of my friends from attending hearings before Judge Fromholtz. They were looking out for my emotional welfare. Thanks SNAP.

Where have we seen this kind of behavior before?

If SNAP has helped you, I'd like to hear from you. I wish to be fair. Shoespike@comcast.net