Philly DA On Hot Seat For Lies He Told About Catholic Church

[JoltinJoe]

So a few years ago, Seth Williams, the ambitious Philly DA, made a splash by publishing a grand jury report which recited atrocities allegedly performed by Catholic clergy on one "Billy Doe," a repeated felon with a notorious drug habit. But, of course, none of that mattered, because poor Billy Doe was on his way to being president of the United States before he was "abused," and it was the abuse which turned into a druggie and sociopath.

Of course, anyone of intelligence who carefully reviewed the grand jury report knew it was bullshit right out of the gate, but dupes in the media and internet morons jumped all over the report -- because the intended audience for the report were intellectual lightweights who would later vote Seth Williams into higher office.

While some fools here drooled over the salacious falsities in the grand jury report, I called the report bullshit from the start.

Well, now, as Billy Doe pursues his civil case against the Church (the reason he made up the lies to start with: $$$$), it comes out that he's a bald-faced liar. No brainer. This dude isn't going to collect a dime. Moreover, it is now apparent that the Philly DA, in pursuing criminal cases against Monsignor Lynn, Bernard Shero, and Fr. Charles Englehardt, failed to disclose to the defense material evidence which would have demonstrated that Billy Doe is a liar. Indeed, honest Billy Doe told his first drug counselor that he was never subject to any sexual abuse.

Williams already has taken a beating in an appellate court for his shameful prosecution of Monsignor Lynn (called that one!! ) Remarkably, even after the appellate court questioned the DA's motivation in pursuing the case against Lynn (and, in the process, basically called the trial judge a dupe), Williams has not backed down, and instead double downed on his corruption.

Coming soon. More convictions overturned.

How come I'm always right about these things??


http://www.bigtrial.net/2014/04/a-fanta ... abuse.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Doe, now 25, is the former 10-year-old altar boy who claimed at two historic Philadelphia sex abuse trials that he was raped by two priests as well as Shero, a former Catholic school teacher. It was Doe's testimony that also sent Msgr. William J. Lynn to jail for 18 months before an appeals court overturned Lynn's conviction.

The "newly discovered evidence" surfaced during a civil case that Doe has filed against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Doe, a former drug addict who used marijuana, magic mushrooms, pills, LSD and heroin, has been treated at 23 drug rehabs. He's also been arrested a half-dozen times, including one bust, subsequently dismissed, for possession with intent to distribute 56 bags of heroin. In the civil case, Billy Doe is seeking money from the archdiocese and a host of other defendants for alleged damage to his mental health. So a judge in the civil case has ordered the defendant's lawyers to turn over Billy Doe's medical records from his various drug rehabs.

What did defense lawyers discover when they got a look at those records? That Billy Doe, previously known for making wildly varying allegations to authorities, told his drug counselors four different stories in just one year about allegedly being abused. And none of those stories Billy told his drug counselors match the story he told two Philadelphia juries about being raped by two priests and a school teacher.

[JoltinJoe]

Prosecuting people, in order to gain notoriety, based on testimony of a witness who has told repeated contradictory stories, is repugnant. The most remarkable thing about "Billy Doe" is not that he told his original drug counselor that he had NEVER been sexually abuse, but that even his story about being abused by two priests and a school teacher was the last of SEVEN different versions of his life story.

What kind of moral monster prosecutes, and sends people to jail, based on such "evidence"?

[JoltinJoe]

While sending innocent people to jail, corrupt Seth Williams has been given guilty Billy Doe one pass after another for Doe's criminal transgressions. The DA's office continues to drop charges in criminal cases against the sainted Billy Doe. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.

http://www.bigtrial.net/2013/04/billy-d ... inues.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

[D1B]

Typical scumbag catholic lawyers vilifying and threatening victims and families.

Countless children raped in the Philly archdiocese, yet Pedo Joe pins his MO to cast doubt on the tens of thousands of credible cases and convictions (according to the church), on the rare anomaly.

Pedo Joe- minimizing the crimes of his church and protecting pedophiles.

[andy7171]

It's sad really. The fire is gone.

D1b has lost it.

Spoiler: show

[D1B]

It's sad really. The fire is gone.

D1b has lost it.

Spoiler: show

Time to stick your head back in the sand, Andy.

[JoltinJoe]

It's sad really. The fire is gone.

D1b has lost it.

Spoiler: show

Tragic. He's got nothing left.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I think he writes songs for Taylor Swift when he's not posting on here.......

[JoltinJoe]

I think he writes songs for Taylor Swift when he's not posting on here.......

[bluehenbillk]

While sending innocent people to jail,

Innocent? Maybe in one isolated case maybe, but as a member of the Diocese of Philadelphia, and formerly Wilmington (DE), I know personally at least a half dozen victims of the local clergy.

I normally side against D1B, but it's impossible to on this one.... Philly had(s) a big problem.

[D1B]

It's sad really. The fire is gone.

D1b has lost it.

Spoiler: show

Tragic. He's got nothing left.

Maybe in your world, Pedo Joe. Andy is a perfect example of the catholics identified in the my post exposing your pedolies, who just skip and dance through life as if they're not part of an organization who is embroiled in a massive cover up of child sexual abuse.

You on the other hand are a proud, vocal defender of your churches crimes against children.

[JoltinJoe]

While sending innocent people to jail,

Innocent? Maybe in one isolated case maybe, but as a member of the Diocese of Philadelphia, and formerly Wilmington (DE), I know personally at least a half dozen victims of the local clergy.

I normally side against D1B, but it's impossible to on this one.... Philly had(s) a big problem.

Philly had a big problem, but you can't send innocent men like Shero and Englehardt to prison for something they didn't too. That was my problem with Williams. He went hunting for scalps to be held accountable, without regard for the actual innocence of those he targeted. He created a media firestorm, and stirred public fury, and in the furor which followed, only a few people took note that his star witness was an outright liar.

He sent innocent people to jail based on perjury, and he must have known that. But he didn't care, because he was trying to ginny up his perception as a crusader so he can run for higher office in the future. Now that the truth of his crusade is being revealed, I doubt higher office is in the cards for him. He's a crook and he deserves jail time.

[D1B]

While sending innocent people to jail,

Innocent? Maybe in one isolated case maybe, but as a member of the Diocese of Philadelphia, and formerly Wilmington (DE), I know personally at least a half dozen victims of the local clergy.

I normally side against D1B, but it's impossible to on this one.... Philly had(s) a big problem.

It's a classic Joltian move: Find one case out of thousands that may be questionable, then take a callous shot at these victims and the advocacy groups/people who are trying to help by insinuating it's all a conspiracy against the church.

Joe is amoral and evil.

[D1B]

Innocent? Maybe in one isolated case maybe, but as a member of the Diocese of Philadelphia, and formerly Wilmington (DE), I know personally at least a half dozen victims of the local clergy.

I normally side against D1B, but it's impossible to on this one.... Philly had(s) a big problem.

Philly had a big problem, but you can't send innocent men like Shero and Englehardt to prison for something they didn't too. That was my problem with Williams. He went hunting for scalps to be held accountable, without regard for the actual innocence of those he targeted. He created a media firestorm, and stirred public fury, and in the furor which followed, only a few people took note that his star witness was an outright liar.

He sent innocent people to jail based on perjury, and he must have known that. But he didn't care, because he was trying to ginny up his perception as a crusader so he can run for higher office in the future. Now that the truth of his crusade is being revealed, I doubt higher office is in the cards for him. He's a crook and he deserves jail time.

Now what about all the other cases, Pedo Joe?

You use these isolated incidents in a callous attempt to cast doubt on valid cases. This aint court, Pedo Joe. You're demeaning victims, advocates and families. Fuck it, you don't care.

[JoltinJoe]

Innocent? Maybe in one isolated case maybe, but as a member of the Diocese of Philadelphia, and formerly Wilmington (DE), I know personally at least a half dozen victims of the local clergy.

I normally side against D1B, but it's impossible to on this one.... Philly had(s) a big problem.

It's a classic Joltian move: Find one case out of thousands that may be questionable, then take a callous shot at these victims and the advocacy groups/people who are trying to help by insinuating it's all a conspiracy against the church.

Joe is amoral and evil.

Actually, I am level and balanced. As a Church, we undertook a careful analysis of the problem in order to protect children moving forward, we reached proper conclusions of what had gone wrong in the past in about 12 of America's numerous dioceses, and we imposed solutions. That the Church accurately assessed the truth of the problem is reflected in the near zero percent present rate of sex abuse in the Church. That achievement would not be possible if the Church had approached the issue with dishonesty.

As I said when I first got involved years ago with the Voice of the Faithful, only a honest assessment of the problem would result eradicating the problem. There were many involved in that time who tried to distort what actually happened, because they were more concerned about winning money damages through litigation, or sought to damage the Church's moral authority (because they disagreed with Church's moral teachings). They distorted facts and engaged in massive fraudulent hyperbole. But the informed were able to see through all that nonsense, find the true facts, and solve the problem.

Nearly zero percent. You can't reach that type of achievement unless you were honest about the problem. Thank God we did not listen to blowhards like D1B.

[JoltinJoe]

It's a classic Joltian move: Find one case out of thousands that may be questionable, then take a callous shot at these victims and the advocacy groups/people who are trying to help by insinuating it's all a conspiracy against the church.

Joe is amoral and evil.

Actually, I am level and balanced. As a Church, we undertook a careful analysis of the problem in order to protect children moving forward, we reached proper conclusions of what had gone wrong in the past in about 12 of America's numerous dioceses, and we imposed solutions. That the Church accurately assessed the truth of the problem is reflected in the near zero percent present rate of sex abuse in the Church. That achievement would not be possible if the Church had approached the issue with dishonesty.

As I said when I first got involved years ago with the Voice of the Faithful, only a honest assessment of the problem would result in eradicating the problem. There were many involved in that time who tried to distort what actually happened, because they were more concerned about winning money damages through litigation, or sought to damage the Church's moral authority (because they disagreed with Church's moral teachings). They distorted facts and engaged in massive fraudulent hyperbole. But the informed were able to see through all that nonsense, find the true facts, and solve the problem.

Nearly zero percent. You can't reach that type of achievement unless you were honest about the problem. Thank God we did not listen to blowhards like D1B.

[D1B]

It's a classic Joltian move: Find one case out of thousands that may be questionable, then take a callous shot at these victims and the advocacy groups/people who are trying to help by insinuating it's all a conspiracy against the church.

Joe is amoral and evil.

Actually, I am level and balanced. As a Church, we undertook a careful analysis of the problem in order to protect children moving forward, we reached proper conclusions of what had gone wrong in the past in about 12 of America's numerous dioceses, and we imposed solutions. That the Church accurately assessed the truth of the problem is reflected in the near zero percent present rate of sex abuse in the Church. That achievement would not be possible if the Church had approached the issue with dishonesty.

As I said when I first got involved years ago with the Voice of the Faithful, only a honest assessment of the problem would result eradicating the problem. There were many involved in that time who tried to distort what actually happened, because they were more concerned about winning money damages through litigation, or sought to damage the Church's moral authority (because they disagreed with Church's moral teachings). They distorted facts and engaged in massive fraudulent hyperbole. But the informed were able to see through all that nonsense, find the true facts, and solve the problem.

Nearly zero percent. You can't reach that type of achievement unless you were honest about the problem. Thank God we did not listen to blowhards like D1B.

Nice revisionism and lies, Joe.

Face it, your church was dragged, kicking and screaming to deal with it. It was only after you were exposed that you did anything.

As I highlighted, the facts indicate the church has and continues to drag its feet in meaningfully addressing this issue.

That child rape cases are lower have little to do with the Church making any meaninful changes and everything to do with parents, teachers, law enforcement, advocacy groups, journalists, whistleblowers, documentary makers, The United Nations Commission on Children, SNAP and especially children no longer trusting a priest or a nun. It's their vigilence, spurred by easy access to information and from the church being exposed publicy that has caused any decline.

It's becoming almost impossible for the church to lie and decieve any more.

[D1B]

So a few years ago, Seth Williams, the ambitious Philly DA, made a splash by publishing a grand jury report which recited atrocities allegedly performed by Catholic clergy on one "Billy Doe," a repeated felon with a notorious drug habit. But, of course, none of that mattered, because poor Billy Doe was on his way to being president of the United States before he was "abused," and it was the abuse which turned into a druggie and sociopath.

Of course, anyone of intelligence who carefully reviewed the grand jury report knew it was bullshit right out of the gate, but dupes in the media and internet morons jumped all over the report -- because the intended audience for the report were intellectual lightweights who would later vote Seth Williams into higher office.

While some fools here drooled over the salacious falsities in the grand jury report, I called the report bullshit from the start.

Well, now, as Billy Doe pursues his civil case against the Church (the reason he made up the lies to start with: $$$$), it comes out that he's a bald-faced liar. No brainer. This dude isn't going to collect a dime. Moreover, it is now apparent that the Philly DA, in pursuing criminal cases against Monsignor Lynn, Bernard Shero, and Fr. Charles Englehardt, failed to disclose to the defense material evidence which would have demonstrated that Billy Doe is a liar. Indeed, honest Billy Doe told his first drug counselor that he was never subject to any sexual abuse.

Williams already has taken a beating in an appellate court for his shameful prosecution of Monsignor Lynn (called that one!! ) Remarkably, even after the appellate court questioned the DA's motivation in pursuing the case against Lynn (and, in the process, basically called the trial judge a dupe), Williams has not backed down, and instead double downed on his corruption.

Coming soon. More convictions overturned.

How come I'm always right about these things??


http://www.bigtrial.net/2014/04/a-fanta ... abuse.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Doe, now 25, is the former 10-year-old altar boy who claimed at two historic Philadelphia sex abuse trials that he was raped by two priests as well as Shero, a former Catholic school teacher. It was Doe's testimony that also sent Msgr. William J. Lynn to jail for 18 months before an appeals court overturned Lynn's conviction.

The "newly discovered evidence" surfaced during a civil case that Doe has filed against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Doe, a former drug addict who used marijuana, magic mushrooms, pills, LSD and heroin, has been treated at 23 drug rehabs. He's also been arrested a half-dozen times, including one bust, subsequently dismissed, for possession with intent to distribute 56 bags of heroin. In the civil case, Billy Doe is seeking money from the archdiocese and a host of other defendants for alleged damage to his mental health. So a judge in the civil case has ordered the defendant's lawyers to turn over Billy Doe's medical records from his various drug rehabs.

What did defense lawyers discover when they got a look at those records? That Billy Doe, previously known for making wildly varying allegations to authorities, told his drug counselors four different stories in just one year about allegedly being abused. And none of those stories Billy told his drug counselors match the story he told two Philadelphia juries about being raped by two priests and a school teacher.

PHILADELPHIA (PA)
The Legal Intelligencer

P.J. D'Annunzio, The Legal Intelligencer
May 15, 2015

The plaintiff in a civil clergy sex-abuse case is asking the court for summary judgment against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Monsignor William Lynn based on the reinstatement of Lynn's criminal conviction.

By Joseph A. Slobodzian, Inquirer Staff Writer
Posted: May 02, 2015

Msgr. William J. Lynn, the first Catholic Church official convicted in the clergy sex-abuse scandal, returned to prison Thursday after a Philadelphia judge ordered him to resume his sentence for child endangerment.

Lynn, 64, was taken to the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility, about four miles across Northeast Philadelphia from the rectory of St. William parish in Crescentville, where he had lived on house arrest since January 2014.

Lynn's lawyer, Thomas A. Bergstrom, said he would challenge Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina's ruling. Sarmina in July 2012 sentenced Lynn to three to six years for his conviction on charges of endangering the welfare of children.

Lynn is expected to shortly be transferred to the state prison at Waymart, in northeastern Pennsylvania, where he spent almost 18 months until he was released on house arrest when Superior Court reversed his conviction. On Monday, the state Supreme Court reinstated Lynn's guilty verdict, and at a hearing Thursday morning at the Criminal Justice Center, Lynn seemed resigned to what was going to happen.

Lynn turned to Bergstrom with a half-smile and a shrug before he was taken into custody by sheriff's deputies.

Bergstrom argued that Lynn should be permitted to stay at St. William under house arrest while he pursues further appeals. Bergstrom said Lynn had lived up to every provision of house arrest, and a probation officer lauded Lynn's conduct.

Sarmina, however, agreed with Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington that now that the state's highest court has ruled, Lynn should be in prison.

"Well, I think things are back where they were when I sentenced Msgr. Lynn," Sarmina said. "The same reasons I stated then exist."

"Somebody call for a sheriff," the judge added before leaving the bench.

Lynn was convicted and sentenced after a landmark 13-week trial in 2012 over his role supervising priests accused of sexually abusing children.

As the Archdiocese of Philadelphia's secretary for clergy from 1992 to 2004, Lynn was responsible for investigating sexual-abuse complaints made against priests and recommending punishment to the archbishop.

The jury found that Lynn allowed Rev. Edward V. Avery, who had a history of sexually abusing children, to live in a Northeast Philadelphia rectory, where he later assaulted a 10-year-old altar boy. Avery pleaded guilty in the 1999 attack and is serving five years in prison.

Lynn argued in his appeal that he could not be convicted for his supervisory role because the state child-endangerment statute was not amended to include supervisors until 2007 - three years after he left as clergy secretary.

[JoltinJoe]

I suspect the case is ultimately going back to the PA Supreme Court and then the US Supreme Court.

You simply cannot retroactively apply an amendment to a criminal statute, no matter how badly you want to send someone to jail. The US Constitution does not allow it.

I read the opinion of the PA supreme court and I'd like to know if any one of them went to law school. The appellate decision is absolutely correct. The provision of the statute applying to "supervisors of supervisions of children" was not added until 2007, and Lynn left the supervisory role in 2004. The Pa supreme court decision strains reason beyond the breaking point.

The plaintiff in this case has been revealed to be a notorious liar too. The DA really should dismiss all charges against everyone but Avery.

In any event, the status of the case is the appellate court is now considering other grounds to reverse the verdict that it had no previously had to decide because it ruled the charges were brought in violation of the ex post facto clause of the state and federal constitutions. Art. I, Sec. 9 of US Constitution: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

The supreme court's "reasoning" that the earlier 1995 statute actually covered people who did not have direct supervision of children really had no precedent and was pulled out of thin air. In fact, the PA DA's office acknowledged in its first Grand Jury report that the 1995 statute did not apply to Lynn. No "supervisor of supervisors," other than Msrg,. Lynn, will ever be convicted under the 1995 statute.

[89Hen]

DB1 is bored?

[D1B]

DB1 is bored?

Nope, 89Hairfollicals. Just holding Joltin Joke accountable. Saw this article on Abuse Tracker, a site almost solely dedicated to monitoring the crimes of your church.

Wanted Doltin's collassal fail on record here.

[89Hen]

DB1 is bored?

Nope, 89Hairfollicals. Just holding Joltin Joke accountable. Saw this article on Abuse Tracker...

In May?

[D1B]

Nope, 89Hairfollicals. Just holding Joltin Joke accountable. Saw this article on Abuse Tracker...

In May?

Appeared on Abuse Tracker 10/27. Take it up with then, and while your there, enjoy the ongoing slaughter of boys by your fucking priests and the cover up you financially support.

[JoltinJoe]

DB1 is bored?

Nope, 89Hairfollicals. Just holding Joltin Joke accountable. Saw this article on Abuse Tracker, a site almost solely dedicated to monitoring the crimes of your church.

Wanted Doltin's collassal fail on record here.

The 1995 law under which Lynn was convicted (having been cleared of other charges) concerned reckless endangerment of a child over whom the defendant had a duty to supervise.

In 2005, the Philadelphia DA's office issued a grand jury report noting Msgr. Lynn's negligence, but saying he could not be charged under the existing law because he did not have a duty of supervising any child.

In 2007, Pennsylvania amended the law to include within its scope negligent and reckless acts of an individual charged with the responsibility over someone with a duty of supervising a child.

In 2011, the Philadelphia DA's office indicted Lynn -- who left his position in 2004 -- under the new law. Lynn moved to dismiss, arguing he left his position in 2004, and thus could not be charged under the new law. The DA then amended the indictment to charge him under the 1995, arguing that it covered Lynn -- despite the office's prior concession that it did not.

Lynn moved to dismiss the amended indictment, and the trial judge denied the motion, saying she agreed with the ridiculous claim of the DA. After trial, the appellate court reversed, saying it is a firmly established constitutional right that one cannot be charged ex post facto. The opinion also derided the trial judge for her obvious bias.

The PA Supreme Court, an elected group not known for scholarship nationally, reversed the obviously correct decision of the appellate court in an opinion that includes a lengthy Clintonesque discussion of what "supervision of a child" means -- ultimately concluding that it means someone who doesn't have a duty of supervision of child.

They do this by saying that the statute is ambiguous -- i.e., did it mean "direct supervision" (which is, to those who understand proper English, a redundancy) or "indirect supervision (which is, to those who understand proper English, a contradiction)? By the way, this is how lawyers manufacture so-called ambiguity, by arguing that a word that has a clear meaning is ambiguous, and then trying to attach modifiers to the word that actually contradict it.

It also then used the term that the statute concerned "children," rather than a specific "child," and thus obliterated any need for the "duty to supervise" be of a specific child (an important aspect of the case, since Lynn never met the esteemed Billy Doe).

The court then explained away that the constitutional mandate that any ambiguity in a law be construed against the government, for lack of proper notice to a defendant that his actions may be subject to the statute.

At the moment, the case is back before the appellate court so it can resolve other issues raised by that it previously had no reason to decide. Once he is done with the PA courts -- and assuming the conviction is not overturned again, which is still likely -- Lynn's attorney is promising federal court and Supreme Court review of the illegal decision of the PA Supreme Court, which will undoubtedly overturned.

And, this does not even touch upon the fact that the so-called victim is a heroin addict and liar who not long before he filed the case told a state psychiatrist that he'd never been sexually abused.

And the Philly DA keeps dismissing charges brought against Billy Doe in other cases, intolerable corruption at its worst.