Clohessy says he refused to turn over documents
03 January 2012
David Clohessy is seen in a 2007 file photo. (CNS photo/David Maung)
Victims’ advocates said the deposition, the first of its kind for SNAP, would have wide-ranging impact on the ability of victims of clergy sex abuse to identify their accusers and tell their stories without revealing their names in public.David Clohessy, the director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), says his court-ordered testimony Monday in the case of a priest accused of sexual misconduct amounted to an “extraordinary fishing expedition” to try and get at the contents of “private communications” between him and sex abuse victims and whistle-blowers.
The testimony, which Clohessy said lasted about six hours and took place in a St. Louis, Mo., hotel, came after the Missouri Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal to stop the deposition.
The deposition, requested by lawyers defending Kansas City, Mo., diocesan priest Fr. Michael Tierney, was first reported late last week. Lawyers requested that Clohessy testify and turn over 23 years’ worth of internal documents, correspondence and emails.
Speaking to NCR by phone Tuesday, Clohessy said while he couldn’t talk about specifics of his testimony, “one consistent theme” of the questioning was that lawyers defending accused priests “want to get the contents of private communications between us and victims, witnesses, whistle-blowers, our members and our supporters.”
Referencing that he was questioned by five separate lawyers — one representing the Kansas City diocese, another Tierney, and three others representing other local priests accused of sexual misconduct — Clohessy said there was “almost no mention or questions” about the specific lawsuit against Tierney among the “200-plus questions about SNAP members and supporters and donors and operations.”
Clohessy also said while Jackson County, Mo., Circuit Court Judge Ann Mesle had ordered him to hand over a wide range of documents from SNAP’s files, he refused, citing constitutional protections of free speech and Missouri state law protecting the confidentiality of rape crisis centers.
“We’ve produced hundreds of pages of records that we consider not confidential,” he said. “But we refused to turn over hundreds or perhaps thousands more that we believe are private because of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and association and by Missouri’s rape shield law, and other protections.”
Asked whether he thought his organization’s refusal to hand over certain documents contradicted its calls for transparency from diocesan offices regarding allegations of sex abuse, Clohessy said he believed there “are two standards of transparency.”
“Our view is that agencies that counsel and help sex crimes victims should never be transparent about the people who call them desperately in pain and seeking guidance,” Clohessy said.
“We believe that there are two standards of transparency,” he said. “One for institutions that have enabled thousands of pedophiles to assault tens of thousands of kids and conceal the crimes. And another standard for organizations that enable kids to be safer and expose heinous crimes.”
Recalling a question from one of the lawyers defending an accused priest against SNAP’s position that bishops should suspend priests the minute they are sued for abuse, Clohessy said the lawyer asked if that meant SNAP should be shut down immediately if it is sued for defamation or libel.
Clohessy said he firmly responded, “No.”
“One claim,” he said, “affects the reputation temporarily of one adult. The other claim threatens the physical and emotional and psychological well-being permanently of perhaps dozens of innocent kids. And to try and equate them is beyond disingenuous. It’s just stupid.”
Meanwhile, one canon and civil lawyer well known for his work on issues of clergy sexual misconduct told NCR by email that he thought the request for Clohessy’s deposition in this case was “not terribly unusual.”
“The courts are open to everyone,” said Nicholas Cafardi, dean emeritus of Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh.
“If there is something wrong with Tierney’s discovery request, the lawyer for the subpoenaed party can make that case to the judge. If the judge agrees, fine; if not, that’s what appeals are for.”
“I am sure that Clohessy and SNAP would prefer not to be embroiled in this case, but if they don’t belong there, all they have to do is convince the judge of that,” said Cafardi, who was also a member of the original National Review Board established by the U.S. bishops in 2002 to evaluate claims of sex abuse. “It really is that simple.”
Tierney’s lawyers first made the request for a deposition in November. They subpoenaed Clohessy, requesting him to testify regarding his knowledge of a lawsuit filed against Tierney on behalf of an abuse victim in September 2010.
Court filings indicate the subpoena came after defense lawyers were concerned that a party in the suit may have violated an August 2011 gag order from Mesle by revealing some information to SNAP that was included in one of the group’s press releases.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of an anonymous man, alleges that in 1971, Tierney invited the then-13-year-old to Tierney’s mother’s house to help Tierney move boxes. Once there, the victim alleges in the suit, Tierney wrestled with him and touched him sexually.
Clohessy was ordered to turn over all documents and correspondence, including emails, from SNAP’s files referring to Tierney or the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese. He was also ordered to submit all documents containing references to either Tierney or the diocese from:
- press releases or press release drafts;
- correspondence with members of the press;
- correspondence with the lawyer representing the alleged abuse victim;
- correspondence with members of the public.
The request for Clohessy to release correspondence with members of the press led the Missouri Press Association, which lists about 260 newspapers from across the state as its members, to write an amicus brief supporting Clohessy’s arguments that his deposition and submission of documents were unconstitutional.
Citing nine separate state and U.S. Supreme Court cases that outline the rights of the press, the brief said Mesle’s order would “eviscerate the free-press guarantee” by seeking “to discover the process by which the news is assembled and disseminated.”
While Clohessy said he wasn’t sure what the next move might be in the case, or what repercussions he might face because of his refusal to answer some questions, he said the effect on his organization has “already been devastating.”
“We’re spending tens of thousands on legal costs we never budgeted,” he said. “More importantly, we’ve been cripplingly sidetracked from protecting kids and exposing predators and comforting victims.”
[Joshua J. McElwee is an NCR staff writer. His e-mail address is jmcelwee@ncronline.org.]
______________________________
SNAP fights court-ordered disclosure of its own internal documents
CatholicCulture.org
In an odd reversal of roles, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) is fighting against court-ordered disclosure of the group’s internal documents.
David Clohessy, the director of SNAP, has been ordered by a Missouri court to turn over documents and correspondence relating to the case of Father Michael Tierney, a priest who faces sex-abuse charges. Lawyers for the accused priest argue that a plaintiff’s lawyer violated a gag order by providing information about the case to SNAP.
Clohessy, who has routinely insisted that Catholic diocesan officials should disclose all available information about sex-abuse allegations, has fought against the disclosure of SNAP’s internal documents. Claiming that the release of those documents could have a “chilling effect” on sex-abuse victims, he has appealed the court’s order to furnish documents and provide testimony in the Tierney case.
__________________________________
SNAP ordered to reveal records
BND.com
31 December 2011
Associated Press
ST. LOUIS — An advocacy group that has relentlessly pressured Roman Catholic leaders to reveal the scope of sex abuse in the church has been ordered to disclose records to a priest’s defense lawyers that could include years of emails with victims, journalists and others.
The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests has so far failed to block the ruling by a judge, which requires the organization to produce the documents and also allows defense attorneys to depose the network’s national director, David Clohessy, on Tuesday. The Missouri Press Association has filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing the order is unconstitutional.
Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Ann Mesle said Clohessy must comply because he “almost certainly has knowledge concerning issues relevant to this litigation.” Mesle argued that Clohessy is free not to respond to specific questions at the deposition and can request that individual documents remain confidential.
Read more here: http://www.bnd.com/2011/12/31/1997965/snap-ordered-to-reveal-records.html#storylink=cpy
Mesle issued the order in one of five abuse lawsuits against the Rev. Michael Tierney and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph. The plaintiff, identified only as John Doe, B.P., said he was 13 when Tierney attacked and molested him in the 1970s. All attorneys involved in Tierney’s case are under a gag order.
Defense lawyers sought the documents as evidence that the accuser’s attorney, Rebecca Randles, violated the gag order by giving details of the case to the Survivors Network. The defense claims the group then printed the information in a press release. Tierney has previously denied any wrongdoing. Last June, the diocese barred him from any public church work and from presenting himself as a priest.
Under the ruling, the network must produce all documents or correspondence relating to Tierney, the diocese, any priest currently or formerly associated with the diocese, the Survivors Network communication with the plaintiff and any documents related to repressed memory. The plaintiff in the lawsuit said he had repressed memories of the assault for years. The National Catholic Reporter, an independent publication that has spearheaded investigative coverage of clergy abuse, was first to report the order for the documents Friday.
In a statement, Clohessy called the defense request “a bullying effort” that invades victims’ privacy. He said the order was so broad that it could require him to produce documents involving whistleblowers, victims, parishioners, parents and journalists in other cases with no direct connection to Tierney or the diocese.
“We are going to take every possible legal step to prevent the disclosure of information concerning SNAP members and supporters, including those who have been sexually abused,” said Jeff Jensen, Clohessy’s attorney.
The Missouri Press Association wrote in its brief that the disclosure would “irrevocably harm the news-gathering process, chill speech by both the news media and potential sources and significantly affect the quality of investigative reporting in the state.” Missouri is one of the few states without a shield law that would protect journalists from being forced to reveal their sources and notes, said Jean Maneke, an attorney for the press association.
The Survivors Network has been at the center of the Catholic abuse scandal for more than two decades, as a support and guide for victims and a constant critic of church hierarchs who failed to warn police or parents about serial offenders in the priesthood. As the costs of the scandal have skyrocketed, many bishops and other Catholics have viewed the advocacy group as an enemy, accusing the network of funneling clients to plaintiffs’ lawyers who want to enrich themselves and bankrupt the church. According to studies commissioned by the U.S. bishops, dioceses have paid about $3 billion in settlements and other costs related to more than 15,700 abuse claims since 1950.
The Survivors Network argues the overwhelming majority of victims who seek the group’s help do not sue over their abuse.
Marci Hamilton, a law professor and advocate for victims, said defense lawyers in other abuse cases have tried to gain access to the Survivors Network records, but the Jackson County case was the first time the request has been granted. The group’s attorneys have asked the Missouri Supreme Court to intervene.
“If you see that talking to any survivors’ group means your story could show up in any state in front of any other lawyers, then people are just going to shut down again,” said Hamilton, a specialist in church-state issues at Cardozo Law School at Yeshiva University in New York.
Some commentators, however, said the network was hypocritical for demanding public release of diocesan records, while being unwilling to be transparent itself.
“Haven’t these very same people been decrying with righteous indignation attempts by church authorities to withhold certain records from the legal process?” wrote Jimmy Akin, a columnist with the independent National Catholic Register. “Matters seem different when the shoe is on the other foot, however, don’t they?”
________________________________________
Should Catholic Sex Abuse Documents Be Withheld from Courts?
National Catholic Register
29 December 2011
David Clohessy of SNAP
That’s a very good question, isn’t it?
How many times during the course of various sex abuse news cycles have we read about lawyers using various legal maneuvers to try to keep official, confidential documents pertaining to priestly sex abuses cases out of the hands of courts?
These instances only reveal what scoundrels both the lawyers are—*and* their clients. I mean, the *only* reason to try to keep a document out of the court’s hands is if you have something to hide, and that shows that you are acting in bad faith, trying to stop justice from being done.
Consider this story on the web site of the National Catholic Reporter (*not* Register):
SNAP director may be forced to testify in abuse case
KANSAS CITY, Mo.—The leading advocacy group for child victims of clergy sex abuse may be compelled to turn over 23 years of internal documents, correspondence and email to the attorneys of an accused priest unless Missouri state courts act to quash a court-ordered deposition.
David Clohessy, head of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, known as SNAP, has been ordered to appear for deposition in a county court case involving allegations of sexual misconduct against Kansas City diocesan priest Fr. Michael Tierney.
Victims’ advocates say if Clohessy is compelled to appear, it could have wide-ranging impact on the ability of victims of clergy sex abuse to identify their accusers and tell their stories without revealing their names in public.
A law professor noted for her decades of work with clergy sex abuse victims said the “end result” of Clohessy’s deposition would be “a huge chilling effect on helping child sex abuse victims at every stage.”
Also at stake is the confidentiality of emails between reporters and victims’ advocates that may reveal sensitive information and names of sources. In a court filing, the Missouri Press Association said Clohessy’s deposition would “eviscerate the free-press guarantee” of journalists.
Clohessy has been ordered to turn over all documents and correspondence, including emails, from SNAP’s files referring to Tierney or the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese. He is also ordered to submit all documents containing references to either Tierney or the diocese from:
Press releases or press release drafts;
* Correspondence with members of the press;
* Correspondence with the lawyer representing the alleged abuse victim;
* Correspondence with members of the public.
* Clohessy has also been ordered to submit:
* Any documents or correspondence that “mention or refer to any priest currently or formerly” associated with the diocese;
* Any correspondence with the victim named in the lawsuit;
* Any correspondence from members of the public “that discuss or relates to repressed memory.”
According to court filings, defense lawyers for priests and former priests named in six other sex abuse lawsuits have requested to “cross-notice” Clohessy’s deposition in order to have access to his testimony.
Court records indicate that Clohessy and his group first attempted to quash the deposition by filing motions with Jackson County, Mo., Circuit Court Judge Ann Mesle, citing concerns of confidentiality for sex abuse victims and the rights of freedom of speech and assembly.
The records indicate Mesle overruled those concerns yesterday (Dec. 28), ordering Clohessy to submit himself for deposition Monday (Jan. 2).
Clohessy and his group appealed yesterday (Dec. 28) to Missouri’s Court of Appeals for the state’s Western District to try to quash the order. That appeal, court records indicate, was denied today (Dec. 29).
Following the denial by the appeals court, Clohessy’s lawyer said he and his client are “going to take every legal option we can” to prevent the deposition and are investigating filing for review with the Missouri Supreme Court.
Tierney’s lawyers first made the request for a deposition in November. They subpoenaed Clohessy, requesting him to testify regarding his knowledge of a lawsuit filed against Tierney on behalf of an abuse victim in September 2010.
Court filings indicate that the subpoena came after defense lawyers were concerned that a party in the suit may have violated an August 2011 gag order from Mesle by revealing some information to SNAP that was included in one of the group’s press releases.
Let me begin by making three observations:
1) Priestly sex abuse is an abomination against God and man, there are no excuses for it, and the most vigorous legal and ecclesiastical means must be used to root it out and purify both the Church and broader society (where it is as just as big a problem).
2) I have no idea what the legal merits of the motion of SNAP’s lawyers are. They may be right on the money, legally speaking—or not.
3) Regardless of the legal merits, I have no idea whether the deposition and document disclosure would be a good thing. It might be—or not.
Prescinding from those points, allow me to focus on what I consider to be a broader lesson that can be learned from this story.
Basically, regardless of the legal or practical merits of SNAP’s attempt to quash the handover of the documents, my reaction is not sympathetic.
Judging by the way it conducts itself in public, SNAP appears to be a venomous group that approaches the sex abuse scandal in an unconstructive way. They are consistently shrill, sensationalist, dogmatic, and one-sided in their approach. They fail to approach the issue with the seriousness it deserves—a seriousness that involves more than displaying righteous indignation at every opportunity. Obtaining justice means more than taking a purely one-sided view of things. If one is to avoid a destructive and unjust witch hunt, one has to be prepared to acknowledge and take seriously the fact that there is more than one side to every dispute. SNAP doesn’t convey the impression that it “gets” that fact. It neither displays proper sensitivity to the fact that not all allegations of misdoing are true nor does it properly credit steps the Catholic Church has taken to address the scandal (including, especially, steps taken by Pope Benedict, both before and after his election to the papacy).
At least not in my experience.
It would seem, from this latest incident, that I may have to add a new element to my appraisal of how SNAP behaves in public: It may also be hypocritical.
Haven’t these very same people been decrying with righteous indignation attempts by Church authorities to withhold certain records from the legal process? Haven’t we been told that these efforts displayed the Church’s bad faith, and the only reason they might have to withhold them was to cover up patterns of systematic scandalous and criminal behavior?
Matters seem different when the shoe is on the other foot, however, don’t they?
Suddenly it seems that there can be all kinds of good reasons not to have your personal files gone through by attorneys acting in an adversarial capacity (which is the way our justice system works in this country).
I’m quite sure that victims of sexual abuse whose names appear in SNAP documents might not want them revealed. But you know what? I bet abuse victims whose names appear in diocesan documents also might not want their names revealed. If protecting victim confidentiality is a reason to limit the ability of courts to probe SNAP’s documents, it’s equally a reason to protecting the confidentiality of victims who contacted dioceses.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
That’s justice.
And that’s just to name one legitimate reason to potentially withhold or censor documents.
So the broader lesson I want to point to is that we shouldn’t take any attempt to withhold documents as automatically an indication of bad faith or a “coverup”—either on SNAP’s part or on the part of a particular diocese or, for that matter, the Vatican.
Maybe SNAP will remember that the next time those they criticize make precisely the same kind of motions they themselves are making at this moment—and maybe they’ll show a little more understanding in their public statements.
Or maybe they won’t.
What do you think?