I
invite you to pray, if you would, and you are welcome to utilize the prayers
I’ve posted, which are a basic armor for eradicating the evil that is inherent
in the taking of life -- and especially the life of the most defenseless among
us, the unborn – as well as eradicating the corruption that eventually ushered
in the atrocity known as abortion that our society takes for granted today as
necessary, a right. Become informed by
reading this site and making this matter known by calling the media with persistent
request to cover the story ongoing, and ask all you know to do the same. I say to be persistent with the media ongoing
because the file is HUGE so there is a lot to know and this complaint is about
the disappearance and denial of record through blatant misrepresentation and
subtle invention. Take civil democratic
action. Sign the petition, and
send this site information to as many people as you know, with a request that they
do the same.
As to
becoming informed, you will see in the Summary
and updates that I’ve been denied my June 2006 FOIA request to the Office of
Inspector General, even the information that I sent them, as well as any work
product and whatever criminal information they might have obtained due to an
investigation or initial probing to make a determination about the jurisdiction
of that complaint assuming that they did this rather than already decide
beforehand notwithstanding the complaint’s merit -- and the OIG misrepresented
my complaint to them, the nature of the complaint, and also me, on the one page
they did release. The record I sent them
was quite voluminous however. And this
is notwithstanding that the OIG did not open an official investigation so that
what I sent to the OIG is mere correspondence, and therefore, public
information, according to what a Justice employee told me. And the
misrepresentation of the files is a felony.
And if I had received that information pursuant to my FOIA request, I
would have posted it to this website because it would have made people’s eyes
roll to the back of their heads, and I expect the OIG realized that something
along those lines would happen if they released it. The reason for calling the media is not
limited to making public the story, but more pointedly, the media can obtain
files from the federal government that have been denied to me because that
information would be a matter of public interest and would shake the public
trust. The OIG can withhold information from the media too – and I know from
people in the media that this happens – but they have to conceal that they
withheld it and can’t officially invent a reason why they can’t release the
information in the manner they did to me.
I’ve been told that many public records are closed to the general public
for 75 years – something that is not known by the general public – and that this
keeps decisions made by the government safe because it’s rare that anyone
realizes what they did. And it explains the arrogance and confidence in
granting immunity because if one does not release what is public record for 75
years and the country does nothing about it, mostly because they don’t even
know it’s happening, they have immunity because whatever consequences could
visit them based on what becomes known in that public record cannot touch them
while they are alive. And, I’ve learned,
that even what they wait 75 years to release is not complete necessarily. But I know that they did something wrong and
that is what needs to be made known so that people can inquire and
inquire. If the media knows the government
is concealing and inventing, the media will persist in asking for the record
and making known the results, especially if people keep calling them and asking
to know more and expressing outrage at what is learned about the release of the
records. So it’s not just that the media
can spread the word more efficiently so that many people know there is such a
complaint, but they can get the file information – and immediately -- so as to
be able to tell the story with that kind of qualification. And if they can’t
get it, they can also make this known.
As long as I’m the only one the OIG is stonewalling, they’re safe to
continue. But if they do that to the
media, it can thwart the purpose of doing it in the first place by exposing
that it was done. It’s the media’s job
to go after the information until the whole of the matter is known. This should embarrass the OIG and put
pressure on them to handle the matter for the procurement of justice,
especially since the release of that information would divulge what the OIG
apparently wants to remain private, and inappropriately. The media is one agent – and can be a
powerful agent – in forcing the government to abide by the law or drawing to
the OIG’s handling the public attention that would be
necessary and possible.
What
is the OIG hiding? That’s the
question. I know a sufficient amount of
the answer, and the public has a right to know too, and if they did, there
would be an uproar from those who are wise as serpents
and harmless as doves because only the blind and the naïve would presume that
no such thing could ever happen to them. The difference between a true pro-lifer and
any other person is precisely a lack of such naivete,
a lack of seeing people in general and faceless but rather when told something
like, there are too many people in the world, asking who in particular is one too
many. And so it would not sit well that
what is learned about what the OIG is hiding only happened to me, or to the
unborn, or some vulnerable inconsequential nobody, and only long to insure the
material interests of another … however long that takes. Rather, how was such a
calculation made and how it would apply to others, starting with
oneself, is what would become imperative to learn for a true pro-lifer. And as regards the setting of dangerous
precedents, even off the record or unofficially, as long as those setting such
precedents feel free to utilize their discretion in that fashion, I can tell
you for starters that the subjects of the complaint have immunity, apparently,
not only for past occurrences but also ongoing – and the matter of the complaint
is ongoing even if some of the initial occurrences happened a few years
ago. So, what did that require, a revision of the law and only in this instance and
for these parties, understood and adhered to among law enforcement agents? And by whom? The crime here is not sex abuse, but would it
have been the same U.S. Attorney who procured the refuge of St. Luke’s to
out-of-state priests who would need to confess they sexually abused children or
perhaps a similarly malleable personage? OIG won’t enforce the law, and they
didn’t (on record) refer the complaint to another law enforcement agency. And so, is it the case that there’s no basis
for such a referral or for criminal handling?
Well, the OIG won’t release the file and have misrepresented the file contents
and me in a fashion that is discrediting.
This can be easily proven with the release of the file, but the OIG
won’t release the file. If someone had
accused me of something that wasn’t true, I would want the matter exposed. Yet it seems to interest the subjects of the
complaint that the matter is not made known.
And what interests the subjects of the complaint apparently also
interests the OIG, law enforcement. So
there was no handling for justice, and it would appear that there won’t be no
matter what happens, or else there would be dialog between the OIG and the
victim along those lines and I can tell you that there isn’t any such
dialog. Even though I can name specific
persons in my complaint, which is something that was not supposed to happen,
the subjects of the complaint have dialog, but not I who am actually endangered
by the circumstances, because if it were handled that way, then they could not
omit to take criminal action. If there
were going to be justice, the past incidents would also be addressed, and not
just ongoing – that is to say, it would not be a matter of only curtailing what
can happen given this apparent immunity, but also of obtaining vindication for
what already did happen, as would be the case with other victims and criminals
that do not have this type of influence with law enforcement. If the matter is simply not in OIG
jurisdiction (although it is), then it can be referred to another law
enforcement agency, now that it’s known to the OIG that handling for justice
never took place, but that hasn’t happened, at least, not on the record. And if there were no legitimate criminal
issues, or no misrepresentation of me and the contents of the complaint, they
would have released the file to me. There would be no sensitivity over the
actual contents of the file and so there would be no sensitivity over its
release. No matter how you slice it, they’ve disappeared into a hole and pulled
the hole in with them, as it were. Now
that’s a matter of the public trust.
If you
will pardon the coined phrase, What gives?
What
little I describe in the Summary
of the complaint is by no means the entire complaint, but merely focuses on
specific lynchpins in the complaint that will eradicate abortion by virtue of
the handling for the procurement of justice of the entire complaint at all
pertinent levels of law enforcement and for its entire history. These lynchpin
issues surround anti-abortion methodology first amendment violations mostly but
are not limited to that at all. And there are other criminal issues that would
eradicate corruption if the complaint were handled for justice in its
entirety. The handling of these other
criminal issues has been about the same as the lynchpin issues: justice is avoided with eagle-eyed vigilance,
and seemingly to protect the interests of the subjects of the complaint. And the handling for justice of any issue in
this complaint would require the handling for justice of all of them no matter
how seemingly diverse the issues appear.
The lynchpin issues would in particular also eradicate abortion along
with the supports in the society for the progressive agenda that ushered in
abortion. This complaint is unique in
this and no matter how many good pro-life initiatives there are, all of them
together will not do what this complaint can do, and what this complaint can do
is necessary for the other initiatives’ longstanding success and effect.
While
other initiatives that I know of address specific issues, such as banning
partial birth abortion, or outlawing abortion, or insuring the rights of
dues-paying union members who would not have their dues go to pay for
pro-abortion candidate campaigns, this complaint would do something
comprehensive that would make the success of these other initiatives
effective. It would ERADICATE abortion
by virtue of addressing corrupt handling by law enforcement, such as,
capitalizing on the use of discretion, favoring a private agenda or a special
interest or group or person, affording favor for license to one party over the
rights and even the life of another – you know,
corruption. It would pull that unseen network of accommodation that the likes
of OIG, for instance, would have kept private, right out from the bottom by
making examples of the law enforcement agents who obscenely violated my rights,
not once and only at one agency, but as often as the matter was deliberated,
everywhere it went, including even before it got there while still at the crime
scene. Usually, one person does not
accomplish this alone because one such person acting alone or with a few
assistants for a small private interest will get caught and corrected pretty
quickly. When it regards an important
issue – and abortion is important economically especially, which is what would
concern corrupt persons -- many persons at many agencies are needed to
accomplish this, and they do it at the behest of someone or some entity that is
powerful. It is not easily done, it requires a lot of effort and organization. People who are otherwise honest or people who
would rather have an uneventful day at work and uncomplicated lives, might not
be able to easily say, "no", if approached with such a proposal. Some might call it, organized crime.
It’s
not that the other initiatives aren’t necessary or useful in overturning or
outlawing abortion because separate issues of the entire matter need to be
addressed directly and individually also, especially at this late date with the
issue of abortion evolved to the point of partial birth abortion and stem cell
research and murdering such as Terri Schiavo. (You think she’s the only one that happened
to? Not on your life! I know someone – a Catholic – who did that to
her own mother because a priest told it was all right, but it’s not. Terri Schiavo hit
the newspapers, though, and the debate over whether she was made to die or not
became a nationwide coliseum, and don’t think other
nations weren’t horrifically disgusted with us because I can tell you that
If
this complaint isn’t handled for the procurement of justice, those other
initiatives are isolated acts and will have to withstand the expected onslaught
of the abortion industry on the surface in response, while underneath the
surface these will have no support because the corruption that exists there now
and that ushered in and permitted the need for these initiatives will still be
there. And so any one victory on any one issue can effect reform, but limited,
and would additionally be at risk immediately and subject to whatever
legislative tit-for-tatting that has taken up these past 30 years regarding
abortion. And the tit-for-tatting
generally leaves the issue open for a reversal.
We already know that the ACLU is tireless and has endless funding. This complaint will make such as banning
partial birth abortion effective because those who undermine our laws will be
in jail. And those with the inclination
to undermine the laws will know they can go to jail for it because their
co-workers did. Therefore, they will
know that there won’t be a network of friends to help each other and tell each other
not to worry because they’ll back each other up, that’s what we always do, so
feel free to even laugh in the face of the victims. This complaint would in the process of its
handling reverse the thinking that cut corners on righteousness until righteousness
became tiresome and politically incorrect.
Once that complaint is handled for the procurement of justice, all we
have to do is what each person of good will ought to have done in the first
place and will always need to do:
Justice,
Fortitude, Prudence, Temperance. Stay
awake, be ever vigilant! And take back
our government because this is a democracy and we are our government. Our government does what we want … or what we
permit.
If
you would indulge me in an analogy, it is as if one has a house infested with
all sorts of rodents. Certainly one sets
a trap for that sewer rat that terrorizes everyone and does the necessary to
get the squirrels out of the shed, but these problems might recur or there will
be other problems because the house is full of rodents. Addressing individual issues, such as partial
birth abortion and legislating that union members can
ask for refunds for the portion of their dues that go to PAC committees, and
even outlawing abortion altogether, would do what setting a trap would do. But if the laws these initiatives correct
were somehow put into force by whatever manipulation, these can be overturned
also with similar effort, or replaced by something similar or worse, because
the specific law might have been overturned but the manipulation can still
persist because what permitted such manipulation is not changed. To eradicate abortion is another thing
entirely. It’s not setting a trap to
address only a particular sewer rat while addressing the other less prominent
rodents as possible only because the solution to the problem of the infestation
is complicated and seems to require excessive follow-up that won’t necessarily
be effective because of the exponential number of existing and ever newly
arriving rodents. Rather, it’s making it
impossible for the rodents to leave, or survive in any way, including
reproduce, addressing it as necessary and becoming more relentless than the
rodents with the specific and unwavering goal of overcoming the problem
entirely. Then, when an instrument like
this complaint comes along, one snatches it up to utilize it rather than throw
up one’s hands with jaded resignation. And once you do that, and close up the
holes made by the rodents, the problem is OVER.
The
house is our country, and the rodents are those who are corrupt in our government who have made their abode right in the house, by
virtue of which residence additional major problems also enter, such as laws
permitting partial birth abortion. A
house that is full of rodents does not really belong to the owner of the house
but to the rodents, even if the owners keep it clean and in good repair and
paid for, because the rodents can go everywhere and destroy and make filthy,
sufficiently undermining the owners’ efforts and ownership so as to make it
futile. These efforts are our democratic
process, our votes and voices, our taxes, that are
entrusted into the hands of our agents and representatives who are corrupt and
who make use of these privileges according to their own agenda.
It’s
not that the government and the system don’t work because they do work – as
long as there is not some powerful person or special interest to manipulate and
override the process. It’s not that a
house doesn’t function with rodents in it, because it does, as long as the
rodents don’t erode the components providing that function in the house. This complaint would remove that corruption
and end the problem. Our future
generations deserve this – we owe them this legacy -- because they are children
of God and we will have to account for what we leave behind, including what we
permit when we can do otherwise. We
vote, we pay taxes, and so our government does what we want it to do. And if we know it is doing what we learn it has
done in this complaint, and there is a way to fix that and we don’t avail ourselves
of it, then our government does what we want it to do.
And
it’s not the case that one can say that this is just how things are because
even though this may well be true, we would not dream of not going into space
to find improvement, or do research to end a disease. Of course, we can eradicate corruption. Just because it has always been a part of
life doesn’t mean it can’t be changed.
Abortion and same sex marriage proponents know this. You don’t see them giving up, do you? In 1945, did it seem possible that abortion
would become a right and for whatever reason, and that people would be
protesting to have same sex unions? Or
was this entirely unthinkable?
It is
not that no information has ever been released to me at all because I did get some
information. But what I sent to the OIG
– some of which was released by FOIA elsewhere although pre-deliberative
information was exempted in what was released – was denied to me. And I was complaining to the OIG precisely
about the handling connected to just such information that was released to
me. Just about all I would produce if
asked for court-worthy evidence is now with the OIG and the OIG won’t release
it. And the information I sent to the
OIG could take up a few drawers in a file cabinet. I provide in the petition only
the main file information – which in my experience should not yield much if one
requests a record, although the file is huge.
(But if you do make such a request, do let me know the result.) The issues of the root criminal case at the
local level were federal even at the local level except that I lived in
Arlington at the time and so the case originates at the local jurisdiction
because I did not immediately present the federal issues, but merely contacted
the police at a starting point with information that if presented isolated from
the federal issues, would be a matter of local jurisdiction. Then there are issues of the subsequent
complaint to the Justice Department as a result of the local handling, which
included issues about the disappearing record, although the record also
disappeared at the Justice Department and the OIG. And so then there are also subsequent issues
of obstruction of justice by law enforcement to protect the subjects of the
complaint everywhere the matter of the complaint went once the complaint was
filed at the Civil Rights Division.
Once, at a crime scene recently where arrests were being made, this
became self-evident by the local police handling. Those arrests were papered by the U.S.
Attorney’s office because they happened to occur in the District of Columbia
because I had not as yet apprised anyone that there were federal issues that
could have been related to the complaint in those arrests although I did
indicate that the crime for which the arrests were being made were not the only
ones like that. Even so, such a
statement is not sufficient information to point to a federal complaint, which
I did not mention, unless the matter is already known. And I doubt I would have seen some of what I
saw unless it had not been already known because it spoke to a
predisposition. This is information that
the OIG will not release.
In
short, pursuit of this matter has been relentless, and I don’t know any normal
human being who could have accomplished that, but only many can do this, and
under the direction of a person or persons whose attention is riveted on the
matter. And that smacks of organized crime.
And
this is not withstanding that too many Catholics unfortunately also
participated, if only in creating a hostile environment although in some cases
it was not limited to that, because they can’t stand to have a Bishop
criticized even if the criticism is just. The slander is incredible – it is not
only the OIG or other law enforcement either directly or by virtue of the
handling that are discrediting me -- but also the faithful and others. Some may not realize I’m being discredited
but only believe those others that they’ve known and trusted for many
years. But it would seem that others
are doing it deliberately in order to protect that Bishop. It’s not that there are no open-minded people
because there have been those who were fervently willing to help me upon
learning of the situation – and then suddenly and inexplicably withdrew or
changed their minds. Some of it is
reflected on e-mail, it’s not all verbal.
I can’t prove every instance of this, but I do have qualification to
show for at least some of it.
If
there are those that are doing it quite deliberately, then the impetus to
protect priests is so strong that it transcends even self-preservation. Those who protested the abortion clinic with
me had footage of the events there. That family criticized that Bishop a lot and were trying to
obtain redress regarding the events there through St. James, and were being
ignored at the time I sent a letter to the Bishop about it. Neither was there any improvement thereafter. But when I filed the complaint, they withdrew
from the situation and even denied having footage when previously I was told
they had footage. When I experienced these things, it was no surprise to me
that the sex abuse cases took so long to obtain justice even though the crime
is a different one. The sex abuse cases
were predominantly against priests, and priests apparently obtain this favor
and immunity from law enforcement -- and the faithful, which I expect is no
small assistance – and, with some, seemingly no matter what they do. And as horrifying beyond words the sex abuse
against children is, especially by priests, this complaint can eradicate
abortion, which is murder of the unborn and there is no greater atrocity than
this. The handling therefore stands in
the way of saving lives sooner rather than later. Saving lives. That such handling stood in the way of
vindication and the sparing of others is already beyond insupportable, but to
have such handling stand in the way of saving the lives of the defenseless
unborn is indescribable – the act of a megalomaniac -- who is dragging the
otherwise well-intentioned faithful with him, creating sides, division. It therefore behooves me as a Catholic to
insure this element is removed from the Church and that the faithful learn the
difference between protecting a priest and defending the Church -- the former
is arbitrary and not necessarily one’s prerogative, the latter is obligatory
whether they realize it or not. There are too many that don’t seem to know how
that works and what their responsibilities are.
This war would not end with the handling of the complaint to the
procurement of justice, but it would extend to
And so,
handling of the complaint for justice would address behaviors and thinking such
as what I just described as well, along with what would eradicate abortion and
the progressive agenda and corruption among the ranks of law enforcement. It seems like an impossible task – how does
one even start to address such things as this behavior, especially when it’s
born of denial Yet, there is a lot of
concrete that can be accessed to commence addressing such things. The OIG wouldn’t release the file, yet I had
a multitude of e-mails with the U.S. Attorney’s office alone that show how the
complaint and I were treated, and not even immediately at the first agency when
I didn’t use e-mail yet, but at another agency and at a much later date,
because they were so confident of immunity and support that they were careless
because after all, they had left me defenseless and what could I do anyway if
those charged with upholding my rights were violating them? Well, I didn’t delete the e-mails, of course,
I still have them. Not everything that
happens is an arrow passing through the air, as it were, leaving no trace and
impossible to capture. What can’t be
documented beyond human testimony in such as a church HAS been mirrored and
even documented with government agencies sufficiently to show that there is a
problem and even to show sufficiently what kind of problem it is, and in some
cases, without further elaboration from me, although certainly I would testify
to elaborate further. Because if government employees are blatant so that it
can show up in the documentation, then what are the faithful and others who are
either involved or who got themselves involved doing, since it would be
apparent that there will be no consequences – ongoing immunity? And, yes, law enforcement can destroy a lot
of records and certainly they have made a lot of them inaccessible to me, but
it’s not altogether inaccessible. I
understand Bill Gates can access such information and perhaps even be able to
release it if the OIG won’t. And what
reason could the OIG give to object if the contents of the file really only
consist of the OIG’s representation of the file in
what little they did release? The
information is there. And as for human
testimony, let me tell you something. I
worked for a union and for lawyers before that, and I have seen arbitration and
legal processes. People just don’t fare
that well when all are planning to tell the same lie under oath. They do get caught in their words. There’s always someone or something that
confounds them, starting with their own blindness, ignorance and hubris. This progressive agenda is probably
diabolical in origin, but the instruments of this origin are just not up to the
fight, notwithstanding the run for our money that they can give us. What they
have on their side is the usually prudently undisclosed gut belief that might makes right: the law of the jungle. They do go out of control and disclose it
however when they so much as see something they don’t like, as I learned from
my experiences in protesting abortion clinics.
Once an older woman – at least grandmother age -- was walking by on that
street where I was standing waiting outside the abortion clinic with my sign,
and she just flipped out, one-sided self-propelled escalated, saying, “You don’t
care about women and children!” and got into her car and jumped the curb at me
with her car that happened to be parked right in front of the Planned
Parenthood where I was standing. In the
end, they’re only human, though, and they behave barbarically, according to
their beliefs, and it comes through. The
lies they decide upon beforehand also don’t withstand their interior
instincts. And what we have on our side
is God, and that’s all we need if we do His Will.
One’s
position on abortion is not the sole matter of the public interest at issue
here. Inasmuch as the eradication of
abortion is our focus and purpose, the pro-life/pro-choice polemic distracts
from an important logistical issue that affects us all – that will affect our
ability to effect the eradication of abortion or any other initiative in a
democratic fashion. It can be likened to
the instructions one receives on a plane to insure the air mask is first
applied to oneself and then to those who can’t do for themselves. Indeed, this
complaint would not even exist were it not for this logistical reality because
some of the lynchpins that would eradicate abortion in the complaint occurred
as part of certain circumstances of that complaint, but a lot of the issues
that would eradicate corruption occurred not entirely different circumstances
and are of a entirely different nature than the lynchpin crimes. And the
handling of those lynchpin issues I say are mirrored by the handling of the
corruption issues, but, chronologically, the corruption issues were documented
in the complaint first and have continued throughout and are ongoing. The lynchpin issues are much older, however,
but were documented later in that same complaint because I encountered them later
and learned of them later, even though the history of the lynchpin issues
pre-existed the other criminal issues by many years.
The
lynchpin issues are ongoing also – just because I caused the clinic to leave
and so left there myself doesn’t mean that the matter
ended there. If these criminal issues
had been handled for justice before I encountered and documented the lynchpin
issues, when I did document those lynchpin issues, the lynchpin issues probably
would have prosecuted themselves and without much of a hitch, almost on
automatic pilot. I didn’t have e-mail in
those days, but there was written correspondence between me and the
If
abortion could be legalized, this corruption was already existent, of course,
but it was just a matter of when such an atrocity would pass the notice of the
public at large. That’s a necessary
investment of the progressive agenda because the majority of people would not
have stood for that 75 years ago but after the sexual revolution it got easier
and easier as more and more of the taboo became more and more acceptable until
now it’s a right, and one that is protected by illegal means and safeguarded by
virtue of emotional abuses and manipulation.
When abortion was legalized, legally speaking, it wasn’t kosher to begin
with. It’s
reasoning is not well-supported but rather questionable – and for obvious (as
in, “in-your-face”) reasons – in our Constitution and Declaration of
Independence. It is said that even
pro-choice scholars have trouble defending it as a right. And when McCorvey
tried to correct it with that amicus brief, the reasoning of the judge who did
not find in her favor was basically, You’re right but
we kind of like the law so it’s staying.
This is corrupt handling. But
there wasn’t the necessary uproar over it because the necessary integrity of
the society has been disintegrating by virtue of the gradual introduction of
the progressive agenda and paving the way for its full manifestation and rule
with emotionally extorted tolerance (otherwise known as political-correctness
that reaches even into the American Psychological Associations DSM truthful diagnoses
of homosexuals, for instance). So this is not about a position on abortion, but
that the instruments that we have at our disposal to insure our rights are
being disregarded for a special interest or to obtain favor or immunity to
those who seem to be able to control our government (not to mention other
respected societal establishments), and thus the effective benefit of our laws,
including whether or not our rights are respected. It just so happens that the special interest
is the progressive agenda, the acceptance of whatever self-gratify behavior,
whatever that is, outranking all as a right, a legal right, which includes the
right to murder a child in the womb.
It’s not that our system doesn’t work, because it does. … As long as there isn’t
some powerful person or entity or special interest that doesn’t mind.
Even
if that Bishop were right, and he is not, he should not be permitted to use and
control law enforcement like this because that helps to set precedents,
accepted procedures that are followed blindly notwithstanding the rights of the
people and the laws. The laws are what
we have to protect us against the arbitrary abuses of men. Are we already in paradise that we don’t need
this? What is this presumption in the
methodology that all mean well, especially when this is the fruit of that
methodology – inasmuch as the well-meaning is only perceived in the patrons of
abortion and not the pro-lifers and their differing methodologies, which are
not tolerated. Whatever happened to
concrete assessments and analysis of the circumstances and person based on
observable objective realities and appropriate probing?
Therefore,
it should interest those in the pro-abortion movement who sincerely believe
abortion is a right also to insure the handling for justice of this complaint
because if that is what is believed, then it would also be believed that the
right to abortion can and should be obtained justly also. It would only be fair and democratic. And the “right” to an abortion was not justly
secured, and therefore this complaint’s handling for justice should do a lot to
reverse that and prevent future occurrences.
And since the handling of this complaint violates the rights of pro-choicers too, then whatever they stand for or want
legislated, the handling of this complaint should alarm them. I have not encountered many pro-choice
persons who are able to reason beyond what they want, so that it would seem
that it is believed that if all that corruption procures the right to an
abortion, then it’s justified. But there
are absolutely exceptions to that. This
complaint would not be totally unsupported by pro-choicers. I’ve encountered those who would not tell me
where they stood on the matter, but agreed that I should be doing what I was
doing because of the violation of rights. And there are those who are
pro-abortion because they are sincerely misled about abortion or had not yet
reached the age of reason when abortion wasn’t legal and so are lacking a
certain amount of experience that can explain the expectation of abortion as a
right. Upon learning what the complaint
can procure, there are pro-choicers who would support
it because an eradication of corruption can right a lot of injustices that are
taken for granted now, and some take the pro-abortion position because they are
distracted by these injustices, some of which are permitted, condoned, and even
committed by those who claim to be pro-life.
Abortion is merely perceived as a tragic remedy to certain injustices by
those who can not think of what else can be done to remedy the
circumstances.
Some
of these people were not even alive in the days when people made large
sacrifices for one another as a matter of course but rather only know the
“me-generation” and the instant gratification that is expected, pretended. So while they see injustice, their
experiences don’t automatically lead them to find solutions in sacrifices that
an older generation would have automatically assumed because this generation
has been trained to view such efforts as an unthinkable burden. But they are not the only ones in such
personal difficulty with serious questions.
Abortion as a remedy would be inapplicable in resolving the issues of this
complaint in the fashion that it is applicable to the specific circumstances of
the abortion patron, yet the same pro-abortion thinking is underneath the
handling of this complaint and the obstruction of justice, even though some of
the subjects of the complaint are not pro-abortion per se. For instance, Bishop Loverde,
who is not of the tender age of those who might have sincere error and lack of
experience to blame for their pro-abortion stance or pro-abortion thinking
regardless of stance. Indeed, Bishop Loverde is not professed to be pro-choice but rather goes
to abortion clinics to pray with a rosary and an entourage, is soft-spoken,
friendly, diplomatic, a Catholic Bishop … while the diocese rams its
anti-abortion methodology down people’s throats, or at least they rammed it
down mine and thereafter pursued me regarding my use of anything but, and this
goes without vindication even today even though one would have to wonder what
there is to gain in pursuing it. And what’s pro-life about that? Even if the Bishop is not himself personally
pursuing me, I can’t imagine that those who do so on
his behalf are doing so without his knowledge and appreciation. It takes a lot of work to keep that up, and
people are easily distracted, so such relentless attention has to have a
specific source, and the complaint was against Bishop Loverde,
who would have a lot to gain by proving me incompetent and otherwise
wrong. Also, upon learning more about
the non-lynchpin issues of the complaint, one would be able to assess that this
Bishop would sooner throw the sheep in front of him to avert whatever
consequences for himself and other clergy than accept a burden, even a
well-deserved consequence. Yet one could
not easily see the Bishop is not pro-life for his outward activities. But if he treats others this way himself,
doing whatever is necessary to insure that his circumstances and those of
certain priests – that is to say, those persons that he deems truly matter --
as opposed to the victim who should rather need see to the matter of whatever
damage or ill-use himself somehow while those victimizing him can continue as
before and should not endure real curtailment because to endure curtailment
would implicate guilt on past similar actions, and he negotiated this in the
favor of such persons, then there is no overt example in prominent persons who
claim to be pro-life of what pro-life truly means. It’s not that he thinks sacrifice is
unthinkable, but rather who makes the sacrifice is of concern, and the ease of
those he believes should not even pay the consequences of their actions
outranks the inalienable rights of the victim.
Such is throwing the sheep in front of himself to avoid consequences,
the act of a sheep merchant and not a shepherd, a Bishop. (No wonder the OIG won’t release the ENTIRE
record, but only some dribble and misrepresented at that and otherwise falsify
the record.) This is not something that
goes unobserved when learned, not by pro-choicers who
would take offense, and not by pro-choicers who would
identify with such actions.
And
so someone who is pro-choice out of misdirected compassion will not look upon
this and learn the meaning of pro-life or have any desire to learn it, because
if that is what pro-life means, then it’s not better than what is perceived as
the reason to require a remedy such as abortion. Look at the injustices people have claimed
against that Bishop though – I’m not alone in enduring ill-use although I did
not know about the other claims against him while I was busy filing the
complaint, but rather thought he would wind up answering for the sins of his
predecessors, at least in part, as regarded some of the lynchpin issues anyway
because that diocese has a history of that and Loverde
is a new bishop there. But his handling of the lynchpin issues and the other
criminal issues takes the easy way out for himself and those he obviously deems
to truly matter. Those with misdirected
compassion and lack of experience could be guilty of this and incur compassion,
but a man Loverde’s age raises eyebrows with such
behavior, and fails in his obligation to be an example. Consider, since he
himself did not assault me, an explanation that divorced him from those who did
assault me with a correction of the situation should have served to exonerate
him at least as regarded those specific issues, and certainly if that would
have been sufficient and there was no other real concern, I can’t imagine he
would not have done it to end at least some of the lynchpin issues of the
complaint because he wasn’t above having the diocese respond to my letters or
acting on the information with my knowledge.
I checked and know that he opened his own mail even if he apparently
delegated the mail to others for actual response. But it appears that justice
and the sacrifices inherent in justice is an unthinkable burden for Loverde too, notwithstanding his age and generation, and
his position in the Catholic Church.
Therefore,
there would certainly be support for this complaint among the ranks of pro-choicers because those who call themselves pro-choice are
not necessarily so but only have not yet thought through the matter completely,
and similar is true for many who call themselves pro-life. And if there are those among pro-lifers who
really aren’t pro-life by virtue of the apparent fruit that falls from the
tree, as it were, this serves to confuse and turn away rather than invite those
pro-choicers who would gladly change stance if they
only understood. And they cannot
understand where there is apparent hypocrisy and vehement allegiance in a
following as well, as is the case with Bishop Loverde. This is a problem for which there is no
solution, one of those things that people describe as unchangeable, can’t be
fixed, and learn to accept it, with a shrug and profound sigh of
disillusionment. But this complaint
responds to this, and disproves it. It
acts as the sword of Truth that brings forth division that is actually true
peace because it is the justice that we as Christians are charged to work for
in order to obtain true peace. This
peace, however, requires sacrifice, and Christ described it by mentioning some
of the worst sacrifices that could be the expectation of those following Him,
where even family members go against one another. Injustice is something every Christian has an
obligation to pursue and correct because not correcting injustices erodes the
straight and narrow into a wide path because injustice doesn’t belong on the
straight and narrow but if permitted there, it then needs far more room,
including to push out what was formerly the straight and narrow and obliterate it. This is a danger because people who would say
they are on the straight and narrow will permit injustice where they do not
have the strength to oppose it, and then ignore what they see and only look at
what they want to be true and supply for what is lacking with their
imaginations, or at least this is what I learned in my experiences as a result
of the circumstances surrounding this complaint. To obtain the support of men of good will, we
have to be true to our call, and not take sides of right team and wrong team,
but rather concern ourselves with right and wrong for real teamwork, or those
pro-choicers who would support justice will not know
who we are and will not be able to ally themselves with us. Catholics in particular need to remember how
Scripture describes the last judgment.
The question is not were you a Catholic and did you do everything the
Bishop told you, but rather who fed and clothed Christ Himself in each person,
who lived the message. Christ Himself
spoke of the Queen of the South condemning that generation who thought itself righteous only because they were on the right team
since they were the descendants of Abraham.
I think there are many Catholics who will be surprised that being
Catholic does not consist of a club membership but a self-sacrifice, a total
giving lived out in every aspect and moment, similar to what Christ's own
Mother had to do. The sheep in the last
judgment are not necessarily all Catholics and pre-Catholic just Jews with the
goats being everyone else. No one is
saved except through Christ and His Church, but Catholics should not be misled
by the significance of this. It is by virtue of the Redemption, and the
Church established by Christ, that all will find salvation, but membership in
that Church does not guarantee it, rather everyone’s actions will have value by
virtue of the Church established by Christ and the Redemption contained
therein, although Catholics having the Catholic Church, the Body, Blood, Soul
and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Tabernacle, and therefore the fullness of
Truth ever present, would be responsible
to know more and to do more, while everyone else will get away with similar
errors with fewer lashes.
I’ve
never seen so many Catholics become preoccupied with the end-times as has been
the case with the emergence of this complaint.
Yet, whether one believes in apparitions or not, the Mother of Jesus
appeared in Medjugorje some time ago, and one of her
messages specifically addressed preoccupation with Revelations, about which she
advised that one was not to concern oneself with Revelations but live the
Gospel and Revelations will take care of itself. Before that last judgment, we each will have
to render an account at our own death, so, yes, Christ is coming, for each of
us, at the end of each of our lives, which we know not the hour, and not
necessarily to relieve us from debt in our current circumstances or to give
so-and-so his just desserts finally in an apocalypse. That might be what happens, but that’s not
our concern, but rather the Gospel.
That's what we need to concern ourselves about, because that general
judgment will not change anything about this first personal judgment. What gets determined at the first will be
known to all at the last. The same Mother of Christ tells those at the wedding
feast at
And
this is also the criteria to effectively change what is wrong with our world,
because whether one has learned of Christ or not, what Christ requires is
merely that we all treat others as we would want ourselves to be treated, and
the assumption there is that we love ourselves first and want what is best for
ourselves or we would not be able to do this for anyone else. Whatever “if’s, and’s
or but’s” that would be added to that, is just very
heavy and unnecessary baggage, predispositions based on what we perceive and
believe we need or should be, but not what is true.
So
how do we honor our priests, if we are supposed to turn them over to the law
when they commit crimes and otherwise do wrong?
It is important to understand that when the high priest condemned Christ,
saying it was better for one man to die than that a whole nation should perish,
that he was speaking from his wickedness and needed to and did eventually
account for that. But in the office of high priest, he was said by the
evangelist to be prophesying, and he was, and what he said was exactly
what happened. We are called to defend the Church and the
priesthood, but not necessarily to protect the priest in his wickedness. Christ said, do
whatsoever the priests tell you, but don’t do what they do. This means, that priests in their authority
must speak the laws of Christ and teach them, and these we are obliged to obey,
but they cannot arbitrarily command people to do otherwise and people should
recognize and avoid them in that.
Catholics get this confused and believe that standing behind a priest,
no matter what he does, is equivalent to standing behind the office and dignity
of the priesthood. The opposite is
true. One should oust a priest, turn him
over for arrest to the police, and otherwise do whatever is just for the people
involved and the Church, if what he does is at variance with the dignity of his
priesthood. And this is a defense of the
priesthood as well as an appropriate protection of those priests who do not
behave wickedly. Because if we do not do
this, as soon as people see a priest they will say, oh, another child molester,
and so on with crimes for which priests receive inappropriate protection from
the law. This should be the course of
action rather than ignoring what the priest does and advising or pressuring
others to do the same, even if what the priest is doing is an atrocity. Because to swallow whatever a priest does, or
to swallow wrongdoing just because the person doing wrong belongs to the same
group we belong to, is what turns off those who would join us in our authentic
goals and obligations, which we will have to account for at least in terms of
genuine effort. It does not serve the
Body of Christ that people who we are called to invite into the fold avoid the
Catholic Church because Catholics protect priests in whatever wrongdoing and
leave children and other faithful at the mercy of a priest’s whims, without
assessing what these whims consist of first.
I
cannot stress this enough and so make a distinct point of this in defense of
the Catholic Church, and not in criticism of it, because what the Catholic
Church truly is, and what even devout Catholics will protect in order to spare
the Catholic Church opprobrium, are at serious variance at times. But the Catholic Church, in reality, has
nothing to do with such behaviors, but is rather what Christ left us, and there
can never be anything wrong with that.
When there is something wrong then, we have an obligation to correct and
eradicate it – not cover it up – out of respect for Christ and the priesthood
He left as a living legacy. Certainly,
if there is a cancer in the body, we eradicate that as possible, then why not do the same with the Body of Christ?
Therefore,
we who are truly pro-life can get support from the pro-choice arena if we are
appropriately scandalized by the right things and such persons can make the
necessary assessment that the true pro-life agenda is not necessarily
automatically the Republican party, especially when it is the case that candidates
do change their stance on issues to obtain a constituency, and some in the
party even heap burdens too heavy to bear on the backs of others while not
lifting a finger to help, as Christ would put it. People see this and assess this is representative
of the party. But rather, the pro-life
agenda addresses everything, and would necessarily cause those who are pro-life
to vote by the issue rather than ally with any party in particular, but only as
relates to the issues and as far as the party truly represents the agenda. The pro-life agenda would in fact be
interested in eradicating corruption that would eradicate abortion, because the
eradication of abortion and corruption would necessarily also mean eradication
of injustices that sometimes cause people in their weakness to choose
abortion. Those pro-choicers
who would support justice, support abortion because they perceive that the
pro-life agenda requires people to accomplish the impossible under oppressive
conditions, and this is at least in part because of the alliance with the
Republican party.
Pro-lifers are allied with the Republican party
because that party adopted the pro-life position, but some Republicans do that
to obtain a constituency. Bill Clinton,
the same one who legalized partial birth abortion upon winning the presidency
as though paying a debt to Lucifer, used to be pro-life, but the Democratic party, which used to be the party of the Catholic Church
prior to Roe v. Wade, adopted abortion without relinquishing compassion on other
issues. We of the pro-life agenda have
to have the mind and heart of Christ, that is to say
to love our neighbor as ourselves, so that we can attract those who would
support and adopt this way of life, regardless of the party. Because the eradication of corruption
requires this change of heart and mind, a conscious decision and act of
will. Our own authenticity will draw
others who are otherwise attached to abortion as a compassionate way out of a
really bad circumstance but otherwise would not choose it.
Our
own authenticity can also draw those who are obdurately pro-choice and not
because one might perceive one has one’s back to the wall, as it were. It’s not impossible to point out to those who
think the end justifies the means -- that corruption justifies the right to an
abortion -- that in so choosing, one is not so much concerned with rights, but
only in insuring license, because at the moment, one is in a strong position
and able to look out for his own interests.
If that changes, and an individual learns his own vulnerability and how
only just laws and the just enforcement of the laws remain to protect him, then
the pro-life mentality will hopefully make sense to such a one too. Because remember that Terri Schiavo had her family backing her and even Jeb Bush and still died at the hands of her husband, so the
incidental support of other people is not enough but rather one’s guarantee of
obtaining one’s inalienable rights is in the proper enforcement and
interpretation of law, which the society requires at every turn by causing a
complaint such as this to be handled for justice and then following up
consistently.
There
are those pro-choicers who will respond to such an argument
with saying that they would want to be put out of their misery, and that Mr. Schiavo did Terri Schiavo a
favor. Well, inasmuch as they do not
have a right to even speak for themselves in this
regard but rather must answer to the One Who made them, at the very least, they
cannot and should not be permitted to speak for everyone or anyone else. Not everyone is a Christian and understands
the science of redemption, that we do not own
ourselves but are only entrusted with our bodies and all we’ve been given
besides. But such spiritual knowledge is
qualified by parallels in the concrete.
One does not have to convert another to Christianity before that person
can be made to understand the value of a concrete Truth rather than a
philosophical opinion or tenet of a particular belief system when there are
many belief systems and each person has the right to choose one. Does one need to be a Christian to understand
that one did not choose the color of one’s eyes or one’s height or one’s
parents? More to the point, does one
need to be a Christian to understand that it is only in life that one can make
a choice – a dead person can’t choose – and if such a one would want to make
his own choice about whether he lives or dies, and he chooses to die, it is while
alive that he would be able to make that choice. And so he would have to concede life to
others so that they can make a choice too, according to what we in a democracy
legislate by our voices. And such a one
would not be conceding life to anyone because the life of another is not his
possession but rather hijacked when he speaks for another. Those who would choose to die have not lost
their voices if people have a right to their lives legally so that each person can
make his own choice. This concrete reality
would automatically guarantee the life of the unborn child until he is of legal
age, at least, at which point his life would be in his own hands anyway.
If
such believe they should be able to choose to die, then they should not be
permitted to scream above the voices of others so that everyone loses his voice
because the screaming of those who are pro-death want their choice to be
everyone’s choice, so that they don’t have to achieve and so that they don’t
have to bother with the disabled or otherwise bothersome and costly. And when I say they scream, I mean, by virtue
of the way they insure their point of view is accepted as the only way, a
truth, a standard that guarantees them this license and the hell with everyone
else. That is to say, they insure it
violently, even though they would not be seen doing overt violence necessarily,
although certainly this is also the case, at least in my experiences at
abortion clinics. For instance, they
hold up those who would choose to live in a condition that was less than
optimal or tolerable for them as mentally incompetent and requiring another
more competent person – one who “understands” that death is the answer – to
make the choice for him. Such persons who think this way should only be allowed
to exercise their voice equally at best, but certainly not be allowed to speak
for anyone else because this way of thinking grabs the rights of others.
In
today’s society, such a pro-death mentality that encompasses more than actual
life and death but also lifestyle, can pass unobserved because we have become
accustomed to it, to the turns-of-phrases, the use of which are politically
correct, and so the use of more candid terms would be politically incorrect,
intolerant, somehow out of the mainstream or manifesting unresolved issues, in
need of correction to be socially acceptable. But that isn’t the case at
all. This is in fact the slandering of
those who take issue with those things that should be changed or that should
not be permitted, wrongdoing. And it is effected by virtue of general public opinion that is
represented to be correct and in the majority, rather than in a specific
accusation that one can address directly.
This slander is effected by an enemy that is
difficult to fight on a one-to-one basis for resolution. Indeed, once such persons who would rather
die than live a life that does not consist of a high quality of living
according to their own personal requirements rather than what is actually
necessary, and then even wish to speak for others as though this thinking were
ideal and should be obviously and easily accepted by all, of course, such
persons should be categorized with those in need of a good psychiatrist because
there is something wrong with THEIR thinking.
This way they can learn to be high achievers rather than give up as soon
as they encounter an obstacle they don’t like while invidiously insuring no one
outdoes them or makes any colossal effort that they themselves are not
interested in making just so they don’t “feel” like the underachievers that
they really are, and no matter their specific achievements in life because this
is the thinking of a loser. Why? Because special achievements in life are not
the stuff of life itself, but life has its own dynamic and is worthwhile even
if one never achieves anything worth noting but only does his duty of digesting
his food through an intravenous device until God calls him home. This is heroic, but it is not a high quality
of life or the type of achievement those who are pro-death appreciate or want
that anyone else should appreciate. This
kind of life is not according to the predispositions of those with material
expectations that require God to justify creating them and expecting them to
live out their lives without the comfort and other things they think should
come with that expectation.
If
their self-esteem suffers, they need to make the necessary effort to raise
their own opinions of themselves by achieving more, not by lowering the
standard for everyone else, even to the point of taking a life rather than
permitting someone to achieve what they themselves regard as an unthinkable
burden or task. Achieving more is doing
God’s will even when it doesn’t make sense, with trust in the good, whether
this brings us fame and fortune, personal comfort, or great sacrifice. This achieving more is the dynamic of
life. And avoiding life is known to be
the trait of those who need counseling, of the suicidal, even. No, indeed! They are absolutely wrong and not
in any position to make judgments about others certainly, whether others should
be permitted to live their lives or be extinguished as an act of mercy, because
they are incapable of seeing this realistically for themselves. Life IS beautiful, as the title of the Benigni movie goes, and it is a wonderful world we live
in. Like anything else, we have to care
for it, be vigilant to find and weed out the destructive, and invest the
necessary to keep what is good. It takes
work to live life fully, as those who have a life all know. To lower the standards for all, even unto
death for life not being worth living, is to make a judgment, much like the one
launched at pro-lifers frequently, to “get a life” and “don’t judge” the patron
obtaining an abortion, that is to say, taking the life of another. Indeed, if one truly has a life, one cannot
stand idly by while others die or are not permitted to live their lives,
including exercise their rights.
It is
no surprise that there are those who would make such choices on behalf of
others, deciding that if they would rather die (although I doubt they truly
know they would choose death since they’re not necessarily on the point of
death themselves when speaking for others) then everyone should be afforded
this favor and the laws should reflect this “benevolence.” Take everyone out of their misery, and the
benefit is they won’t deplete social security by living a long time, and
insurance companies certainly do well with such an anti-disabled, inhumane
mentality. My, what a favor insurance
companies have done this country by dictating how one should live, and how much
is too much spent on the life and well-being or comfort of an individual. The comfort is held in high esteem, but the
not the person such comfort is supposed to serve, so that it is too much to
make a sick person as comfortable as is possible but the person should either
put up and shut up, or be put down. How
many people know people who, for instance, were forced to remove both
ovaries when only one had cancer because insurance would not pay for the
removal of the one ovary if they didn’t remove both in the one operation. God forbid
the insurance should have to pay for a second operation of that second ovary,
but rather do away with everything now while the woman is on the operating table,
and regardless of her beliefs or best interests or comfort.
God
alone, however, Whose Name is I AM WHO AM – that is, Life itself -- gives
life. And so an attack on life --
abortion, euthanasia --are attacks on Life itself, on God’s very name. Similarly, those who will not live their
lives but choose to opt out when the going gets a little rough (or so they say
although I say they are really only interested in not being burdened with
others they think should be removed out of their way from this life with all
the problems and expenses and so on of such persons but when they themselves
contract AIDS, the sky’s the limit), are pro-death and attack God’s name and
Life itself in such thinking. This
thinking has no depth and is not the thinking of a healthy person who interacts
well with others and is capable of bonding and developing lasting relationships
with other humans. The problems of
abortion and the progressive agenda arose by just such shallowness. Mothers decided that raising children was not
foremost in priority. Children were then
brought up by other than their own mothers and so got the message that
something was of greater import to their own mother than they were themselves, that they were mere additional acquisitions of
the parents but not necessarily worthy of all that interaction. And inasmuch as there is a need for women to
work, (possibly created by the influx of women into the workforce which
resulted in perhaps lowering men’s salaries only which salaries used to be
higher because they were the providers but not necessarily raising women’s
salaries to par with men’s because now both work -- and this with a general
disregard for the family as a unit), it didn’t start out that way. Rather women were opting for careers as more
important or equal to raising their own children, as though the latter could be
taken for granted as nothing more than a series of menial tasks and hard work
meant for less than a white-collar worker.
And so these children, now a couple of generations-worth, value things
over relationships because in too many instances they do not know what a good
relationship is. And this generation,
this kind of person, is violent. Such a
person as this pushes and shoves to get his way, no matter how mannerly he
might be when it suits him. It is known
that children in daycare centers are more aggressive than those brought up with
their very mothers. There’s a reason for
that. That they are in daycare, as far
as the child is concerned, is a rejection when the child most needs the
mother. And this aggressiveness is
carried into adulthood. And supporters
of the progressive agenda naturally also think this way because the progressive
agenda speaks to shallow lifestyles and decisions.
And
in order to have such shallow lifestyles accepted rather than disdained, it was
necessary to train everyone to become numb to it rather than appalled that
raising a child is the boring stuff for an au pair or someone who gets paid an
hourly wage for “menial” work, in order to not have everyone object in any way
every time a new element of this lifestyle was introduced but rather just
swallow it along with all the rest. And
slowly each new element gained ground, becoming common and therefore normal,
which used to also assume healthy but now we have to just stick strictly to the
definition of pervasive. And it is
considered that there is something wrong with those who object to the lifestyle
rather than with the new lifestyle itself.
And so on with such popular re-education, not all that different than
what will take place in a gulag, and the lack of other gulag conditions only
serves to deceive as to what is truly happening. What’s truly happening? The progressive agenda even corrupted
psychological diagnoses standards to reflect that there is no personality
disorder in homosexuality, for instance, and continue to corrupt it so as to
make man in their own image, pro-death, something other than what God
created. We have to permit them to
continue to find out what the unthinkable consists of, and we have the past to
base such poor expectations upon. This
is so that they can get rid of whoever they want, in their violence, when that
person no longer serves, and even have that person's consent because if not,
then that person will be told there’s something wrong with him for not
accepting or appreciating that others would do him the favor of putting him
“down”, like an animal gets put out of its misery. And if such a person is told they are in
misery, this too the person must consent to, and agree that his life is not
worth living because of these standards.
And these people of the progressive agenda – and Bishop Loverde seems to do similarly not only with me but
apparently also with those I’ve read about on the websites in terms of just
shunting others out of his way – immediately claim there are psychiatric and/or
psychological problems in others only because they don’t agree with their
pro-death mentalities or just don’t agree with them or just don’t do what’s
expected. Including that such as this
Bishop would claim to be pro-life and one has to agree with that
notwithstanding that he’s obviously not, as though the label one affixes makes
it a reality. Such as
their slander. Uncannily enough,
the progressive agenda discredit in the same manner I’m being discredited as a
result of the matter of this complaint, and baselessly, and all to enforce
their way of thinking, which is objectively erroneous.
Probably
the most successful smoke and mirrors ever pulled on society as a whole and
worldwide is this making insupportable any intolerance of any aspect of the
intolerable, the progressive agenda. And
it is not only smoke and mirrors but an “or else” type of brainwashing, gulag
style even. Every
speak to someone who is really pro-choice. They become vehemently impatient and worse at
any mention that would put the pro-life stance on equal footing with the
pro-choice. They can’t just agree to
disagree but become anxious and rudely knock down anything one would have to
say that opposes the pro-abortion stance and make their statements as though
these are standards rather than non-truths, and spout them as though uttering
profound wisdom. They cut people off in
speaking, even when they initiate the conversation, as though scolding an
unwieldy child into appropriate submission to authority. Ever say something that was too true at an
abortion clinic? Point out a reality
that should have assisted someone to choose life over death, and happily, to
someone who is personally insecure but wants their personal choices to be
esteemed? I got water suddenly splashed
in my face for it. Another time, a man,
whose wife was inside obtaining an abortion, came out and said to me, “if you’re
here when my wife comes out, I’m going to kill you.” I was standing there with my sign, and I had
a right to be there with my sign if he had a right to be there with his wife
ready to snuff out their child. But this
is what he said. And in such circumstances,
the police would either try to rally support against me or they would not press
charges if I had witnesses, and I did have witnesses, including among the
abortion patrons. Indeed, the pro-death
stance is a violent one, the thinking is the law of
the jungle.
How
is it that it is offensive to relate to someone, by virtue of law and societal
norms, that if a woman wants to keep her options open, she must close her legs. And that a man
should also exercise self-control, self-respect, and respect of others … including women, and children, no matter how small. I mean, how is it that no one dares to so
much as flinch at the cost of HIV for its political incorrectness when all
that's necessary to avoid that usually is, no, not contraception, but chastity,
self-control as a way of life, yet the cost of raising a child is a legitimate
argument for murdering it, even if there's some pro-lifer outside begging to
adopt it. And I did beg to adopt the
children they would throw away like so much refuse, but the mothers or those
deciding that there would be an abortion, were invidious. If they could not have the child for
themselves, and they made that decision based on the material things they
thought they had to have instead, then the child couldn't live. They were entrusted with those children, the children are not their property. It’s not that one should not feel compassion
for those with HIV however it was contracted, but that one should not omit
compassion for such as Terri Schiavo and the child in
the womb or consider other conditions that are not self-inflicted as often as
HIV is, equally worthy of compassion, and support, emotional, financial, and
all else. These of the progressive
agenda want equality. Please, let’s DO
have equality.
This
complaint is a test of our society, it seems, a
separation of the sheep from the goats, as it were.
And,
inasmuch as in this particular complaint, the advantage to the pro-life
movement should be an interest of the subject of the complaint, in particular
Bishop Loverde, the interests of the subject of the
complaint seem to be at variance with or just take priority over justice and
therefore, no matter the initiatives that seem to fall under the pro-life
banner, these stated interests do not bring the actions of the person in accord
with pro-life obligations. Indeed, since
the Justice Department will not answer that question about the funding of the
diocesan methodology, one has to wonder if the pro-life banner there is a
camouflage for something else. And if something along those lines is not the
case, the situation never should have gotten to this
point if there wasn’t something more to it.
Because clearly when my methodology received follow-up initially, the
first two times were on the tail of a rescue, as though we were not there for
the same reasons but rather I was there to get people to leave happily, and
they were there for something else. If the criticism of the first rescue was as
a result of the individual having gone to the institute where the methodology
is taught and so was overly enthusiastic about what she had just learned, the
second follow-up came from the diocese, even though the diocese will not
necessarily do this directly but through other willing people, that is to say,
not necessarily employees. It was not the only such follow-up from the diocese
either, and not all the follow-ups were by those willing but also by the
directly responsible. And there are too
many who have crossed the path, as it were, of this Bishop and who have had too
much of a similar experience as a result.
Logically, since when is anyone obliged to force another to accept his
methodology and utilize it on his own time and resources, especially when the
methodology being utilized is not at variance with the known precepts of the
Catholic faith, or with common sense either, and successful according to
pro-lifers who had been counseling clinics longer than I. Since when is the methodology more important
than the saving of life? I mean, if the diocese insisted that their methodology
was the ONLY way, and he adopted it himself, how does this belief give him
permission to dictate how others should handle the situation of protesting
abortion clinics? After all, the
methodology consists not of dogma that the faithful are required to believe if
they are going to say they are Catholic, but of method. Charity:
must one only do this at soup kitchens?
Modesty: must one only wear navy
blue? Anti-abortion methodology: must one only be a prayerful presence outside
the clinic, an “aura”, … or else? Nothing in Scripture or the magisterium requires what the
As I
said, what I understand about this Bishop’s methodology is that counseling and
protesting abortion clinics need to be a prayerful presence, apparently, an
“aura” is the word I heard used, rather than anything pro-active at all. And while many who insist that I could have
just allowed the Bishop to instruct me and take his cue would probably never
have dreamed of utilizing this methodology to, say, get a job, or a cute
boyfriend, or a nice apartment, they somehow felt this was okay to save lives. Inasmuch as there is an apparent
contradiction in expecting me to utilize this no-action methodology and then
pursuing me relentlessly about my use of my own methodology rather than them
just taking to prayer themselves the inability to accept that I’m just not
adopting their methodology, I will nevertheless respond to such argument as
though it were legitimate, and say that livelihood or getting a boyfriend or an
apartment are important, but not more important than saving a life. So even if one could normally obtain a job
just by being a prayerful presence or being an “aura” outside the building
where one wishes to be employed and doing nothing else, then it would still be
the case that one should do more than pray to save a life. And if those who would say I was wrong to not
obey blindly, they have the common sense to know that if they want a job, then
they would have to do a little more than pray about it, most of the time
anyway, and so the same would go for the other issues. And I would hope the parents among those who
thought me wrong would have done more than just pray if the lives of their own
children were at risk, the ones that were “wanted” or “already here”,
anyway. Why does this require blind
obedience? There’s nothing in the magisterium requiring it – that is to say, nothing in
Scripture. If one is required to blindly
obey only because clergy speak, then no wonder we had that sex abuse scandal –
you don’t just do what a priest tells you just because he’s a priest! Of course, not. And, what’s with the “aura”? Somehow, I’m sure that Bishop would not want
people to become an “aura” if someone were trying to do him in. Certainly, priests and faithful have been
quite pro-active on his behalf, from what I’m able to assess, and neither did
it take all those years for those sex abuse cases to explode because people
were an aura, but rather, they were very pro-active in insuring the protection
of priests. I’ve never had so much trouble getting the sacrament of penance as
I did since that complaint, not to mention having what is said in the
confessional somehow find its way back to me.
Now that’s not an “aura” but going beyond what’s necessary to merely
disagree. That’s desperation,
and what would that Bishop need to be desperate about over a methodology issue
when the complaint’s been derailed, and I’m only one person using that
methodology? And it’s not just desperation, it’s excommunicatable,
for all their protection for the purpose of sparing the Church opprobrium, if
this is the real reason for such behavior.
Children
have the purest behavior, direct from God and untainted by any predispositions
or training. A boy once stopped to ask
me what the protest was about and I explained it to him, and his immediate
reaction was, “Shouldn’t the police be in there?” And it can be seen on film that children in
the womb fight however futilely for their lives. Perhaps the Bishop would like to tell them to
become an “aura” too. Anyone who has
something to live for, a focus, a “life”, cannot keep still while another is being
murdered because he would automatically identify with that person, and want for
that person what he wants for himself:
RESCUE. Additionally, one does
not do other things, like obtain work, by becoming an “aura”, but having done
the necessary pounding of the pavement to obtain a job doesn’t obscure the
reality that one needs to be grateful to God for the blessing of having found a
job. The issue of being an “aura”
therefore is not humility, and neither would I want someone to be humble if
inaction is what it amounted to if my life was at stake. And so too with counseling at an abortion
clinic when the result is that the abortion patron chooses to keep the child –
one needs to recognize here too that the real work was done by God. But we have to do our part because that is
how God intended for such things to work, or He never would have referred to
the Church as His Body, and the people as members of His Body. We all have our roles that God put us here to
fulfill, notwithstanding that God will sometimes take over and act. But we are responsible for acting too and
trusting God for the outcome of our genuine best efforts. We all came from the Mind of God, an eternal
member of the Kingdom if we so choose, a member of an integrated Body that
works together in a healthy fashion.
That’s right, God does it, Christ is the Head of the Body, but the parts
of the Body respond to the commands from the Head. No, the hand can’t do a thing without the
command from the brain, but the hand still is used to accomplish what the brain
wants done. Only when a limb is
paralyzed is there a parallel between the actual action of the body and this
“aura.” What’s hard about this?
Having
made these redundant arguments, it would appear that there might be other
interests that come first for this Bishop and this diocese rather than the
saving of life. That is not pro-life,
even if he’s got his own methodology and organizations and employees and a
whole network of people involved in and utilizing his so-called “pro-life” methodology
for counseling/protesting abortion clinics. It’s what I’ve already said, a
“special” achievement but nothing worth achieving really achieved, no life
dynamic. For all the inactivity that’s
called for in this methodology, one would have thought the course of action
there when my methodology was observed with disapproval would have been to just
stay to the side and make a prayerful presence, you know, an “aura”, and let me
do what I went to that clinic to do, which was my legal right -- just like it’s
a woman’s legal right to go there to get an abortion and they clearly don’t
interfere with that -- because this Bishop is not obliged to ram his
methodology down other people’s throats (even Catholic throats because
methodology is not protected under the first amendment for him but it is for me
and neither is what he did necessarily something that would be agreeable to the
Pope if he knew the whole of the matter) but the Bishop is obliged to obey the
law and respecting my rights is lawful.
Especially if he would obey the law as regards the pregnant patrons of
the abortion clinic exercising their right to an abortion.
And
it would appear then that these interests are coming first also for law enforcement, and that because they are the interests of this
Bishop, more than likely, although with the handling of the complaint for the
procurement of justice, we’ll find out exactly why they put the Bishop’s agenda
first in the first place. At this late
date, the interest might have to also include insuring they don’t precede the
subjects of the complaint to jail. The
former is arbitrary and capricious enforcement of the law and use of
discretion, the latter is self-serving as well.
But this is not what our laws and democratic process are supposed to
procure. If we can lose the eradication
of abortion to this handling, then we have lost everything because of this type
of handling and corruption, even if abortion is overturned legally. This
complaint has received more than sufficient follow-up to cause the matter to be
handled for justice, yet, notwithstanding my efforts which have been tireless
over the years, I’m still trying to get it handled for
the purpose for which one makes such complaint to the Justice Department. We’re losing our rights. That’s already evident in the way the local
police handle pro-lifers. If we do
nothing, we have forfeited our rights. And if they are permitted to handle the
complaint this way notwithstanding our efforts, they have taken our rights
away. They – law enforcement – decide
what laws are enforced, and when they will be enforced, and for whom. That's the real issue, the bottom line, and
not whether one is pro-abortion or pro-life.
Because if this handling is permitted, they have taken
that which we could claim under the law, the exercise of our rights that we
establish as a people. And what
that will cost us in this particular complaint is the right to life itself, in
addition to what we automatically forfeit by virtue of permitting that it does
not get handled for justice.
And
so it is something that the media should make known and cover more fully
ongoing, with persistent request from all, because if there is only one attempt
to get the record from OIG, the OIG has already lied to me knowing full well
that I have the records they are denying me.
What would it take to tell the media they don’t know what they’re
referring to? Or to only give partial
information? The media doesn’t
necessarily know what the record consists of.
But I do, and they bald-facedly lied to me. But if the requests to the media are
persistent, and the matter becomes known with all the more persistence, then
the media will persist with the OIG because the public is rallying to know. Eventually, the OIG will have to make a
decision and release what I sent them under FOIA and/or handle the matter for
justice to avoid opprobrium for themselves because the only way they avoid
releasing the record is to investigate officially. But what they’re doing at this point is
denying there is anything to release after initially misrepresenting the
record. They know of course that if they
release it under FOIA, that I will post it to the website, as long as I can
figure out how to do it. And, then
people would see it. And if people saw
what I have, I doubt anyone would stand for a lack of handling for
justice. There would be a revolution if
people knew what the feds have permitted, and how they used tax money to
protect interests that are not necessarily the interests of the citizens of
this country who pay the taxes.
It is
imperative to do the necessary with the media and with those we petition, not
only because of the ramifications of the complaint if it is handled for
justice, but also because we as a people deserve to know how the Department of
Justice and our government utilize discretion, that is to say, the
ramifications of the complaint if it is NOT handled for justice. This story becoming public has the potential
to change the course of history because it will put pressure on our government
to respect the laws we as a people have established and should cause reform
and/or measures to insure that the government does not use its privilege of
discretion arbitrarily and capriciously. It should interest all people
regardless of one’s position on abortion, to insure that the federal
government’s handling of this matter is exposed because the public needs to see
and understand that our government does just whatever it wants for whomever it
wants. It’s not the case here that
request for the file is being lost in the bowels of the FOIA agency, but rather
that the FOIA agency gave me expedite treatment of my FOIA request, and then
the OIG responded with a denial and a misrepresentation of the file and of me,
hardball fast. And then months after I
filed an appeal, for which expedited treatment was denied without accessing the
information that should have qualified such a request, and so I was awaiting the
response from the FOIA appeal, I get a letter from FOIA with the FOIA reference
not the appeal reference, that states it releases the entire record, all the
documents (plural) and without exemption, but what they released was my
original e-mailed FOIA request that contained a partial index of the e-mails I
submitted to the OIG. This is the
equivalent of saying there is nothing on record, except the FOIA request, or
that they now have a correspondence record indicating that they released
everything, and that it only consisted of 25 pages. If the FOIA request consisted of 25 pages,
then think of what the submission of complaint and allegations plus exhibits
would amount to, hard copy AND e-mails.
The Department of Justice is not, in fact, the “black hole” or
bureaucracy people believe them to be, at least not when they are seeing to
someone’s interests. This is a
stereotypical impression they hide behind when they need it. My experience with the Justice Department has
been that these people are very much on the ball, and have watched this complaint
with eagle-eyed vigilance. Whatever
slug-like characteristics they might otherwise have are overcome in the
handling of this complaint. It’s
something you have to see to believe – or just read the record (the whole
record, that is). Who you know, and not
the laws, RULE!
It is
nothing new that justice is side-stepped to protect the interests of Catholic
clergy. If my rights are violated to
protect the interests of this Bishop and others named in the complaint, then
what we permit as a society is what we're going to have because what I’ve
illustrated here is that we are our government and should take better control
of it given what our representatives in their respective jobs are doing when
they draw their salaries rather than what they’re supposed to be doing. But the government reflects the people
too. Do we want people like this to rule
our country? What we would be permitting
by leaving this complaint unaddressed for the procurement of justice is that
the more defenseless a person is, the more marginalized or at risk that person
will become, even for his very life, and this is especially apparent in the
case of the unborn child although Terri Schiavo’s
situation certainly illustrated how this can logistically come about for any of
us. And when the file becomes public,
hopefully soon, you will see further illustration of how vulnerable we all are
and how easy it is to wind up in the wrong hands, like Terri Schiavo and the unborn.
We as a people cannot permit that.
When it becomes okay for even one person, it has become okay for
all. Many argue that it’s necessary to
compromise in the abortion polemic, to negotiate away rape and incest
pregnancies as justified abortions but not the others. This can’t be done, we cannot as a people
legislate that it’s okay to murder anyone for any reason. In an emergency situation where one is trying
to save many lives, one might wind up making choices if for no other reason,
lack of manpower and time and logistics sufficient to address and help
all. But one cannot legislate
the provision to murder someone in a circumstance over which that individual
has no fault or control. It’s just a
matter of time and circumstance before one can find oneself in a vulnerable
position oneself and have the same applied to himself, or worse, because
certainly starting with contraception, such laws on reproductive rights
deteriorated to the point of partial birth abortion. The laws of a democratic society should be
based on the golden rule, and enforced, it is hoped
for love of neighbor, but also for self preservation as well because what we
have to protect us are our laws. If we
do not operate on the golden rule, then we are no longer a democratic society. No person should be able to get a law
enforcement agent to look the other way or to manipulate the interpretation of
a law to accommodate a special interest that is not democratically legislated
and logically would need to be, and especially not at the cost of another’s
rights. And neither should law
enforcement leave any one person defenseless to afford immunity or favor or
power to another. Certainly, law
enforcement has the privilege of discretion, but there is a chasm between
determining that issuing a ticket can be omitted for the mother with her child
in the back seat running a red light, and allowing the dangerous setting of
precedents and leaving a person at risk because some Bishop thinks priests
should be able to do whatever and if he rounds up the troops and punishes the
whistleblowers, he’ll overcome and no one – no matter what has happened in his
diocese – will be able to say that there was ever a problem there, because they
would know they had better not say it.
This is not the proper use of discretion.
You
will note that the Summary
is geared for a Catholic audience, and specifically, the audience that is most
familiar with the circumstances in the situation I describe. I also explain acronyms that we Americans are
familiar with in order to communicate more fully with an international audience
to this website. This is because this is
not an issue that is isolated to the
Please
click on the reference page for URL’s that I learned about that will give you a
better idea of what this Bishop does, how he handles seemingly legitimate
complaints that regard activities that seem to be related to the progressive
agenda and protecting licentious behaviors, and only with certain people. You will note that the website publications
are mostly very right-wing although the Washington Post will have mirrored a
sufficient amount of the information in those right-wing publications. When I made this assessment about this Bishop
back in 2001 so that I filed complaint against him, I feared my assessment was
far-fetched, even though I did not make those assessments lightly and could not
ignore the concrete issues that were ongoing so that making the complaint was
unavoidable. Certainly, I had legitimate
reason to ask about the funding of that methodology and to expect an answer.
Why did he respond to my letter about a genocide-level use of the clinic by
Hispanics who are predominantly Catholic with formation, and then the guy at
St. James who supported NARAL did not so much as obtain an explanation along
the lines of that no one knew who this person was but we apologize for the poor
experience you had, and it won’t happen again.
Rather, they girded their loins, so to speak, and prepared to stonewall
and discredit. At that time, I had not
as yet seen the information on these URLs or learned about it otherwise. When I did, I realized that my assessment of
him seemed to be right on target, not far-fetched at all, which was scary. Also, the last URL in that list is about
whistle-blowing regarding homosexual priests by a seminarian and a lawsuit for
sufficiently similar allegations as I would have to make against the Church,
mostly as regards obstruction of justice and slander, although the issue
surrounding which there is obstruction of justice and slander is a different
one. Not everything applies, but rather
my allegations were regarding
Thank
you so much, and I look forward to hearing from you if you should wish to
contact me or have the media contact me.
My e-mail address is right under my name. I access e-mail daily and even throughout the
day at the public library, and actually this is the most expedient way to reach
me since I'm not home most of the day usually, but can stop and call back from
a payphone if I receive an e-mail during the hours when those who wish to
contact me would be more easily reachable.
Sincerely
in Christ,
Anna
Maria Agolli
Copyright
2006 – December 8, 2006 (Feast of the Immaculate Conception)
