Jury Exonerates Falsely Accused Priest and Archdiocese of St. Louis in Bogus Sex Abuse Claim
From TheMediaReport.com [Additional photos and links from educate-yourself.org]
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/Jury-Exonerates-Falsely-Accused-Priest-and-Archdiocese-of-St-Louis10apr17.shtml#top April 10, 2017
A civil jury in Missouri took merely minutes to decide what many of us have already known for a long time: that Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang [right] and the Archdiocese of St. Louis are completely innocent of wild charges related to sex abuse of a teenage girl.
To illustrate how clear it was to the jury that the charges against Rev. Jiang were ridiculous: The jury was given the case at 12:30pm. And even with the staggering anti-Catholic atmosphere in the St. Louis area, and even though the trial's arguments and testimony took a full two weeks, the jury returned its exonerating verdict by 3pm, and that included a lunch break.
More lunacy from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Joel Currier of the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Gil Bailon, Editor St. Louis Post-Dispatch
* Executive Director David Clohessy
SNAP Outreach Director Barbara Dorris
[*SNAP = Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests; a 501-C Non Profit organization who pay no taxes on the 86% "donations" received from tort attorneys representing "victims" of supposed sexual abuse by Catholic clergy]
Yet if one were to get their information from the local St. Louis Post-Dispatch – who has a well-established track record of animus against the Catholic Church – a reader missing the headline would barely even understand that a jury had cleared Fr. Jiang.
The Post-Dispatch's Joel Currier – whose rottenness in reporting the Catholic Church abuse story needs to be noted – spent much of his article about the jury's exoneration actually regurgitating the false accusations against the innocent priest that a jury had already determined were phony.
In truth, Currier neglected a number of very important facts in the case of Fr. Jiang:
the accuser wildly claimed that the abuse somehow happened in a family room at the very same time that seven other family members were present;
the accuser never suffered from "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" as claimed.
In truth, this entire case stunk from its very beginning. Bravo to Fr. Jiang for fighting back against his false accusers and the haters at SNAP.
It should also be noted that while media outlets all across Missouri went berserk years ago trumpeting the bogus accusations against Fr. Jiang far and wide, the same media has largely been mute in reporting the news of the jury's swift and clear decision exonerating the priest. Same as it ever was.
FINALLY, AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL PRIESTS: The lesson from the Fr. Jiang case is this: Never, ever, ever become too emotionally or personally involved with any family other than your own. It does not matter that you "baptized every member" and/or "officiated every wedding." We have seen this all too often. That family whom you thought were "like family" to you could become your worst nightmare. Don't say no one ever warned you. Remember:
"Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.
"But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts …" (Matthew 10:16-17a).
ST. LOUIS • Exasperated by nearly two months of defiance of a court order to supply details about people making sexual abuse claims against a St. Louis priest, U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson [right] dealt a heavy blow this week to the advocacy group SNAP and others.
In an order filed Monday in a suit by the Rev. Xiu Hui “Joseph” Jiang, Jackson says that SNAP’s refusal to comply has made it impossible for the priest to “litigate the claims against him.”
So as a sanction, Jackson in effect allowed Jiang to prevail on his claim that SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, defamed him and conspired against him.
Jackson said the court will direct that it has been established that SNAP defendants did conspire together “to obtain plaintiff’s conviction on sexual abuse charges” and that it was because of “discriminatory animus against plaintiff based on his religion, religious vocation, race, and national origin.”
Likewise, she said the court will direct that it has been established that SNAP’s public statements “were false and that they did not conduct any inquiry into the truth or falsity of these public statements, but instead made these statements negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth.”
Jackson’s sanctions appear to apply specifically to SNAP.
She had ordered June 27  that SNAP provide detailed information about people making complaints against Jiang. The organization responded with arguments of what the judge called a “rape crisis center privilege” to protect the information. Jackson wrote that it [“rape crisis center privilege”] does not exist.
She said SNAP neither produced the information ordered nor defended itself beyond “repeated assertions of a nonexistent privilege.”
Her original order said that SNAP must hand over emails, text messages and contact information of people who accused Jiang of sexually abusing a boy in a Catholic school bathroom, resulting in charges that were dropped.
In Monday’s order, the judge seemed to outline other avenues for SNAP, pointing out that it had not “proposed targeted redactions of names of third-party victims or attorneys-eyes-only disclosures.” SNAP contends it has turned over “hundreds of pages” of redacted documents to Jiang’s lawyers.
It could have been worse for SNAP, the order suggests, noting that because of “deliberate and willful refusal to comply,” she could have entered a default judgment against the organization. She said that her findings on key points is “a lesser but equally effective sanction.”
Her order says that SNAP must pay “reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees” generated by the defiance.
SNAP also has refused Jackson’s order to turn over all records of donations to the organization from the law firm Chackes, Carlson & Gorovosky, which has handled clergy sex abuse cases. The firm, according to David Clohessy, SNAP’s executive director, did donate to SNAP from 2005-12 but never represented the organization. He said he doesn’t know why Jiang’s lawyers want that information.
Clohessy said Jackson’s order is a “worrisome” setback but that SNAP respects the court’s authority.
He said he isn’t sure what SNAP will do but believes the organization did what it believes it had to do to protect victims. He said he won’t know until the court-imposed Sept. 1 deadline to find out how much of Jiang’s legal bills the organization will have to cover.
“That’s obviously a concern but it’s less a concern for us than the ability of victims and alleged victims to report predators and be protected,” he told the Post-Dispatch. “We’ll keep fighting, you know. We have no choice.”
Clohessy said he wasn’t sure if SNAP would still be required to turn over the identities of alleged victim but that the group still believes doing so will deter others from coming forward to police, prosecutors, therapists and support groups.
Jiang’s lawsuit, Clohessy says, seeks “to make sure that yet another alleged victim, witness or whistleblower stays silent,” Clohessy said.
Jiang’s lawyer, John Sauer, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
It remains unclear if Jackson’s ruling absolves SNAP from providing Jiang’s legal team with the identities of alleged abuse victims.
SNAP’s lawyer, Amy Lorenz-Moser, said SNAP is considering an appeal.
“It’s not over,” she said.
Peter Joy, a Washington University law professor, says the order sanctioning SNAP is unusual because it appears to side with Jiang while rendering SNAP’s obligation to turn over evidence moot resulting from the group’s refusal to do so.
“I think it’s going to be tough for them to win on appeal,” Joy said. “At this point, they’ve lost not based on having the underlying complaint fully litigated but by basically failing to comply with the judge’s discovery order.”