The Destruction of One's Faith in Divine Providence

Whatever you let happen to one person, you are willing to let
happen to all others in the same social strata.  That which
Donald Wuerl let fall upon me and two other individuals
(after I assisted a young adult male in reporting a preda-
tory priest) is that which he will let happen to you, if you
are a part of the common citizenry.

This includes the harassments, the economic terrorism, and
the actual economic loss.  This includes the telephoned threat,
the physical pursuit, and the diversionary press release tactics.
This also includes the abandonment and the failed attempt to
frame the priest's victim for a theft that never occurred in the
first place.

This additionally includes the incitements that did result in a
nighttime confrontation and which could have resulted in a full
scale neighborhood brawl.  Therefore, do not be deceived into
assuming that Donald Wuerl would ever let you or anyone else
be spared of that which we were not, unless of course, he can
use you for either advancement in status or financial gain.

For the Record, it was an Act of Conscience

Know that the reporting of the homosexual priest was an
act of conscience.  After all, there is such a thing as a sin of
negligence for which you will have to answer to God and to
any irate parent who might one day ask you why you kept
silent about a priest whom you knew to be a predator.  In
light of this, know that the efforts I made for the sake of the
young adult male are the same efforts I would have made for
your sake.  Actually, they were made for your sake.

The Local Media Contributed to the Deception

The other reason why I assisted in having the offending priest
reported was because of the press releases which assured the
public that Donald Wuerl could be trusted.

When the Priest First Approached the Young
Adult Male, He Was Approaching a Teenager
who Was Minding His Own Business

As was previously mentioned, the priest approached the young
adult male first, while the young man was still a teenager.  And
as was also previously mentioned, the guise under which the
priest approached the young man was that of an undefined
type of sociology researcher.  The priest's claim was that he
was seeking to learn what draws young people to church.

The young man was sitting on the steps of a church, watching
people come out of Mass, when the priest first approached
him. The priest then invited him to brunch.  And without get-
ting into details, the priest eventually said that there was "a lot
of work to be done" for the young man's spiritual well being.

The Retaliation Against a Third Party Whom I
Didn't Even Know Existed at the Start of All This

We did not tell any member of the young man's family about
the predatory priest.  And we certainly did not tell any family
member that we reported the priest to Donald Wuerl.  Some-
one else brought the young man's family into this matter, and
it was a violation of privacy to have done so.  After all, the
young man was the age of majority and no one was his legal
guardian.  Nonetheless, the invasion of privacy would result
surrogate harassment within a short period of time.  This is
because someone in the Diocese of Pittsburgh decided to
become a puppeteer.

You see, an uncle of the young man had business accounts
with Wuerl's diocese.  And according to an intercepted com-
munication, the income that the uncle received from those
accounts was significant enough to cause a brutal impact if
they were to be suddenly terminated.  Now, Wuerl's former
secretary never mentioned to his prey that he gave business
to one of the young man's uncles.  Nonethless, those busi-
ness accounts would soon be used as a vehicle for retaliation.
Those accounts would come to be terminated in 1998.

The Timeline

The complaint against Wuerl's former personal secretary was
mailed in early January 1998.  Then, a piece of mail, dated
January 29, was sent to the victim.  It was forwarded to the
address that he was using during a sabbatical, and that piece
of mail was simply a card.

There was no signature on the card and no return address on
the envelope.  It simply stated, "{First Name of the Victim},
call xxx-xxx-xxxx. Urgent."  It said nothing else.

An Invasion of Privacy

The invasive feature of that card consisted in the fact that,
in his initial correspondence to Donald Wuerl, the victim of
Wuerl's former secretary asked not to be contacted until the
end of February, in his initial correspondence.  He was on
an eight week sabbatical at the time, and had already experi-
enced viciousness from the Diocese of Pittsburgh, regarding
another matter.  So, he wanted to be spared of any futher
distress while on his sabbatical.

The victim eventually telephoned the number that appeared on
the January 29th card, and it turned out to be his uncle.  At this
point in the narration, it is pertinent to note that the victim only
spoke with his uncle during Holiday get-togethers.  That is to
say, the young man's uncle was not in the young man's daily
life, and his uncle was not his confidant.  Yet, his uncle would
be brought into a very personal matter.  And concerning the
phone call, the uncle was vague and evasive.

When mid-February came, an investigating priest sent the vic-
tim a letter, acknowledging the receipt of his complaint.  Then,
on March 3, 1998, the primary diocesan investigator sent the
victim a letter, asking him to schedule an appointment, so that
they could "discuss the matter further."  Ever so coincidentally,
the victim never got the letter. So, a follow-up letter was sent
to him, certified.

No Acknowledgement of a Demand Letter's Sending.
A Harassment Instead.

During that same week, a notarized demand letter from the
victim was mailed to Donald Wuerl.  In it, the victim asserted
his right to financial reparation for sexual harassment, fraudu-
lent misrepresentation, and breach of a spiritual director's
fiduciary duties.  However, Donald Wuerl made no acknowl-
edgement of the demand letter's arrival

Now, it is assumed that the demand letter arrived within 48
hours of its sending.  Nonetheless, within 60 hours of its
sending the victim's uncle physically appeared on the scene.
That evening, the uncle insisted on seeing the young man im-
mediately.  So, the two of them met at a family restaurant.
While at the restaurant, the uncle did mention the name of
the predatory/harassing priest, and he revealed that he had
business accounts with the diocese.  He also said, "Right
now, you are in a huge spotlight."

No Written Acknowledgement of its Second Delivery.
A Retaliation, Instead.

Being that no one responded to the demand letter, it was hand
delivered to the diocesan building on March 18.  This was its
second sending, and it was accompanied by a package of
photocopied evidence.  In fact, the letter accompanying the
evidence read, "Test it for cracks."

The Result of the Second Delivery

Concerning the demand letter and the accompanying evidence,
one of the three following things happened the same day when
it was hand-delivered to the Pittsburgh diocesan building:

[1] Either the predatory priest immediately terminated the
      uncle's business accounts,

[2] or another member of the diocese terminated them,

[3] or the uncle was given an ultimatum by which he was to
      get his nephew to fade away, under penalty of loosing
      his business accounts in the very near future.

Tape Recorded Evidence

That night, an additional piece of evidence came into exist-
ence.  It was the tape recording of a harassment made upon
the young man.  And in it is the mention of the business ac-
counts, along with their economic pertinence to the victim's
uncle.  The recording ends with the sound of things crashing
to the floor and a screen door lache breaking, as the young
man literally had to take flight on foot.  There was the at-
tempt to take the young man's tape recording away from
him.

That night, the victim called me from a pay phone, asking me
to go there.  When I arrived, the first thing I noticed was that
his jeans were wet up to the knees.  (He had taken flight
through the woods at night) I gave him shelter at my apart-
ment, and it became the next destination in the pursuit of him.

Incidentally, according to United States federal law, it is legal
to record your own conversation, even if no other party to
the conversation knows that you are recording it.  18 USC,
Chapter 119, Section 2511(2)(d).

The Pursuit

Shortly after that incident, unfriendly forces came inside the
apartment building where I had been living for years.  Now,
it was the typical kind of building where you needed either
a key to get into it or a person to open the door for you.
The only other option was that of breaking into the building.

A witness account is that two men were banging on my apart-
ment door with a wooden object, while chanting "{My first
name} is going to Hell."  Then came silence.  So, a female
neighbor went out into the hallway, assuming that the men
had exited the building.  She was then grabbed at the arm,
and asked where priest's victim was.  It was asked in a tone
of desperation.  You see, there were people who were afraid
that Wuerl's diocese would inflict more retaliation on the vic-
tim's family members than it had thus far done.

During that time we were elsewhere, keeping one step ahead
of the pursuit, unaware of what was happening at the apart-
ment.  The tape recording and the postmarked mail of months
and years prior went with me.

Prior to That

There were previous phone calls made to my living quarters
from a relatively distant place . And the theme of those phone
calls was:  "Back off."  Those calls were eventually followed
by a midnight phone call from a complete stranger, traced to
a very nearby phone, via * 69.  That call was not for me, how-
ever.  Yet, the caller didn't dial the wrong number.  That was
when, in the middle of the night, the predatory priest's victim
was taken to a prearranged place, along with the tape record-
ing and the other evidence.

Wuerl Could Have Stopped it with One Phone Call

Wuerl could have stopped the pursuit by means of one phone
call, in assuring the pursuers that no retaliation would be im-
posed upon any member of the victim's family.  Wuerl did
not pick up the phone and make the needed call.

In not returning the uncle's business accounts to him, and in
not picking up the phone in order to stop the pursuit, Donald
Wuerl made a de facto ratification of his diocese's conduct.
And in not paying restitution for the economic loss that resulted
from the retaliation, Wuerl also ratified diocesan conduct.

One of the Pursuers Later Admitted to me that . . .

One of the pursuers confided to me, over the phone (when
the pursuit phase was nearing its end), the following:

"I would have gone through you to get to {victim's first name}."

Understand this to mean "physically through," and keep in
mind that this was stated to an asthmatic who no longer had
the health to play John Wayne-styled games.

The Second Wave of Retaliatory Conduct

During the summer of 1999, the victim of Wuerl's former se-
cretary had hair down to his shoulders.  And his job required
him to work every Saturday, in security clearance work that
required detailed accounts of his daily work activites.  During
that same summer, Wuerl's former secretary was stationed in
a part of Pittsburgh different than the one where he had been
stationed from 1996 to 1998.

Well, during the summer of 1999, the young man and I went
to a magistrate's office, in order to see if some type of crimi-
nal or civil complaint could be filed against Wuerl's former
secretary, if not Wuerl himself.  Within a few days, a rental
shop operator called the police and accused the long-haired
young man of having stolen rental shop property on a Satur-
day, while allegedly having hair slightly longer than that of
a crew cut.

This accusation would have been just an annoying vexation,
except for the fact that the police contacted the young man's
mother, instead of the young man himself.  The inclusion of
the young man's family made the police's telephone call more
than an annoyance.  So, once again, the young man's family
was brought into a matter that should have been directed
solely to the young man who, incidentally, lived 15 miles from
his mom. 

The victim of Donald Wuerl's former personal secretary was
never told the price of the property that he was accused of
having stolen.  Therefore, he did not know if the accusation
constituted a felony, a summary offense, or a tort offense.

The Shop was Ever so Coincidentally Located near
the Recent Home of the Homosexual Predator Priest

The rental shop in question was ever so coincidentally located
near the diocesan high school where Wuerl's former secretary
was stationed between 1996 and 1998.  And the park where
the shop was located was a place reputed as a meeting place
for homosexuals.  In addition, the accuser who called the po-
lice had a flamingly homosexual voice.  So, needless to say,
this caused us to reasonably suspect that the rental shop oper-
ator had a personal connection with the homosexual element
of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. 

The timing of the accusation was far too coincidental for us
to suspect anything other than an orchestrated diocesan ploy,
done in retaliation for the young man's visit to a magistrate's
office, days prior.  It served the function of diversionary tactic
that robbed the young man of time that could have been spent
in preparing to present evidence to law enforcement authorities.

A Photo License First Discovered Missing Shortly after
the Priest Made a Visit to the Young Man's Apartment

The accusing rental shop operator and the police claimed that
the evidence proving the commission of the alleged theft was
the victim's photo license.  It was allegedly left by the victim
at the rental shop on the Saturday when he was documented
as having been at work.  Well, at one time, the victim did have
a driver's license with a photo of him in a crew cut, but he dis-
covered it missing shortly after Wuerl's former secretary visited
him, at the apartment where he once lived.  And the rental
shop operater did say that the young man's hair was slightly
longer than the hair of his crew cut photo, even though the
young man had hair down to his shoulders that same Saturday.

After the victim's "crew cut photo license" was discovered
missing, he obtained a replacement, never suspecting that
the homosexual priest might have possibly stolen his previous
one.  Yet, there was a point during the priest's visit when he
had ready access to the wallet that contained the photo li-
cense that would soon thereafter be discovered missing.

They Refused to Produce the Alleged
Evidence and then Dropped the Case

When we demanded to see the driver's license that the rental
shop operator was supposed to have obtained, the police
refused to show it to us.  In fact, we didn't even know if the
police or the accuser had a photo license to show us.

After our appearance at the police station, and after our de-
mand to see the alleged evidence, nobody bothered us about
the accusation again.  No further action of any kind was taken.
Now, I did call the accuser, but he screamed at me in his flam-
ingly homosexual voice and then hung up on me.  So, to this
day, I don't know if the rental shop operator lied about hav-
ing the victim's photo license or if he really did have the one
that was discovered missing after the predatory priest's visit.

In addition, if there were a rental agreement shown to the
police, what did the signature on it look like?  Did it look
like a clever forgery of the young man's handwriting, or was
it blatantly forged?  No one showed us a rental agreement.

The Predator/Harasser/Intruder was
Rewarded with a Free Trip to Rome

As was previously mentioned, we eventually filed a federal
lawsuit against the Diocese of Pittsburgh.  And while the
court case was on a district court's docket, Donald Wuerl's
former personal secretary was ever so coincidently sent out-
side of United States jurisdiction, to Rome, in order to "work
on his doctorate."

A Note about Canon Law

Canon Law mandates that, whenever a cleric abuses his
power, he is to be "punished doubly."  Was there a punish-
ment imposed upon any abusive cleric in this matter?  And
if so, then there is the restitution they owe us?

The Priest had His Victim's Family Fooled

Throughout the predatory years, Wuerl's former secretary
would even call the young man's home.  And whenever the
young man's mother would answer, she would get her son
to the phone pronto, simply because it was a priest who was
calling.

In addition, this priest was called "a fine young man" by the
targeted prey's own grandmother, causing even greater con-
fusion in the young man's mind. Furthermore, the high school
to where the priest was stationed was one located near the
young man's grand parents.  In fact, when he was president
of the high school, the priest was ever so coincidentally re-
siding at the parish to which the young man's grandparents
belonged.  Did the priest request that assignment?

The Priest Hid the Fact that He Knew the Young Man
(the young man's family members being the exception)

The victim and Wuerl's former secretary unexpectedly ended
up at the same social function, once.  And throughout that en-
tire night, the predatory priest declined to acknowledge the
young man's existence.  That is to say, the priest acted as if he
never met the young man.  Yet, they were both seated at the
same dinner/banquet table.

In addition, when the young man came to Donald Wuerl's
own residence, the former personal secretary who invited
him kept insisting that the young man park his car in a place
that ever so coincidentally hid the car from plain sight.

Plus, a lady friend of the victim once approached the priest
and introduced herself as the victim's friend.  The priest was
not as responsive as one would have expected him to be.
And he did not ask her what draws young people to church,
even though she was a young person.  All in all, the priest
repeatedly elected to not advertise that fact that he knew the
young man.  That is what makes the numerous pieces of mail
invaluable.

After the Priest Returned from Rome, . . .

If memory serves me correctly, after the priest returned from
Rome, he was eventually given the assignment of co-director
of religious education for one of the diocese's deaneries.  In
due time Donald Wuerl would appoint him as the pastor of
a Pittsburgh diocesan parish.