June 18, 2017

The News Reports on Fr. John Wellinger, in Review

The downtown building still stands, but headquarters was moved
to a section near Heinz Field, on the North Shore of Pittsburgh
The news from Western PA's mainstream media now serves as a quasi-
corroboration, but not specific corroboration.  It refers to the allegations
pertaining to Wellinger and the claim that Pittsburgh diocesan personnel
neglected to act when Wellinger was reported for suspicious conduct.

http://www.donaldwuerl.com/2013/06/wellinger-was-reported-beforehand.html

The thesis statement is that the Diocese of Pittsburgh was ALLEGEDLY
notified about Wellinger long before diocesan spokesman Ron Lengwin
claims that it was.  The allegation goes on to state that the diocese did no-
thing when John Wellinger was first accused.  Therefore, the recent main-
stream media reports give my sources on the issue much more credibility
in my eyes.  This includes the credibility of Mike Ference.

Now, concerning Mike, I am well aware of his comment board statements
throughout the internet.  Keep in mind that he was the dad of the high school
student shot in the back of the head while sitting on a bus, about to disembark
for another day of school.  Then came the truncating of the investigation, in as
far as concerned who and what was the cause of a fellow student firing a round
from a 32 caliber hand gun into the head of young Adam Ference.  There is al-
so the matter of how Mike was badgered out of his regional management job
with a company who had Pittsburgh diocesan entities as customers.

Add to this the intimidating theatrics played by a Pittsburgh Diocesan attorney,
during a deposition which pertained to the Ference lawsuit.  Keep in mind that
the Ference attorney simply asked a law enforcement man what he knew about
a John Wellinger molesting youth of the McKeesport area (a Pittsburgh, suburb
located near the Clairton PA which was made famous by the Deniro & Streep
movie called, the Deer Hunter.)

Mike was told that customers complained about him, but only after the shoot-
ing and Mike's desire to get to the root cause of the shooting.  In defense of
Mike, I posted a number of letters of recommendation from clients of his who
had no complaints against Mike.  Thus, it caused to wonder if the Diocese of
Pittsburgh, when under Donald Wuerl, performed a few bully tactics, in order
to get Mike Ference dislodged from his employment position.

http://www.donaldwuerl.com/2012/05/dismissal.html

You must keep in mind that Donald Wuerl brings out the worst in everyone,
even in those regarded as his friends.  In those who are regarded as being in
Wuerl's circle, Wuerl brings out arrogance and conceit, as well as ruthless-
ness.  In as much, you can see why Mike would write what he did on some
internet comment boards.  He was actually trying to trigger the re-opening
of Adam's case.

Now, concerning Mike, he sent me a few pages of Jpeg evidence which I
did NOT post.  None the less, that evidence gave plausibility to Mike's alle-
gations.  Plus, two accused men of the cloth, namely Br. Kenneth Ghastin
and Fr. Michael Ledoux, ever so coincidentally were stationed at the same
Serra Catholic High School that hosted the attempted murder and success-
ful suicide involving Mike Ference's son.  Think!  What if it happened to
you?  Would you have sat back and said, "Ho hum, twindly dee.  Who
cares?"  ANS:  Not if you're human and still have blood circulating with-
in you.  You would have ended doing what Mike Ference did.

The aforementioned pieces of evidence, both circumstantial and material, are
more than enough to give a degree of plausibility to Mike, in as so far as goes
the:

1} truncated investigation of the attempted murder of his son,
2} the loss of a job that paid a bit more than that of a night watchman,
3} the intimidation tactic of a Pgh diocesan attorney during a deposition.

Mike has suffered greatly for years.   I don't abandon those who suffer intense-
ly.  Of course, I only posted a small fraction of what he submitted to me and
heavily edited it, as well.  Plus, I only posted that which pertains to the shoot-
ing of Mike's son.  None the less, that which is posted here about the shooting
of Adam Ference is worth the read.  In fact, the recent news about Father John
Wellinger gives Mike much more credibility.  At the very least, give Mike your
emotional support, in at least wishing him well.  After all, how you would like
it if all the things that happened to Mike happened to you?  So, extend charity
to him.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/04/08/late-wilkinsburg-priest-accused-of-abuse/

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/3797604-74/diocese-letter-wellinger#axzz2dtbsVFMM

The second person to report Wellinger alleges that Donald Wuerl treated 
him with indifference, upon the reporting.  The second accuser became 
party to a class action suit and received an out of court settlement in the 
process.

When he was bishop of Pittsburgh, Donald Wuerl was caught performing the
simultaneous cover-up of four diocesan priests, three of whom were criminal-
ly indicted.  Wuerl disregarded of the Child Protective Services Act which re-
quired all "mandated reporters" to report molesters to Child Youth Services.
The Diocese of Pittsburgh's claim that it had no obligation to report molester
priests contradicts itself in that it operates grade schools and high schools, as
well as employs the services of youth, in the capacity of altar servers & choir
members.  If it's not a mandated reporter, then no institution is.

The official diocesan spokesman, as well as the Allegheny County 
district attorney, claimed that the Diocese of Pittsburgh had no ob-
ligation to notify Child Youth Services about the priests, as  was
prescribed in the Child Protective Services Act.    In direct  con-
trast was James A. Esler, head of the human service section of
Allegheny County's Law Department.   He stated that there  was
no question in his mind that the Diocese of Pittsburgh had the
obligation to report those priests.   Today, it is understood that
anyone aware of a molester has the obligation to report him,
for the sake of those who would otherwise become future sex
abuse casualties.  

See also:  http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4118/1032/1600/Wuerl1halved.0.jpg

The four documented priests not reported by Wuerl to the CYS were Wolk,
Zula, Pucci, and Hoehl.  Pursuant to recent evidence and to evidence which
already existed, Donald Wuerl's former diocese was allegedly engaged in a
fifth cover-up in the same one year ... in Wuerl's first year as bishop of Pitts-
burgh.  The existence of a fifth priest as being held in Wuerl's shadow was
confirmed via recent electronic communication.  It was a communication of
the alleged first victim of the alleged fifth ausive priest.  The evidence of this
fifth priest was also supported by the actions of a diocesan attorney during a
lawsuit's deposition, by which he acted as if the diocese had something seri-
ous to hide about the priest.  The priest was Fr. John Wellinger.

    The electronic communication was NOT intercepted.  It was freely
       given by the communication's recipient.  It was perfectly legal.

John Wellinger was accused of having spiked a youth's drink, rendering the
young man unconscious.  When the youth awakened, he managed to call 911
and get taken to a nearby hospital, allegedly.    He then notified the attending
nurse that the priest who made his way into the hospital was the one who "did
this" to him.

In addition, the individual claimed that no doctor treated him and that the
police were never called.  However, the accuser's dad allegedly received
written notice from the diocese, informing him that he was banned from
the grounds where the accused priest lived.  This is because the dad of
the spiked-drink victim allegedly went to confront the priest during a par-
ish council meeting.  The same priest would later be accused of harming
yet another youth, only more graphically.

This allegation, on it's own, is weak and needs some type of corrobora-
tion.  Well, a plausible form of corroboration occurred during a lawsuit's
deposition.  You see, there was a Serra Catholic High School student
who was shot in the back of the head shortly after the bus rolled onto
Catholic Church grounds.  A lawsuit ensued, and during a deposition,
the witness being questioned was asked the following, to the effect
thereof:

"What do you know about a Catholic priest by the name of John 
  Wellinger sexually abusing any students at Serra Catholic High 
  School?"

The question was inspired by the local law enforcement head who pro-
posed that the Serra Catholic student who was shot in the head was shot
by a fellow student who might have been molested and/or psychological-
ly influenced by Fr. John Wellinger.  If no accusations against John Well-
inger existed, then the witness under oath could have simply said that he
knew of no such thing.  However, the diocese's defense attorney immedi-
ately pounded his first on the table and loudly objected, as if the diocesan
had something to hide.

In addition, during this time was Wuerl's long distance musical chairs
cover-up of Edward Huff, between Pittsburgh and St. Louis. 

In his fit of rage, the diocesan attorney mentioned that he would file cer-
tain motions, should the question be pursued.  This indicates that Wuerl
and his diocese had something to hide.  Well, ever so coincidentally, the
same Fr. John Wellinger would come to be accused of molestation by
an entirely different person in the years to come. 

Concerning any valid objection at the deposition, it would have been the
common "assumes facts not in evidence," upon which the plaintiff's at-
torney could have easily rephrased the question.  He didn't rephrase it.
That was suspicious.  In the end, the attorney for the shooting victim's
family did more for Donald Wuerl than the victimized family.  Why?

The theatrical display of the diocesan attorney frightened the father of the
young man who was shot in the head.  Therefore, the family resolved to
walk away from the case.  But a few weeks after the fist pounding inci-
dent, the victim family's attorney contacted the dad, to let him know that
an out of court settlement had been reached with Wuerl's diocese.

The father and son both agreed to refuse the offer, so that it could never
be said that they were only in it for the money.  However, the family's at-
torney urged the settlement to be signed, so that the law firm could be
paid through a percentage thereof.  If there would be no settlement, then
the law firm's share would come out of the escrow account that was cre-
ated to cover the costs of the case.

Sadly, the father and son agreed to the settlement, under a sense of com-
pulsion and duress.  The settlement was for only $5,000 ... a very small
sum for an attempted murder civil action.  None the less, it was the result
of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, in that the lawyer never told
the father that the deposition question could have easily been rephrased
and that the dad was within his rights to pursue the case.  The dad was
made to live in fear, due to a mistaken notion.  That constitutes fraud.

The dad of the young man shot in the head realized later that the theatri-
cal display of the diocese's attorney was exactly that ... a show.  What
disturbed the dad was that his attorney had the fiduciary obligation to
tell him that the diocese's attorney was playing games, and that fist-
pounding-the-table-routine was merely an intimidation tactic.