November 29, 2017

The Harassment of Me Continues: Thus, here is a public notice

Whenever I post anything new about the Cipolla accuser, Diane/Diana Thompson-
Mangum-Etc, I get harassed quickly thereafter.   Of course, I repeatedly announc-
ed that she is to NEVER seek to contact me outside of doing so through attorneys.
She acknowledged as much in one weblog post that I know-of.  Well, the Pittsburgh
mail addressed to me was recently sent up here, to Chicago, and there were no law
firms seeking to contact me on behalf of anyone, including the Diane Thompson-
Mangum who constructed TEN ad hominid weblogs against me.   None the less:

To Whom it May Come to Concern:

Due to the repeated harassments that I underwent since the middle of 2015, I am
telling you that you are to never contact me or seek to contact me via the name
"Anonymous" or via any variation of the name, Anonymous.  Moreover, you are
not to send me any email of any kind that is sent from an email address contain-
ing the word "anonymous."  Thus, do NOT sent to me any kind of email from or .org or .net or .info, etc.

In addition, a recent Diane Thompson-Mangum weblog stated that she was given
a message to publicly post, from a person whom I forbid to contact me.  Well, the
only two persons whom I directly said are to never contact me outside of through
a law firm are Diane Thompson-Mangum and the New Jersey conspiracy theory
housewife who is between 67 and 69 years of age, and who was told by me to not
contact me anymore, doing so in the Year 2011.  So, that New Jerseyite would be
the only person who would give Diane Thompson a message to post, directly ad-
dressed to me.  Well, such a this still is the act of harassment.

Now, Diane Thompson-Mangum might have lied about the New Jersey conspiracy
theorist.  So, I have to let the local law enforcement personnel hash that one out, to
see if the woman will say that Diane Thompson-Mangum lied about being given a
message from her or if she really did do so.

All in all, this has been and remains to be a very creepy and eerie experience.  All
that matters is the 1978 accusations of Diane Thompson against Anthony Cipolla. 
However, Diane Thompson simply attacked me in every defamatory way thus far
imaginable, and I was NOT there, in Pittsburgh's northside in 1978.  I was NOT a
part of the case.  I simply fact-checked Thompson's accusations and found them
to have been blatant frauds and farces, concerning the claim of an arrest and post-
arrest retaliation which she claimed involved a former bishop of Pittsburgh and
a former Allegheny County DA.

Some personal attacks against contradicted other ones.  Therefore, she clawed at
my reputation indiscriminately, doing so without any composure or self-control.
This line itemization of ad hominid attacks, aka defamations, libel, and false light
privacy invasions is for later, due to the lack of time I have.  Plus, I will have a lot
of communicating to do with law enforcement personnel and legal professionals.
Such a thing takes time.

My fatal error was granting a time of mercy ... a time of diplomacy ... of leeway and
prudence ... in not sending my report to a certain law firm who invited it ... and in not
sending it to police as of yet.  If you ever come to have a nightmarish problem like the
one I have had since 2015, do NOT give your harasser(s) any time of mercy-leniency-
diplomacy-etc.  The time of mercy tghat you grant will be time used by your enemy to
destroy you.

Once again, instead of addressing the Cipolla Case of 1978, Thompson-Mangum
decided to attack me personally, from A to Z.  Ad hominid attacks, over and over
again ... for years.

Just because you are kind and giving, doesn't mean that your harassers/defamers
are going to follow your cue of kindness.  If you ever come to have a problem like
the one I had for the past 28 months, address it immediately.  Send your info to a
law firm who invites it and call the police. 

Once again, giving an extended time of diplomacy to your enemies will be used by
those enemies to destroy you.  It will at least destroy your peace of soul completely,
for a long period of time.

November 28, 2017

I got nine of Diane Thompson's cyber-bully weblogs taken offline, and she then constructed an equally abusive TENTH ad-hominine-attack weblog

Alternative Title of This Post:


To start, one Diane/Diana Thompson-Mangum-Labiaux-Whatever is the person
who accused one Anthony Cipolla of molesting both of her sons at the ages of
9 and 12.  She then gave an elaborate narration through one Mrs Randy Engel,
detailing an arrest and then a post-arrest retaliation involving former Allegheny
County DA Bob Colville and the late Bishop Vincent Leonard of the Pittsburgh
diocese.  Firstly, her narration was entirely contrary to the Pennsylvania Rules
of Criminal Procedure and was, therefore, a defamatory fabrication.  Secondly,
other elements of the damning accusations were fact checked and found to have
been false.  She responded by retaliating against me, the whistle blower who
discovered her lies.

For those new here, I am the one who undercovered by accident a number of
cover-ups of Cardinal Donald Wuerl.  In fact, I was caught in a whistle blow-
er retaliation, after one of Wuerl's former personal secretaries was uncovered
for behavior recognized as disgraceful for a human being, let alone a priest.
There were two phases to the retaliation.
It's Res Ipsa Loquitar to say that we are in the era of the Great
Apostasy prophesied by the heroic St Paul of Tarsus.  The clergy
of this era even apostatized nature, by living unnatural lifestyles. 
As a quick update to that which was occurring behind the scenes =======>

The necessary steps were taken, to get taken offline NINE cyber bully weblogs
constructed by Diane Thompson-Mangum-Labiaux-Whatever.  And of course,
the content within them constituted numerous counts of harassment against yours
truly, as well as public statements actionable under Florida's criminal defamation
law.  Thus, Step 1 was getting offline a writing style which was literally a crime.

Instead of coming to her senses and absorbing a sense of wisdom from the NINE
weblog deletions, the same Diane Thompson-Mangum-Labiaux then constructed
and posted a TENTH CYBER BULLY WEBLOG against yours truly, under a
new email account address.

Now,  I did not check to see the status of the TENTH cyber bully website which
also contained harassment and libel, being that I do NOT ever google my name
and being that I do NOT go out of my way to check and see the status of Diane
Thompson's latest damning accusations, newest derisive ridicule, and freshest
ad hominid attacks against yours truly.  My knowledge of those other weblogs,
incidentlaly, were sent to me in a form of communication I will NOT disclose.

Now, being that there was new libel posted against me by this Diane Thompson,
and even though it contradicts past libel, I need to respond publicly.

In as much . . .

                      In her latest weblog, Diane Thompson-Mangum-Labiaux-Whatever
                      expressly stated that I was stalking her.  Now, the official definition
                      of stalking is acts of hunting someone down, in order to inflict phys-
                      ical harm on that person.

The response:  I am here in Northern Illinois and have been here since the Fourth
                        of July celebrations.  Before that time span, I was in Pittsburgh, and
                        before that time span, I was in Northern Illinois.  Before that time
                        span, I was in Pittsburgh.  Ainxw 2014, I have literally not been
                        further south than West Virginia.
                       Now, Diane/Diana Thompson-Mangum-Labiaux-Whatever is located
                       on the east coast of Florida, over 1,200 MILES away from me.  Proof
                       of me being here, in Northern Illinois throughout the entire time span
                       in focus is:

                       1} multiple debit & credit card transactions,  2} motel receipts,
                       3} bank deposits of my paychecks,  4} numerous witnesses see-
                            ing me do construction work throughout the Chicago area,
                       5} my many electronic gymnasium log-ins, and many witnesses
                            who repeatedly saw me in one of TWO Chicago area gyms,
                            as well as my competition in a couple Chicago area fitness
                            contests which I won.

                       In addition, being that I have asthmatic flare-ups on a regular basis,
                       people much more easily remember me than the average citizen.
How much credibility do you give to a 70+ year old, under
educated, cyber bully who calls the above individual a
queen, aka effeminate fairy?  You need to start
testing the spirits, at this point.
                       At this point, you should see why I have always refused to answer
                       any email sent to me from Diane Thompson-Mangum and why I
                       also refuse to telephone her, to send messages to her, to have any-
                       one give her any message, etc.  Incidentally, in her latest cyber
                       bully weblog, she called me a drama queen.  Uhhhm, how many
                       Italian construction workers from Pittsburgh Steeler Country do
                       you know who are effeminate, limp-wristed pansies?  My ques-
                       tion is, "Do you believe her in what she writes?"                 

Since the Fourth of July celebrations, I've been here in Northern Illinois.
Diane Thompson-Mangum went beyond the sound barriers of obscenity in
recently stating that I'm stalking her, being that I am 1,200+ away from her.
And quite frankly, I can't get far enough away from her.
For those new to here, Diane Thompson-Mangum is the one who accused a Pittsburgh
diocesan priest named Anthony Cipolla of molesting one  ...  and then two of her sons,
in 1978 and then in 1977.  She then gave an elaborate narration of her "pressing charges"
against that priest, followed by her claim that she underwent retaliations and vandalism
which lead to a bishop and a DA putting pressure on her so intensely that she gave-in
and dropped the charges ... even though no civilian has the power in America to drop
any criminal charge of any kind.  There was even mention of a ine year old molested
boy doing homework at the kitchen table ... on JULY 30, when the there no school in
Pittsburgh Public school system or Catholic-parochial school system.  All in all, the
account of the arrest, indictment, retaliations, duress, charge-dropping was so fictiti-
ous that it was easier to pick apart than the lint on a piece of cheap sweatshop fabric.

In addition, I found that officer who was said to have arrested Cipolla as a ranking
detective, only to find out that her wasn't even a detective and that he nothing more
than take a statement from Diane Thompson, transposed it paper, via handprinting,
and then gave it to the real detectives who, incidentally, found no cause to file any
type of affidavit which results in a judging signing it and placing the accused in the
criminal court system.


NOTE:  I have to leave, right now.  I will try to return and finish this post.

November 27, 2017

Fr. John Wellinger: Either the Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman lied about him or the secretary of Wellinger's former parish did.

Below is the transcript of the alleged recorded interview of a former secretary
of Fr. John Wellinger's former parish.  The secretary alleged that she informed 
Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman, Fr. Ron Lengwin, about Wellinger in the late 
1980s.  In contrast, Lengwin publicly stated that Wellinger was not reported to 
the diocese until 1995.  This means that someone is lying about a Father John
Wellinger who walked away from ministry on his own accord; either Lengwin
or the secretary of the late John Wellinger.

Now, the red flag about the Wellinger case is that he left ministry via "personal
leave."  There was no strong disciplinarian enforcing administrative leave on 
him.  In addition, since 1999, I have never heard anything honorable about the 
very tall Ron Lengwin, by any of my sources.  He was repeatedly alleged to be 
Donald Wuerl's attacking pit bull.  A bully ... allegedly.

And yes, I surprised to see how tall he was, as we passed by each other in a dio-
cesan building hallway, during the Torquato Retaliations.   Incidentally, when 
he did say hello to me, he did so with slightly gritted teeth and an ornery facial 
expression.  I kept walking.

The transcript is preceded by an introduction, written the Mike Ference who 
is no stranger to diocesan intimidation tactics ... allegedly.

In the Ference case, the Ferences had the right to know the motivating force
behind Bobby Butler pulling the trigger of a lethal weapon twice on a school 
bus of unarmed teenagers.  Add to the Serra Catholic equation, the previous-
ly accused Kenneth Ghastin who was stationed there when the shooting oc-
curred.  Include the accused Fr Michael LeDoux who would be assigned to 
Serra after the Adam Ference shooting.  There is something of substance in 
the Ference case, in as far as goes the motivating force in sweeping the en-
tire matter under a carpet.

Incidentally, all that is posted herein is presented to you as 'alleged,'
 concerning the contents.  Now for guest writer Mike Ference:

This is part of a taped interview with Marta P******* which I had got-
ten transcribed.  It's her describing her attempts to inform the Pittsburgh 
diocese of possible sexual abuse, along with drug and alcohol abuse, di-
rected toward Pittsburgh-area youths by late Catholic priest, Father John 
Wellinger.   For a description of Father John Wellinger’s alleged crimes 
visit either or

At least one alleged victim of John Wellinger credits my (Mike Ference's
years of investigation as helping to force the Pittsburgh Diocese to settle 
out of court with 31 other alleged victims of clergy abuse.   He's Chris 
Mathews, and if you would like to contact Chris, let me know and I'll 
pass your phone number or email address to him.

The Diocese of Pittsburgh could have prevented some tragedy, perhaps.

If the Pittsburgh Diocese had done the prudent thing, instead of adopting the
policy of disregarding people, Chris Mathews wouldn't have been sexually 
abused by John Wellinger, as was alleged.   Bobby Butler, Jr. may not have 
attempted to murder my son.  As importantly, Bobby may still be alive to-
today also, depending if he too were molested by Wellinger.  However, the
Pittsburgh diocese didn't seem to care.

Editor's Note:  Keep in mind that, during the deposition of a Clairton law
enforcement man, the Ference attorney asked him if he new anything about
John Wellinger molesting youth in the Clairton area.  The diocesan attorney
then banged on the table and starting employing intimidating speech which
under oath.  This makes the Diocese of Pittsburgh (under Donald Wuerl at
the time) look extremely suspicious.   Back to guest writer, Mike Ference: 

Had the Diocese of Pittsburgh done the prudent thing, then John Wellinger’s
alleged lover, laicized Catholic priest, Richard Dorsch, may have been halt-
ed before he began to sexually abuse youth.  Even Archbishop Bevilacqua 
may have been prevented from causing so much pain and agony in the Phil-
adelphia Archdiocese, as was described in the scathing report of the grand
jury investigation that transpired through the Philadelphia District Attorney’s 

Respectfully, Mike Ference

Beginning of interview

Mike: And I’m talking to Marta P******* (Mike then spelled her full name), 
           is that correct?
Marta: Right.
Mike: Your telephone number is 412-***-****.   What is your mother’s maid-
           en name, if I may ask?
Marta:  And you need this?
Mike:  I just wanted to identify, again if some one says “How do we know 
            we’re talking to Marta?”  You know what I mean, if that’s okay with 
            you?   If not, that’s okay.  You do not have to give that.
Marta: No, I don’t.   No.
Mike: You’d rather not give that?
Marta: No.
Mike: Ok, that’s fine.  That’s fine.
Marta: I mean, I am in the church year book, if you were to need anything 
Mike: Okay.
Mike: You are a resident of West Mifflin, is that correct?
Marta: Right.
Mike: You have been a member of the Holy Spirit Church for some time now, 
           for a number of years, since at least 1980 or 81?
Marta: Since 1968.
Mike: 1968! Oh my goodness.  Okay.
Mike: At the time a Priest by the name of (John Wellinger) came there, you 
          had a position with the church if I am not mistaken.  What position was 
Marta: I was the Parish secretary.
Mike: Was this a fulltime or part-time position?
Marta: It was part-time.
Mike: If I am not mistaken, you became suspicious of John Wellinger based 
           upon a couple of things that were occurring.  Is that correct?
Marta: Well, yeah.  I had a feeling that there was something not right. 
Mike: You were also told about a possible assault on a young boy by the 
           name of (*********).  Is that correct?
Marta: I wouldn’t say assault. 
Mike: Okay
Marta: What was told to me was that, he had given, I guess, liquor and 
            drugs to this young man, and was taken to the hospital. 
Mike: Right, okay.  And that Hospital was Shadyside Hospital, if I am 
           not mistaken.  Is that correct?
Marta: I am not sure. 
Mike: Okay.  And this would have happened? Do you think this happened 
           sometime in 1987?
Marta: Yeah, I guess so. 
Mike: Okay, so this happened in 1987.  You are also aware of the alleg-
           ed abuse that took place with a young boy by the name of (Chris 
           Mathews) sometime in 1989.  Is that correct?
Marta: Only that, I knew about it when it was in the paper.
Mike: When it was publicized.  Okay, it was publicized in 2003, or some-
           thing like that. 
Mike: The (*********) boy, I believe his first name is (****)?
Marta: Right. 
Mike: Okay.  At the time, he would have been about sixteen (16) years of 
           age, do you think?
Marta: Yeah, maybe fifteen (15) or sixteen (16).
Mike: Okay.
Mike: You can be relatively sure that he was under the age of eighteen (18)?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike: (**** *********’s) mother would have been (**** *********), 
Marta: Yes.  
Mike: She also worked for the church, or (John Wellinger) at that time, is 
           that correct?
Marta: Yes.  She was the CCD coordinator.
Mike: So, she was often around the church, and often either with John 
          Wellinger or performing church duties.  Things like that.  Is that 
Marta: Yeah. 
Mike: Am I permitted to ask you who told you about (****’s) incident?  
           I believe initially you may have said so.  Did you say it was (****
           *********) who told you this happened? 
Marta: No.
Mike: Okay, I am sorry. 
Marta: It wasn’t her.  You know, I can’t remember who told me.
Mike: Okay.
Marta: I kinda think it may have been (Michelle ********). 
Mike: She was the organist?
Marta: Right.
Mike: Okay.
Marta: But, I am not sure.
Mike: Okay.
Mike: Put it this way.  There were several people who were well aware 
           of this.
Marta: Yeah.
Mike: Okay, Okay.
Mike: So, again, we are proceeding with the assumption that John Well-
           inger may have given drugs and alcohol to a boy by the name of 
          (**** *********) sometime in the year of 1987.  The boy was 
          certainly under the age of eighteen (18), and was a minor to the 
          best of your recollection.
Marta: Right.
Mike: Okay.  Now, you also told me during the conversation we had,
           I believe back in August, that you had gone to the Pittsburgh 
           Catholic Diocese to talk about some of your concerns about 
           John Wellinger.  Is that correct?
Marta: That is correct. 
Mike: Would you say that you did that some time in the year 1988.

Marta: Yeah, I think so.  Although, this was before I resigned.
Mike: So this was before you resigned.  Do you know when you re-
           signed your duties from the church?
Marta: No.  I would have to look at my records. 
Mike: Do you have any idea when it might have been?
Marta: Um, It was probably in 1988 or 1989.
Mike: If it were 1989, do you have any idea about what month or any-
           thing like that?
Marta: That I resigned?
Mike: Yeah.
Marta: It may have been like late summer.
Mike: Late Summer of 1988 or 1989. Okay.
Mike: Is there any way you could double check this to see?
Marta: Yeah, If I am thinking if I still have my pay records or not.  Then 
            I could look that up. 
Mike: Okay, very good. 
Mike: So, you proceeded to go to the Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese.  Any 
           idea who you might have met with at the diocese?
Marta: I don’t remember.  I am thinking it was (Ron Lengwin) but I am 
            not sure.
Mike: You are not one hundred (100) percent sure?
Marta: No.
Mike: Okay.  Well let me ask you this.  To get a time frame on this, was 
           Bishop Bevilacqua that bishop at the time?
Marta: Yes, he was.
Mike: So, this was before Donald Wuerl?
Marta: Yes.
Mike: How do you know Bishop Bevilacqua was the bishop?  Is there 
           anything that you can say for sure other than “you know what, 
           I knew that when I went down there Bishop Bevilacqua was the 
           bishop, simply because he was the bishop”.  Maybe that is suf-
Marta: Umm, Yeah. 
Mike: Okay.  We could probably re-establish these dates, if we wanted to.
Mike: So, you met with a gentleman who you think may have been Fr Ron 
           Lengwin).  Do you recall some of the things you told him. 
Marta: Umm, Yeah. 
Mike: And, what were they?
Mike: I think, if I am not mistaken, you mentioned that there was a young 
           boy living at the rectory at the time?
Marta: Right.
Mike:  Did you tell that to Father Lengwin?
Marta: Yes.
Mike:  Do you recall what else you told to Father (Lengwin)?
Marta: Oh. Probably that a young couple spent the night at the rectory.
           They were trying to sneak out the next morning, and I just hap-
           pen to come by the stairs when they were trying to get out.
Mike: When you say young couple, do you mean young boy and girl?
Marta: I would say in their early twenties. They were friends of his.
Mike:  Do you know who they were?
Marta: No.
Mike:  Was that the type of behavior you might have experienced or at
            least heard about on a regular basis, or was this something new?
Marta: As far as the young couple, this only happened the one time that
           I am aware of.
Mike:  Okay
Marta: I did tell Father (Wellinger) that I saw them there, and He said it
            was only a few friends of his that stayed there.
Mike:  Okay.   You felt there was much more to it than just people staying
Marta: Well, I don’t know. I did not think it was proper for them to stay all
            night at the rectory, and then try to sneak out.
 Mike:  Okay.
 Marta: If they had been proper guests there, then why would they be
             hiding? Why wouldn't they just come out in the open?
Mike:  What makes you think they were actually sneaking out?
Marta: Because, there were people in the dining room.  That is where
            we would meet to have our staff meetings, and I came to my
            office through the living room to the dining room.  In that hall
            between the rooms is the stairs . As I came around the bend, the
            two were coming down the steps. They were trying to be real quiet.
Mike:  Do they know that you saw them?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  You were startled, and they were probably startled, I guess.  They
           were also kind of embarrassed, too?  I am guessing.   And then they
           just kind of …
Marta: ... left
Mike:  They shuffled out without saying hello, goodbye, or anything?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  Now, what did Father (Lengwin) say about this?
Marta: You know, I really do not recall.  I think he was just trying to write
            things down, not really making any comments about it.
Mike:  And you also told him about the young fellow that was living there
           for a time.   Do you have any idea on about who he was, or how old
           he was?
Marta: I do not know who he was.  I would say he could have been around
            seventeen or eighteen.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: The only reason I knew, because I did not realize there was anybody
            up there, was the telephone bill came in, and I questioned Father
          (Wellinger) about it.   It was a big, long list.  I called the telephone
            company about this one number, but I am not sure what number it
Mike:  Was it like a 900 number, or something similar?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: This is the only way I knew, and he said “Oh, that’s ( ).”  I am not
            certain of what name he gave.  He then said “he has been staying up
            there, and that would be him.  In fact, I think (Maria C******) hap-
            pened to pick up the phone, and heard him on the phone.”  Although,
            nothing was apparently ever said or done, because we got the tele-
            phone bill listing all those calls.
Mike:  So you told Father (Lengwin) about the boy living up there.   Was
            there any reaction from Father (Lengwin)?
Marta: Not that I can recall.
Mike:  After, was there anything else that you may have told Father (Lengwin)?
Marta: Umm, I am trying to think. 
Mike:  Did you tell him about the (W********) boy?
Marta: I don’t think I knew that at the time.
Mike: To make along story short, or to paraphrase it, you went to Father
          (Lengwin) with concerns about John (Wellinger) because of inap-
           propriate behavior.  Did you think at the time that it could have
           been some type of sexual behavior that may not have been accep-
           table for a Priest?
Marta: No, not at that time.
Mike:  No,  OK.  Not at that time.   Basically, you were reporting behavior
            that in your mind was suspicious.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  OK
Mike:  Now, so you left the diocese.   How did the diocese react to your
Marta: Well, they ... um ... Let’s see:  I know that I had put another call in
            to them, or they called me.  I can’t remember.
Mike:  That’s OK
Marta: They said it sounds like people inform you of things, and they made
            me feel like I was a busybody or something.
Mike:  Like you were sticking your nose into somebody else’s business
           where it did not belong, maybe?
Marta: Because people would tell me things.   I was they’re secretary, and
            people would tell me things.  I don’t know.  They would express
            concerns or thoughts.
Mike:  So, people would come to you because they had confidence in you.
            Probably also because of the fact that maybe you had been privy to
            something, and maybe they felt like they were helping in some way
            by putting some of the pieces together by giving you additional in-
Marta: Or they were curious and wanted to know.
Mike:  They may have come to you and said, what do you think?  And
            people were coming to you about his behavior, showing concern.
           As a result of this, you went to whom we think is Father (Lengwin)
           and, said, "Hey, I’m not sure if anything is going on, but here is what
           we have so far.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  Father (Lengwin) or whomever you spoke with, said “quit being such
           a busybody, and mind your own business.”  Now, did they send you
           any type of a letter or anything at all?
Marta: Oh, yes.   They sent me a letter, and asked me if they questioned
          (Wellinger) about anything that I said, would I want my name
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: I said no, because I think at that time I was still working.
Mike:  Okay, you were still working.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  Did they state anything else in that letter that you can recall?
            By the way, do you still have that letter?
Marta: I don’t know. I would have to look.
Mike:  Okay, you would have to look.  Do you recall anything else in that
            letter that may have been stated, or who the letter may have come
Marta: I know it came from the diocese.
Mike:  Okay.  Have you ever told anybody else about this, such as law en-
            forcement officials or anybody else that may have been able to help
            in this situation?  I think you did as much as you could with as much
            information as you had.  Is that a reasonable assumption on my part?
            I mean, you don’t have the authority to arrest anybody.    For you to
            question (Wellinger), that really doesn’t do any good, although you
            may have questioned him, or put him on the spot at times. 
Marta: Right.
Mike:  That doesn’t mean he’s going to tell you the truth or anything like that.
Marta: Yeah, I know.
Mike:  Did you ever talk to anybody else about this that may have been in a
           position to get some things done?
Marta: I’m not sure.   At one time, I think I did talk to one of the parish
            council members.
Mike:  And who would that have been?
Marta: That would have been (Rick M**********), but it would not have
            been about this.  It would have been more about how the money was
            being used.
Mike:  I see.
Marta: This would have involved with the parish share money.
Mike:  Okay.   Now when you are talking about money, are you talking about
            inappropriate expenditures in any way, or question about where some
            of the money was?  Was it something like that?
Marta: Well, yeah.  The parish share money wasn’t necessarily going to that.
             I didn’t know where it was going, you know.
Mike:  Okay.   Did anybody ever look into that?
Marta: I don’t think so.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: You know. Nothing ever came back to me.
Mike:   Okay.  And what was that gentleman’s name again that was on the
             parish council?
Marta: That was (Rick Manischevic).
Mike:   Is he still a member of the parish council?
Marta: No.
Mike:   Okay.  Is he still involved in the church in any way?
Marta: yes. I believe he trains the ultra service.
Mike:  Were there any people who may have covered for John (Wellinger)
            if he did anything wrong that the church?
Marta: Oh, sure.
Mike:  Who do you think some of those people might have been?
Marta: Well, (Marie Capana), would have been one.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: (Marina C*******) I think too, and there may be one more,
            although I’m not sure.
Mike:  Okay. Mike: Do you mean (Marina Cataro)?
Marta: Yes.
Mike:  I tried talking to her, and she wouldn’t talk to me.
Marta: No, she wouldn’t.
Mike:  Do you think she may know something?
Marta: I am sure, yes, she would know something.   I am sure somebody
            would have said something to her.
Mike:   Okay. Did you ever discuss anything like this with (Gretchen
Marta: Yes.
Mike:   She is the sister of mercy, I believe?
Marta: Right. Mike: I think (Gretchen W*****) had some suspicions con-
            cerning (Wellinger)?
Marta: Oh Yeah.
Mike:  Do you know if she ever went someone at the diocese to say, "Hey,
           something is amiss here?"
Marta: I don’t know that.  I kind of think not, but I don’t know.
Mike:  Okay.  Any idea what she may have known?
Marta: Umm, Well...
Mike:  Did she know about the (W********) boy?
Marta: I believe she did.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: All I remember her telling him was that she was not going to fight
            his demons.  That’s all I can remember.
Mike:  I see.  I’m trying to think if there’s anything else.  Somewhere around
           1988 or 1989, you resigned as the parish secretary, but you still stayed
           on as a member.  No one was going to keep you out of a church you be-
           long to and helped build, and all that kind of stuff.  Somewhere around
           1991 is when (Wellinger) left, is that correct?
Marta: I believe so.
Mike:  Do you remember anything surrounding when he left?  Usually when
            a priest leaves, there is some type of formal announcement like in a
            month I’ll be leaving.   Do you recall anything like this with ...
Marta: No, I don’t recall that.  All I recall at that time is that Bishop (Boal)
            came to our church or some type of function, maybe for confirmation,
            although I am not sure, and within like two weeks (Wellinger) was
            gone.   I just thought, well, somebody with some type of clout may
            have sent the bishop here.
Mike:  Okay, but you’re not completely sure.
Marta: No.
Mike:  You do, however, know where he stayed when he left Holy Spirit
Marta: Right. Mike: Where did he stay?  I think he first went to Allentown.
Mike:  But you said ...
Marta: I think he did stay with … but then he went to Allentown as a priest.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: After that, I think he went to St. Francis with Father (Dorsch).
Mike:  When you say he went to Allentown, he left Holy Spirit Church
Marta: Yes.
Mike:  And, was immediately assigned to a church in Allentown?
           Was that the way it went?
Marta: Yes.
Mike:  If I’m not mistaken, Allentown may be a separate borough,
            but it is also part of Pittsburgh, near Carrick and that area.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  And then from there, he may have stayed just for a short time.
           Now, how do you know?  Did he just go down to St. Francis on
           his own, or was he like an assistant pastor there?   Do you have
           any idea?
Marta: I don’t’ know.  I think he was just staying there.  I got a copy of
            a letter that he wrote, although I’m not sure where I got to copy
            from or who I got the copy from, to some friends.   In his letter
            he was just complaining about what he had been through over the
            past year or so.  It was written on stationery from St. Francis.
Mike:  Okay.  The reason why you are familiar with St. Francis, which is
            the Church in the McKees Rocks area, you were a parishioner there
            at one time?
Marta: Right.
Mike:  So you’re very familiar.  You are assuming that, if you received a
            letter or saw a letter from St Francis, he had some connection there?
            That’s where he was staying there as a result, or did he mention in
            the letter that he was staying there?
Marta: I believe he did mention it
Mike:  Okay. He wouldn’t have sent a copy of that letter to you right?
Marta: Oh no.
Mike:  Any idea who he sent that letter to?
Marta: I’m not sure. It might’ve been Marina or it could have been ... I really
           don’t know.
Mike:  Okay
Marta: All I know is that it was a copy.  Somebody had made a copy of
           the letter.
Mike:  Okay.  So we are assuming that, from this letter, he stayed with
            Father (Dorsch) at St. Francis in McKees Rocks.  Father (Dorsch)
            was the head pastor there for some time.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  This would’ve been around 1991 maybe 1992 correct?
 Marta: I think so
Mike:  Are you aware that Father (Dorsch) was eventually convicted of
           sexual abuse?
Marta: I am aware now yes. I was unaware of it then.
Mike:  Do you know who made you aware of that?
Marta: I believe you did. Mike: Okay.
Mike:  Do you know if Father (Dorsch) was a regular visitor from time to
            time with John (Wellinger)?
Marta: Yeah, I think he did visit sometimes.
Mike:  Okay.  Did he ever mention where he met Father (Dorsch)?
Marta: No.
Mike:  No, okay.  At this point, is there anything you would like to add 
            to our conversation that you can think of?
Marta: I don’t know.   I just know that I did not have a good feeling from
            the time he came there, and when he was instilled as pastor, I re-
            member him mentioning that I think he came from Clairton to
            Holy Spirit.
Mike:  Right
Marta: He also mentioned that his friends gave him different gifts, and
            some more drugs.
Mike:  He indicated that his friends had given him drugs as a kind of
           going away gift?
Marta: Yeah
Mike:  He didn’t mention that those friends were?
Marta: No, Just that they were friends from Clairton.
Mike:  Do you think he was serious?
Marta: Well yeah.
Mike:  In other words he talked about this in such a fashion, that if I were
            to say to you even though I don’t know you that well,  “Oh. I just
            left my old job, and those folks were kind enough, they gave me a
            bottle of wine, they gave me watch,” it was that carefree?
Marta: Yeah
Mike:  And the way I describe it to you, it’s even believable, so that even
           though he is … ?  For someone of our age, for someone to say, "Oh
           they gave me drugs, …"
Marta: I don’t think he said drugs, I think he said goodies from my runner.
Mike:  So he even describe it is marijuana?
Marta: Yes
Mike:  So he didn’t leave it as drugs, he said marijuana?
Marta: Right
Mike:  Do you think he abused drugs on a regular basis, or some type of
Marta: Alcohol, as far as I know.
Mike:  What do you think his relationship was with Maria (C******)?
Marta: Well, I don’t know. I guess I always thought they were a twosome.
             I mean, she practically lived there.
Mike: Okay
Marta: I believe there was another woman, although I cant’ remember her
Mike: Was it Virginia (Voytech)?
Marta: Yes, She always hung around there too.  She was a nurse.  She would
            come to the rectory, and stay there all day.
Mike: Okay
Marta:She was also there sometimes after I left.
Mike:  Just a few more things.  You knew (Marinell), which was
          (Wellinger’s) sister?
Marta: Yeah.
 Mike:  And that’s where complete name Marinell?
Marta: M-A-R-I-N-E-L-L, that’s it.
Mike:  Do you recall an outburst, or know anything about a public out-
            burst, in the church after or during Mass by I believe it was Bob
Marta: That wasn’t in the church, it was in the parking lot.
Mike: Okay Who was this outburst aimed at, (Wellinger) himself?
Marta: Oh yeah.
Mike: Okay. Were there people around, who could’ve heard this?
Marta: Oh yes, we were having a staff meeting that morning.
Mike: Okay.
Marta: And his wife, Ann, was of course at the staff meeting.
Mike: Okay
Marta: And he was yelling.  As a matter of fact, he came into the
            rectory, grabbed her, and pulled her out.  He had been drink-
            ing.  I think he may have had a gun, or someone mentioned
            that he had a gun.
Mike:  Okay
Marta: I think it was Maria or someone who took (Wellinger) out the
            back door.
Mike:  Okay
Marta: And then they said that we should leave too.
Mike:  Okay, did Bob (W********) explain to anybody what was going
            on?  Why he was angry, why he had a gun, or why he wanted to
            talk to (Wellinger)?
Marta: No, except I guess that Ann was kind of taken with him. I don’t
Mike: Okay.
Marta: I guess they would like to have lunch together, or do things
Mike:  Was this before or after his son ended up in Shadyside hospital?
Marta: I think it was after.
Mike:  So, if it was after, he was also angry because of what happened
            to his son, and angry because his wife was still involved with
Marta: Right.
Mike:  It seems to me that one of the things that (Wellinger) used was
           women to help disguise his other bad habits.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  I would go so far as to say that, if I were a betting man and I’m
           not sure which way I would bet if someone were to say to me.
           Do you think John (Wellinger) and Ann (*********) had an
           affair?  I would not know which way to bet, but even if you
           flipped a coin, you could win. Is that a fair way of analyzing
           that situation?
Marta: Well for some reason, I just never thought of it that way.
             I thought it was more on her part than on his.
Mike:  Okay.  So she was truly infatuated with him much like Virginia
Marta: No.  It was more like Maria.
Mike:  So these women were infatuated with him, and John (Wellinger)
           knew how to use that?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  This included selecting **** ********* as a victim, given he
            knew he had an edge.  This may have helped him in some way.
Marta: I don’t know.
Mike:  I, myself, can’t think like a pedophile.  But, I’m guessing that
           this may have played a role.
Mike: Is there anything else you would like to add?
Marta: No not that I can think of.
Mike: When Bob ********* had this outburst, was Marinell there?
Marta: Oh.   No, I was still working there.
Mike: So, Marinell replaced you?
Marta: Yes.
Mike: Okay very good.   When Bob ********* had this outburst, even
           though he didn’t say anything about his son being hospitalized,
           you’re saying that everyone knew, at that point, what was going
Marta: Yeah, it had kind of gone around, you know.
Mike:  Is it fair to say that it may be? ... Let’s say there are a thousand
            people who are members of the Holy Spirit Church.   It would
            be real easy to say that for 50 of those parishioners, the (Wellin-
            ger) gossip and scandal may have been common knowledge.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  And the reason I asked that question is because I talked to Frank,
            the former police chief, who told me that his neighbor said this
            was all common knowledge.
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  That he was sex idiot?
Marta: There could have been.  Like I said, I don’t think I heard anything
            else other than what I told you.
Mike:  Right
Marta: If Frank knew, I’m not sure where he lived.  Jim Matthews also
            knew of this stuff at the time.
Mike:  He was also a police officer.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  Frank (Defazio)? Frank (DeFazio) was the chief of police at the
            time, but he tells me he didn’t know anything.
Marta: Okay
Mike:  I can tell you this much, or do you think he is not necessarily
            telling the truth?
Marta: I don’t know.  Do the policemen have to report to them if anybody
           would call or anything?
Mike:  Yeah, that’s right, were the policemen summoned to any of these
Marta: Yes.   They did call the police when Bob ********* came to the
            rectory, but also the police came to my house one night because
            they were trying to get the money to (Wellinger) to get it put away
            for the night, and they could not locate him.  So they came here to
            ask me for the keys for the rectory.   I guess when Jim came back,
            he gave me the keys to the rectory and told me that (Wellinger) was
            passed out.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: I guess that was sort of hush-hush.
Mike:  Do you think any police knew about the outburst that Bob *******
            had at the rectory?  Were any police called for that, and would any
            West Mifflin police at least be aware of something like that?
Marta: I would think they would be aware of it, because I’m almost sure
           we called the police.
Mike:  Okay, you did call police. Who would’ve been the one to call the
Marta: It wasn’t me.  I’m not sure.   It could have been Maria or Virginia.
Mike:  It sounds like people were legitimately scared, also because Bob
           had gun.
Marta: Well yeah.
Mike:  Or least people thought he had a gun, or that he might’ve had a gun.
Marta: Right
Mike:  Do you know if any of this was reported diocese?
Marta: Well it must have been because, who else could have restricted him
            from coming on church property?
Mike:  In other words, you are aware of the fact that Bob ********* re-
            ceived a letter from the lawyer for the diocese to stay away from
            the church?
Marta: Well all I know is that, I was told that he was not allowed to be on
            church grounds.  That is all I know.
Mike:  Okay, you don’t know.  Who told you this?  Was it (Wellinger)?
Marta: No wasn’t him. I guess it was just a rumor or common knowledge.
Mike:  Okay.   Sr Gretchen would have probably known about all this stuff?
Marta: Oh yeah.
Mike:  Did she live there at the time?
Marta: No.
Mike:  No? Okay.  She would have known about it certainly ...
Marta: If not from others, then at least from me.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: I think she might’ve been there that day, as I think she was already
           on staff.
Mike:  Okay.  That’s right.  She would have been there for the staff meeting.

I want to thank you again Marta. I’m not exactly sure what’s going to happen.
But again, I applaud you for your willingness to help because this has truly
been a tragedy, and I don’t like stuff like this going on, and I don’t like stuff
like this being covered up.  We will see what happens.  Again, Michelle ****
would be willing to help me?  I have already talked to her.   There are some
things now that I just want to get squared away.  Anyway, I reserve the right
to give you a call back.  Thank you again.   Bye-bye.

November 26, 2017

Wuerl's change-the-subject letter, after a priest's criminal indictment

     The change-the-subject letter below was the one that Donald Wuerl wrote
     shortly after he was caught performing his Triple Cover-up.  Actually, it
     was the result of the Wolk indictment.  Wolk was the first of the three di-
     ocesan priests to get indicted during the end of Wuerl's first year as local
     ordinary of the RC Diocese of Pittsburgh.  Another word for local ordi-
     nary is "bishop."

      Wuerl stated that there was so much to do that Pittsburgh didn't have time
      to think about his then-diocese having become one of the first dioceses to
      be scathed in what was to become a coast to coast Watergate of perversity.

      Wuerl was not clever in his evils.  He was a sophomoric writer, especially
      when comparing him to the laureates with whom I was published in a couple
      literary anthologies.  He simply had a propaganda machine and a few in-the-
      pocket politicians who cow-towed to him, on account of the fear that not do-
      ing so would offend Pittsburgh's Catholic voters.  They didn't accept the fact
      that the devout Catholics of Pittsburgh saw Donald Wuerl as the enemy.

      Proof that the devout Catholics of Pittsburgh saw Wuerl as the enemy consisted
      in the amount of lawsuits filed against Wuerl, as well as complaints sent to Rome
      against Wuerl ... not to mention the complaints against Wuerl leveled to the U.S.
      Papal Nuncio's office in Washington DC, as recently as the Year 2015.  The most
      common nickname for Wuerl, while he was in Pittsburgh, was Whirlybird.  This
      goes to show that Wuerl was widely disrespected by any layman and laywoman
      who had any dealings with him.  He was a vicious brat.  I was there at the time.
      I'm a repeated witness to this.

 Keep in mind that Cardinal Wuerl rose to power by riding John Cardinal Wright's
coat tails.  If Wuerl weren't Wright's long-term secretary, then Wuerl would have
been a nobody in terms of power and influence.

      If Wuerl didn't ride Cardinal Wright's coat tails, Pittsburgh would have many
      more Catholic parishes and priests than it has today.  Pittsburgh wouldn't have
      been the last city to end the heretical Dignity Masses which can be described
      as Sodom & Gomorrah Masses.

In addition, the deacon whistle blower (previously reported at Wuerlgate) would
have been a priest at this hour, and chances are that James Torquato would never
have been made a parish pastor.

    In addition, Catholic Church property would not have gotten into masonic hands.
   Tim Bendig would be a no-name.  More importantly, sweatshop labor profiteering
   would not have been ignored in Pittsburgh, especially in light of the fact that it was
   a city famous for championing worker's rights.

November 18, 2017

A Pittsburgh area molester got away, thanks to Donald Wuerl, ACCORDING to Cleveland Plain Dealer & Bryant Times

    In re: Wuerl's Triple Cover-up which resulted in the indictments of Fathers
    Robert Wolk, Richard Zula, and Francis Pucci, accompanied by District
    Attorney John C Pettit calling Wuerl and his staff less-than-cooperative.

     The Cleveland Plain Dealer mentioned the existence of an alleged fourth
     assailant in the case involving Frs. Wolk-Zula-&-Pucci.  The Plain Deal-
     er mentioned four additional youths abused by either/or Frs Pucci, Wolk,
     Zula, the fourth suspect.  The Bryan Times, which served Ohioans on the
     Northwestern sector of the state reported the same things.

    Incidentally, Robert Wolk was ordained the exact same year in which Wuerl
    was.  This would indicate that Wolk and Wuerl were classmates.  This would
    indicate cronyism in Wuerl's cover-up and in him publicly stating that telling
    a priest that he can no longer be in ministry "is a devastating thing to do."

    In 2015, Wuerl was hailed as a Poor Richard, living the ascetic life in a closed-
    down school.  He was then discovered to be living in a $43 million complex,
    in Marie-Antoine comfort, along Washington DC's posh Embassy Row.
Wuerl was being hailed as an ascetic even when he was living 
in this Pittsburgh mansion.  The lies about Wuerl were uncovered 
with documents, photos, and news archives.  He's a walking lie.  

As a humorous note, as soon as I took this photo, "guard" 
dog  came out of the mansion.   My remaining photos of the 
area were accompanied with the hostile sound of the dog.  
    Wuerl only had a zero tolerance track record when it came to having zero
    tolerance toward whistle-blowers who tried to clean-up the corruption in
    Wuerl's own diocese.  This included James Torquato's evidence-based ac-
    cuser.  You can add the Paul Dorsch who was a credible accuser of the
    notorious John Hoehl.  Also add the previously mentioned whistle-blow-
    er deacon whom Wuerl would never allow to be ordained a priest.

   The press treatment of Wuerl has been a very unconscionable lie, regarding
   him being hailed as a heroic & caring zero tolerance bishop.  He was just an-
   other bishop who had his share of cover-ups and even retaliations, all the while
   having been an eight-year-long rebel against the Vatican ban on Dignity Masses.

   All in all, Wuerl was one of the first bishops caught performing a cover-up.  My
   research shows that he was the second bishop, only preceded by the Layfayette
   Louisiana diocese's cover-up of Gilbert Gauthe.

The Bryan Times article:,4088961&dq=wolk+arrested+pittsburgh+zula+pucci&hl=en

The Cleveland Plain Dealer article: