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 claimed that it was. The allegation goes on to state that the diocese did nothing when John Wellinger was first accused. Therefore, the recent mainstream 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 also 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 shooting 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 ruthlessness. 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 allegations. 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 successful 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 within 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 intensely. 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 shooting 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
.jpg) |
| The operation moved from downtown ... near the Monongahela River ... to the Northside, near the very well-built baseball stadium facing the Ohio River. |
When he was bishop of Pittsburgh, Donald Wuerl was caught performing the simultaneous cover-up of four diocesan priests, three of whom were criminally indicted. Wuerl disregarded of the Child Protective Services Act which required 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 obligation to notify Child Youth Services about the pri ests, as was prescribed in the Child Protective Services Act. In direct contrast 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 Pittsburgh. 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 abusive 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 serious 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 parish 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 corroboration. 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 proposed that the Serra Catholic student who was shot in the head was shot by a fellow student who might have been molested and/or psychologically influenced by Fr. John Wellinger. If no accusations against John Wellinger existed, then the witness under oath could have simply said that he knew of no such thing. However, the diocese's defense attorney immediately 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 certain 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 attorney 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 incident, 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 attorney 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 created to cover the costs of the case.
Sadly, the father and son agreed to the settlement, under a sense of compulsion 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 theatrical 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.
