John deCamp

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Postby chiggerbit » Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:28 am

Here, check out the two Crosiers on this list:

http://tinyurl.com/yzftgpx

Madigan. Gregory B Accused Crosier Admitted abusing a 14 yr old boy in 1980s at Crosier seminary school in MN. Crosiers reached monetary settlement with victim when he came forward in 1988. Madigan sent for treatment; was living under restriction at Crosier national headquarters. Believed to have molested at least six boys in 1960s and 1970s. Confronted by parents in mid 1970s; agreed to seek treatment. 1987 letter referred to the agreement. At least 1 claim included in 2/09 settlement with Crosiers and 9 accusers in MN.


And


Weger, Justin K. 1952 P Accused Crosier Fathers and Brothers Weger and 7 other Crosiers were removed from public ministry 10/02 after past abuse of minors. Per summary report of Third Party Investigation of Crosier order, Weger, who was retired and living in Phoenix, would be living under restriction at a long-term care senior housing facility. Weger served in Minnesota from 1953 to 1972, in Indiana from 1973 to 1974 and in Phoenix and Tucson areas from 1974 to the present. May not have had privileges in Phoenix. Died 2005.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:33 am

chiggerbit wrote:
As it stands now, from an outsider's point of view, the discourse props the perception that, as Lbo said, Franklin is a LaRouche conspiracy


Project Willow, I'm sorry if you don't like the track this is taking, but I was starting to see sweeping statements, mingling information taken from deCamp's books, interviews, etc. and mingling it together with Bryant's book. My point, if I have one, isn't that Franklin is a LaRouche conspiracy, but rather that deCamp himself might be one. Bryants work needs to stand on it's own, not piggybacked onto deCamp's "work". This is too important an issue to be dismissed. I really don't think anyone is suggesting that the baby be thrown out with the bathwater. I just don't think it's wise for people to use deCamp as a foundation for other inormation that may be brought out, by Bryant or anyone else.


:clapping: :clapping:

Well said.
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:36 am

Interesting that it's not all that easy to find a good summary of how St. John's Abbey came to house all those pervert priests. It kind of looks like they not only housed pervert priests, but maybe allowed them to have access to kids again. I guess this will have to do until I can find better:

http://davespicks.com/misc/stjohnssexabuse.html
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lightningBugout » Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:52 am

DeCamp aside, can everyone who feels sympathetic to Bryant's book take a few moments to write a note to Nancy Grace asking her to do a segment on the book. Please? I know she has a copy and, distasteful (well awful actually) as she is, she does focus on child abuse. Even better still, forward a note to absolutely anyone you know asking them to do the same? And to keep spreading the word? I made a post in the activism sub-forum with the url for submitting her comments. I would love to see every single person at RI submit such a note. I can only imagine that 10,000 letters like that would have some effect.

ps. sw, can you send me an email (it's on my profile page)? I'm trying to PM you about something specific but, because your username is only two letters, it always generates an error. 3 letters must be the minimum.......Thanks!
"What's robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" Bertolt Brecht
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Free » Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:08 am

LBO wrote:
With all due respect, may I ask what may be an obvious question?

Why is is that, upon publication of a new and deadly serious, very well-researched book about the Franklin Scandal, all this attention is being focused on the potential dark side of DeCamp? Because, well, duh. Even if DeCamp is a big fat LaRouchie or just a creep, another investigator with impeccable pedigree has just done 7 years worth of his own original research and interviews and validated DeCamp's own story?

I find it particularly disheartening to see that RI is exhibiting a similar reaction to Bryant's book as the Franklin page over at WP. Suddenly in the past two weeks there has been a flurry of activity trying to portray the whole investigation as a LaRouche conspiracy. That same spirit is alive and well in this thread too.


The spirit of our inquiring into DeCamp has absolutely nothing to do with discrediting the investigation.

As I see it, we're trying to shine a light on and understand ways that we, and the movement against organized child abuse, may be being manipulated, and the mechanics of that manipulation.

What we discover here can potentially apply (and overlap) with other areas/movements such as 911 truth and conspiracy inquiries in general. I think there is much to be learned here. This thread is beginning to answer questions I've had for years.

I totally agree that we need to support Nick Bryant and his new book and am on board with that 100%, but that is a separate issue.


--oh...what is WP and who is Nancy Grace?
User avatar
Free
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lightningBugout » Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:35 am

Free wrote:LBO wrote:
With all due respect, may I ask what may be an obvious question?

Why is is that, upon publication of a new and deadly serious, very well-researched book about the Franklin Scandal, all this attention is being focused on the potential dark side of DeCamp? Because, well, duh. Even if DeCamp is a big fat LaRouchie or just a creep, another investigator with impeccable pedigree has just done 7 years worth of his own original research and interviews and validated DeCamp's own story?

I find it particularly disheartening to see that RI is exhibiting a similar reaction to Bryant's book as the Franklin page over at WP. Suddenly in the past two weeks there has been a flurry of activity trying to portray the whole investigation as a LaRouche conspiracy. That same spirit is alive and well in this thread too.


The spirit of our inquiring into DeCamp has absolutely nothing to do with discrediting the investigation.

As I see it, we're trying to shine a light on and understand ways that we, and the movement against organized child abuse, may be being manipulated, and the mechanics of that manipulation.

What we discover here can potentially apply (and overlap) with other areas/movements such as 911 truth and conspiracy inquiries in general. I think there is much to be learned here. This thread is beginning to answer questions I've had for years.

I totally agree that we need to support Nick Bryant and his new book and am on board with that 100%, but that is a separate issue.


--oh...what is WP and who is Nancy Grace?


"Overlap with 9/11 Truth?" No thanks.

There is an opportunity at hand to build a grassroots movement to get the reality of organized child abuse into the public consciousness. And there is a vehicle sitting on my bookshelf. And a huge but singular problem -- how do we force the MSM to pay attention?

Anyone who cares about doing so should be able to see the importance of writing lots of emails to media outlets and spreading the word in any way possible.

It is, in no way, a "separate issue."

Talk about being manipulated. Go to the WP (Wikipedia) page for Franklin and click on the history. You will see that in the past two weeks numerous edits have been made to emphasize the Larouchies' role in the Franklin investigation. That is manipulation at its best. I'm quite willing to stake my own faith that people in high places have decided that is how to discredit the book - associate it with Larouche and his madness. So I maintain that something is very odd about what is happening in this thread. The outline of DeCamp's story has just been *validated* by someone who, as best we can tell, is quite reputable and that has been done by relying on *victim* testimony. All of this info about DeCamp is tantalizing. But it is, IMHO, a hard fact that, regardless of good intention, digging dirt on him at this moment takes the risk of playing into the basic tack of discrediting Bryant's book. RI shows up very high in the google search results about any of these names.


Nancy Ann Grace (born October 23, 1959) is an American legal commentator, television host, and former prosecutor. She frequently discusses issues from what she describes as a victims' rights standpoint, with an outspoken style that has won her both praise and condemnation. She is the host of Nancy Grace, a nightly current affairs show on HLN, and she was the host of Court TV's Closing Arguments.[1] She also co-wrote the book Objection! — How High-Priced Defense Attorneys, Celebrity Defendants, and a 24/7 Media Have Hijacked Our Criminal Justice System.
"What's robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" Bertolt Brecht
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Sat Oct 17, 2009 9:27 am

But it is, IMHO, a hard fact that, regardless of good intention, digging dirt on him at this moment takes the risk of playing into the basic tack of discrediting Bryant's book.


There IS no good time, buggy. If we'd dug into him to this degree a year ago, it would still be the same result. Part of the reason there is a need for this book is because of deCamp, because almost everything on this issue comes through deCamp's filter. If anything, I would think scrutiny of deCamp would only strengthen interest in Bryant's book.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Sat Oct 17, 2009 9:28 am

Nancy Ann Grace (born October 23, 1959) is an American legal commentator, television host, and former prosecutor. She frequently discusses issues from what she describes as a victims' rights standpoint, with an outspoken style that has won her both praise and condemnation. She is the host of Nancy Grace, a nightly current affairs show on HLN, and she was the host of Court TV's Closing Arguments.[1] She also co-wrote the book Objection! — How High-Priced Defense Attorneys, Celebrity Defendants, and a 24/7 Media Have Hijacked Our Criminal Justice System.


Never heard of her.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Sat Oct 17, 2009 9:38 am

There's got to be a way to make critical inquiry into our own movements. This is an imperative, in fact.

There's also got to be a way to express principled difference with our allies, or potential allies.

The big question is what are appropriate ways to do this, and what are not.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19708
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Sat Oct 17, 2009 9:53 am

Much more on St. John's Abbey here:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _95631980/
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

DeCamp

Postby Paloma » Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:35 am

In response to the question as to whether or not DeCamp mentioned having been abused, no, he didn't say he was abused. He did say Totem Town was run by the Catholic Church.

As for juvenile corrections. Are you aware that the Sheriff's Youth Programs, which are privately run but publicly funded, use kids for a variety of "law enforcement" operations. I had three identified and used when I was digging in and investigating a money laundering front here. All four had drug abuse/use issues, all four came from broken homes, and three of the four, according to a federal agent and confirmed by an informant, were pedophiles themselves. One of them is the son of a CIA agent. One was the adopted son of an ex-deputy, who ran the front and laundered money. The other two were linked via other relationships. The Sheriff's Youth Programs originated in Mower County, MN - which is where Ted Gunderson was at the time, working for Hormel - which has long been rumored to have held parties like those described by DeCamp. An ex-counselor for the SYP confirmed the use of children to mule drugs and said he was aware of sexual and physical abuse, but he said they were individual instances. Strib reporter Dick Meryhew received information on the Hormel pedo-ring during the Hormel strike in the 90's. He couldn't write it because the source wouldn't go on the record: afraid he'd be killed.

Re:Wetterling. Jacob was not the first child they tried to snatch. There were two right before him: two paperboys. One spotted the car and got spooked. #2 slipped out of his coat and ran to a house. Jacob was #3. All of them fit the same physical description. According to one of the other children, the abductor put his hand down the front of Jacob's pants and made a comment about his pubic hair, which is how investigators quickly determined that this was more than just a random snatching. Someone had a very specific criteria and Jacob apparently fit.

Why did DeCamp get sent to Iran? DeCamp indicated that he was not in college and was not in the military but that he just, for some bizarre reason, wanted to go to Iran and so he lived there for over a year. I assumed that he went to school and joined the military after that. Is it possible that DeCamp was enrolled in the same type of program as that of young Barry Seal and Lee Harvey Oswald? And is it also possible that DeCamp was known to Colby much earlier than we are aware? Wm. Colby was from St. Paul, MN. Perhaps DeCamp himself was a subject in MK Ultra. (Just tossing out thoughts/ideas)
Paloma
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:31 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Searcher08 » Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:20 am

Context:
I think we at RI might be in a minefield around this - and we need to think carefully about what we want to see happen.

I agree that looking carefully at John decamp is required - I was certainly surprised at his donations to Larouche. However when people start indicating he might be a pedophile, that is very different. Strongly suggest that someone with legal experience in both US and/or UK defamation law (maybe c2w?) look through this thread - and anything potentially defamatory which could threaten Jeff or RI or the posters be removed.

I have only spent a limited time looking into Franklin and have quickly come to the conclusions.

1 This is a huge can of worms in a molecular acid soup - and there will be a big systemic 'kick-back' to opening it

Nick Bryant said he was just being a 'tourist' in Omaha when he was given death threats. Going down the Franklin road unprepared would be like going to the Sibel Edmonds or Indira Singh nexus unprepared. There will also be probable overlap with both those networks.

Every person who comes offering help should be scrutinised as carefully as deCamp. Why? Because the best way to contain grassroots activism around this would be to co-opt it. A kind of Franklin CoIntelPro
What would the smart response from the networks behind child abuse be to a crusade? Perhaps get 'James Bevel' types (see below) involved and then shift the focus. Or perhaps a Larouchian model smear or "RI supports us" campaign?


2 Opening it requires addressing lots of unexpected issues, potentially from unexpected constituencies


Example: (from Wiki on James Bevel)

For his work in the 1960s he has been referred to as the "Father of Voting Rights", the "Strategist and Architect of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement", and as half of the Bevel/King team that formulated and communicated the actions, issues, and dialogues which created the historical changes of the era.


so former heroes start having feet of clay...
People can get very upset when their heroes are attacked / mythology threatened. Like the drug lords in The Wire, many of the people in these networks will have a front of immaculate family, charity, art etc Losing heroes can also be very disempowering.
Bryant points indirect fingers to who is still involved in this. What if there are some key Administration people involved? He mentions about the lack of credibility of Franklin witnesses, many who have gone from being abused kids to petty criminals, drug addicts and abusers themselves. The media devours people with big allegations from this 'non-credible' background - see what happened to Larry Sinclair as an interesting comparison.

The key importance of Franklin IMHO is not the child abuse aspect, as awful as that is, but the cover-up. The organisational and institutional aspects Why? Because unless these are addressed, the song remains the same. Franklin 2.0 According to Bryant, there are multiple networks, not one. Focusing only on one network could have the effect of enabling the bigger network of networks to be kept safe.

The ability of the MSM to avoid asking questions which have difficult to swallow answers is enormous. The governments ability to rationalize using the fig-leaf of "there will always be one or two rotten apples" or apply the "wild-eyed conspiracy theory" knows no bounds.


3 The case of the already corrupted system...


Enquiries get set up, task forces introduced, reports issued, new laws enacted - all this new behaviour will be from within an already compromised system. Just as with the 9/11 'Commission'.

Some scenario:
Our efforts are focused on the children. The MSM pick up the story and frame it as

"The Catholic Church - at last coming clean from child abuse"

framing it as organisational recovery (and placing the story in the past)

or

"Looking after the wounded in the war on child abuse during the recession"

framing it in the "Poor Vets" category (creating a focus on charity and compassion and distracting attention)

or "BoysTown's 21Century Renaissance"

(creating a focus on 'past difficulties overcome' - result/ a perception of 'everything is handled')
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:53 am

Searcher08 wrote:Context:
I think we at RI might be in a minefield around this - and we need to think carefully about what we want to see happen.

I agree that looking carefully at John decamp is required - I was certainly surprised at his donations to Larouche. However when people start indicating he might be a pedophile, that is very different. Strongly suggest that someone with legal experience in both US and/or UK defamation law (maybe c2w?) look through this thread - and anything potentially defamatory which could threaten Jeff or RI or the posters be removed.

I have only spent a limited time looking into Franklin and have quickly come to the conclusions.

1 This is a huge can of worms in a molecular acid soup - and there will be a big systemic 'kick-back' to opening it

Nick Bryant said he was just being a 'tourist' in Omaha when he was given death threats. Going down the Franklin road unprepared would be like going to the Sibel Edmonds or Indira Singh nexus unprepared. There will also be probable overlap with both those networks.

Every person who comes offering help should be scrutinised as carefully as deCamp. Why? Because the best way to contain grassroots activism around this would be to co-opt it. A kind of Franklin CoIntelPro
What would the smart response from the networks behind child abuse be to a crusade? Perhaps get 'James Bevel' types (see below) involved and then shift the focus. Or perhaps a Larouchian model smear or "RI supports us" campaign?


2 Opening it requires addressing lots of unexpected issues, potentially from unexpected constituencies


Example: (from Wiki on James Bevel)

For his work in the 1960s he has been referred to as the "Father of Voting Rights", the "Strategist and Architect of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement", and as half of the Bevel/King team that formulated and communicated the actions, issues, and dialogues which created the historical changes of the era.


so former heroes start having feet of clay...
People can get very upset when their heroes are attacked / mythology threatened. Like the drug lords in The Wire, many of the people in these networks will have a front of immaculate family, charity, art etc Losing heroes can also be very disempowering.
Bryant points indirect fingers to who is still involved in this. What if there are some key Administration people involved? He mentions about the lack of credibility of Franklin witnesses, many who have gone from being abused kids to petty criminals, drug addicts and abusers themselves. The media devours people with big allegations from this 'non-credible' background - see what happened to Larry Sinclair as an interesting comparison.

The key importance of Franklin IMHO is not the child abuse aspect, as awful as that is, but the cover-up. The organisational and institutional aspects Why? Because unless these are addressed, the song remains the same. Franklin 2.0 According to Bryant, there are multiple networks, not one. Focusing only on one network could have the effect of enabling the bigger network of networks to be kept safe.

The ability of the MSM to avoid asking questions which have difficult to swallow answers is enormous. The governments ability to rationalize using the fig-leaf of "there will always be one or two rotten apples" or apply the "wild-eyed conspiracy theory" knows no bounds.


3 The case of the already corrupted system...


Enquiries get set up, task forces introduced, reports issued, new laws enacted - all this new behaviour will be from within an already compromised system. Just as with the 9/11 'Commission'.

Some scenario:
Our efforts are focused on the children. The MSM pick up the story and frame it as

"The Catholic Church - at last coming clean from child abuse"

framing it as organisational recovery (and placing the story in the past)

or

"Looking after the wounded in the war on child abuse during the recession"

framing it in the "Poor Vets" category (creating a focus on charity and compassion and distracting attention)

or "BoysTown's 21Century Renaissance"

(creating a focus on 'past difficulties overcome' - result/ a perception of 'everything is handled')


It is my understanding that the bar for proving libel, slander and/or defamation is set so high for public figures like decamp that nothing said on this thread could be used for such.

As a journalist I can tell you that you can pretty much say anything you want about a PUBLIC FIGURE as long as it is prefaced with "it is my opinion," "the evidence suggests," etc, libel, slander and defamation against private parties is an entirely different breed of animal than that of such against those who voluntarily place themselves in the public spotlight.*


*The above is not intended to be taken as actual legal advice, consult an attorney.
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Jeff » Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:10 pm

lightningBugout wrote:All of this info about DeCamp is tantalizing. But it is, IMHO, a hard fact that, regardless of good intention, digging dirt on him at this moment takes the risk of playing into the basic tack of discrediting Bryant's book.


I couldn't disagree more. If Franklin receives traction because of Bryant's work, it would be a disservice if DeCamp were left unchallenged as an authority.

In fact, this goes to what I regard as the mandate of RI. Wheat from chaff business.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11133
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Jeff » Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:28 pm

Excerpt from DeCamp, after the publication of his memo sabotaged Caradori's investigation and the FBI's leak of Caradori's interview tapes scared victims away from cooperating:

DeCamp wrote:As the stories proliferated, Gary Caradori expressed to Senator Schmit his concern for the safety of the victim-witnesses who had allowed themselves to be taped. Schmit sought my legal advice again.

"These kids need protection or they are going to end up dead, or become afraid to continue to tell the truth," the senator said. "The committee has to do something to guarantee their protection."

Gary Caradori was even more vehement on the need for protection. "Unless they get into a protected environment, where Alan Baer and Larry King and Robert Wadman are not able to get to them and scare them, I can tell you the kids will fold. They will do whatever those guys order them to do. They will fold, or they will end up dead," Caradori hammered at Senator Schmit. "You have to do something to protect them."

My legal advice to Senator Schmit and my direct warning to Gary Caradori at that time, in December 1989 and January 1990, was the most painful information I have ever had to provide someone.

"You cannot and should not do anything to use committee funds or committee personnel to provide protection for these kids,"
I told Schmit. "Otherwise, you and the committee may be accused of impropriety and tampering with witnesses, and who knows what else. Painful as it is for me to tell you this, you have to find some other legal channel to provide protection for the kids.... But you, Senator Schmit, should not personally get involved in any way, shape or form in providing money or assistance or protection for these kids, nor should the committee, in my opinion."


"Unfortunately," he later adds, witness protection for the victims "did not transpire."
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11133
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to The Franklin Scandal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests