Out for Money: Jeff Anderson and SNAP

on October 15, 2013

David Clohessy was out in front of the Chancery of the Archdiocese on Thursday October 10th. The Executive Director of SNAP (Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests) according to his own testimony has done this thousands of times. SNAP has been busy in the Twin Cities of late. They have been drawn here by the media frenzy surrounding the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. There is currently at least one lawsuit pending against the Archdiocese, filed by local lawyer Jeff Anderson. Having worked together before, Clohessy and Anderson’s routine is well known. During the course of the allegations, investigations, press feeding frenzy, depositions and (occasional) court show downs; SNAP and Anderson take steps to apply “the most intense pressure”, a phrase from Anson D. Shupe, author of Rogue Clerics. 

But last year, as part of a lawsuit pending in Missouri, Clohessy himself was unwillingly deposed. The deposition was recently made public. The document raises more questions than it provides answers. Not only does Clohessy’s testimony undermine the credibility of his own organization, his words also raise questions about Jeff Anderson.

Source: David Clohessy’s Deposition.

Clohessy unsuccessfully tried to use the Missouri Rape Crisis Center Statute to shield himself from being deposed. When asked, “Did you identify yourself as a rape crisis center?” Clohessy answered, “I don’t know.” (pg. 87) Rape crisis centers typically have licensed personnel to counsel and treat victims. From the deposition:

Question: How many licensed–by whatever state the person resides in, how many licensed counselors does SNAP employ?

Clohessy: One that I know of.

Question: And who would that be?

Clohessy: That would be Barbara Blaine.

Question: So you do believe she’s licensed?

Clohessy: Again, I mean she has a Master’s degree in social work. I don’t know whether she’s a LCSW or-you know, don’t know that. (pgs. 20-21)

When a person calls SNAP, they may end up talking to David, since SNAP only employs three professionals. “Does SNAP spend any money that it raises through fundraising on consoling…?” After answering ‘yes’, Clohessy elaborated, “Individuals call me and they share their pain with me.” “I console them and I may be on the phone with them for an hour.” (pg. 26)

Does Clohessy have any special training for dealing with victims of sexual abuse? No. “I have a Bachelors degree,” in “philosophy and political science.” (pg. 68) Has he taken “any classes at all in counseling sexual abuse victims?” “No, sir.” (pg. 191) When pressed, Clohessy reiterated: “I have a diploma from, you know, just a Bachelors degree. But no formal certificate with training in counseling.” (192)

Clohessy could at least have googled a few facts about the common side effects of sexual abuse.

Question: Can you tell me what the definition of rape trauma syndrome is?

Clohessy: I cannot.

Question: Can you tell me what is a safe exam?

Clohessy: I cannot. (pg. 69)

MPR was critical of the Archdiocese because they did not employ mental health care professionals to treat Fr. Wehmeyer’s sexual disorder. Will they be equally critical of SNAP for not providing mental health care professionals to treat the victims of sexual abuse? I doubt it.

Even providing some kind of support is beyond the scope of SNAP. Clohessy was asked to read SNAP’s 2007 tax filing. “Under survivor support how much money are we talking about there?” Clohessy replied: “$593.” (pg. 102) Could SNAP spend some money to employ professional, trained, counselors for victims? It seems like they should be able to. In 2008, $92,000 was spent on travel. (pg. 107)

In the deposition, SNAP is identified as a not-for-profit, which means they survive on donations. How much money does SNAP pull in through donations? Exhibit 1 in the deposition was SNAP’s 2010 tax filing.

Question: Going back to Exhibit 1…you have total support numbers. Do you see those? In 2006 it’s 929,000. 2007 467,000. We go over to 2010, 352,000. And then you have a total for years ’06 through ’10 of almost 3 million dollars.

Clohessy: Uh-huh. (pg. 29)

Since Clohessy is not a licensed counselor, nor does he have any experience in counseling, it wouldn’t be out of the question for SNAP to dip into petty cash and pay for a victim to recieve counseling. Sadly, that is not the case:

Clohessy: Okay. Has SNAP ever paid money to an individual counselor for an individual victim?

Question: Correct, out of that 3 million dollars that’s in the tax return?

Clohessy: Don’t know. (pg. 30)

On the growing list of things Clohessy doesn’t know is knowledge of his own business:

Question: Of the SNAP– let em backup. Do you understand that SNAP is a corporation?

Clohessy: Yes, sir. (pg. 79)

Question: I’ll just ask you a few questions, a few follow-up questions on the corporate form of SNAP. Do you know if SNAP is a member or non-member not-for-profit; do you have any idea?

Clohessy: A member of non-member not-for-profit, I have no idea. (pg. 146)

What Clohessy does know is that SNAP holds an annual conference, which lawyers attend. Their purpose is two-fold: they speak (pg.156)  and they pay. A Forbes article from 2003, titled “Paid to Picket”, suggests that SNAP, in the words of lawyer Mitch Garbedian, is practicing “solicitation” by accepting donations from lawyers, including St. Paul lawyer Jeff Anderson.

“Anderson, a lawyer in St. Paul, Minn. who has 250 clergy cases pending; he donated $10,000, according to Snap’s IRS filing. Anderson says he has since donated $20,000 more and pledged another $30,000 matching grant for 2003.”

Forbes cited Survivors First, a group based in Boston that does not take money from plaintiff lawyers. “I would hate to be seen as lead generator for plaintiff lawyers,” said founder Paul Baier. Jeff Anderson wasn’t deterred by the article; at SNAP’s annual conference in 2012, he gave a check for $43, 950.

Source: Forbes ‘Paid to Picket’ 

How does Anderson have the means to offer such staggering amounts? In Anderson’s ‘Super Lawyers’ profile by Christy DeSmith, published by Thompson Reuters, his last updated amount on total recoveries from lawsuits was $60 million dollars. That was in 2002. “He’s no longer willing to update that figure and he does not speak publically about his own compensation.” We can make an educated guess. According to the article, he “collects as much as 40% from each settlement” and in 2007 he settled with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles “for around half a billion dollars.”

Source: Jeff Anderson’s ‘Super Lawyer’ profile. 

Jeff Anderson’s first big case came in his third year of law school at William Mitchell. He “successfully defended a homeless man against charges of indecent exposure.” The man in question was caught urinating in a church. But because “the man was black and was caught urinating in a church that had a white, wealthy congregation,” Anderson was able to “argue it was racial discrimination.” Because Anderson played the race card, the case was dismissed. What Anderson missed is that the color of the man’s skin has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of urinating in a church. No matter who you are, you can’t pee in a pew. Recall the words of Martin Luther King who dreamed that one day people would be judged, “Not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” At least now we can hope that Anderson has realized his mistake. Outside his private office hang paintings of Ghandi and King himself.

What has driven Anderson from that his humble origins to suing for hundreds of millions of dollars? “It’s about the kids!” says Anderson in the ‘Super Lawyers’ profile. He now has a sprawling Saint Paul office, complete with “antique plasterwork (and) oak paneling”, “stained glass windows and vintage pulpit chairs.” Has the money gotten to Anderson? According to him, he’s working as a lawyer because he cares.”I work from the heart not the head.” explains Anderson as to why he has filed over “2,000 sex-abuse cases against the Catholic Church and other institutions.” “Think of the kids whose souls were saved!” he raves when asked about his settlement with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. It’s a slightly odd turn of phrase for a man who identifies as agnostic. What does “saved” mean in the secular sense? More importantly, how does he know if kids even have souls?

Brian Miller made a comment: “The pronoun “I” has probably never been used more than in the writings of Frank Schaeffer.” Jeff Anderson in his introductory video on his webpage could give Schaeffer a run for his money.

Anderson identifies his enterprise as a “revolutionary, transcendent pursuit of hope.” About his origin he says:

“I had a family. I took several jobs, which to others were good jobs, but I couldn’t feel good about working to work.”

“I wanted to make a bigger difference thats what drew me to night school and to law school.”

In reference to his first case, he recalls how passionate he was to get the man off “because of what was going on with civil rights.”

“I’ll never forget the moment when (the judge) looked at me and said “Mr. Anderson, you have made your point.” I looked at the judge and I looked at that man and I knew that I had made a difference in his life. That’s how I discovered the meaningful life.”

As for his multi-million dollar lawsuits, “It’s about giving (the victims) a chance at a better life.”

“I have been reposed with a trust and we are now on a journey.”

As was alluded to in the ‘Super Lawyer’ profile, his office, according to a source who recently finished law school in Saint Paul, is full of “a collection of religious memorabilia.” The stained glass windows and the paintings of religious leaders are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. As I turn over in my mind the buckets of cash Anderson has made suing the church and his numerous statements of self-affirmation, I wonder if he has any kneelers in his collection of religious items. If he does, I imagine they are placed either before a pile of money or before Anderson’s personal mirror.

Abuse cases are big business for Anderson. He claims, “It’s for the kids,” but I’ll bet the money sure helps. SNAP relies on him and others like him to continue…traveling. Minnesota Public Radio has highlighted Anderson as a crusader and SNAP as a legitimate “victim’s group”; reporting on their protests and asking their opinion of Archdiocesan statements. Juvenal warned that we must always “watch the watchmen.” Anderson and SNAP claim to be motivated by concern for the victims. More than likely, Clohessy is motivated by the money. Anderson, well, he’s got something else on his mind:

““All roads lead to Rome.” Anderson is fond of saying that. Over the years, he has come to believe that Vatican officials are ultimately responsible for swapping priests and enforcing the culture of secrecy. So he’s set his sights on an ambitious target: He wants to sue the Holy See, the centralized government of the Catholic Church. In particular, Anderson wants to depose Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Ratzinger.” (‘Super Lawyer’ profile)

Dr. Robert Kennedy, of the St. Thomas Catholic Studies department pointed out how stupid that is. “Anderson assumes the Catholic Church is structured like a modern corporation with the pope as the CEO and the bishops as vice presidents.” Dr. Kennedy notes that bishops are given relative autonomy with regard to their leadership. Yet, I wonder how Anderson feels now that Pope Benedict has abdicated? Does he now want to depose Pope Francis? Oh what an amusing encounter that would be…

On this, Jeff Anderson’s public persona and I agree: the perpetrators of injustice must be brought to the light and held accountable. The difference between us is that I don’t make millions of dollars writing articles like this one. Also, I don’t pretend to be morally incorrupt. Like Pope Francis, Fr. Wehmeyer and (yes) even Anderson and the folks at SNAP, I am a sinner. God will judge me alongside all the rest. Against Anderson and SNAP is a convincing case.  Anderson makes a lot of money doing what he does though he claims to be concerned for the victims. SNAP is not a reputable organization but rather presents a new standard as far as incompetence is concerned. There is reason to suspect the recent push by MPR is driven in whole or in part by Mr. Anderson and his money, since MPR is funded by donations, Anderson has money and his profile notes he likes to be close to the press. This is what I maintain; nothing more, nothing less. May God who is Lord of all, judge each of us, including me, according to his justice.

No comments yet

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.