If you tell the Truth… your house is made of bricks built upon the Solid Rock… he can huff… he can puff… but he won’t blow this house down! Keep that in mind, priests…
I have heard from several correspondents that Bobby K has commenced a campaign of intimidation against the priests who investigated him and is trying to overturn his defrocking.
Before we do anything else, let’s define “defamation”:
Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff’s reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.
Note well stipulation four,”the published information is false”. If you are telling the truth… you have nothing to fear from Kondratick and his pals. I shall return to this, as there is an important caveat to this, but let’s see what’s truthful and what’s not.
Bobby WAS defrocked. Trust me, if this came out as evidence in any court case, any judge, any jury, or any unbiased person, would consider that. It would not go to Bobby’s credit, that’s for certain! The accusations against Bobby were public and well known. They were not secret; indeed, they were a matter of vigorous and thorough open public discussion. The Honesdale loan was no secret, and it was publicised that it was entered into to cover funds that RSK was accused of embezzling.
If RSK had evidence that the priests of the SIC defamed him, he would have filed a complaint in civil court against them. He’s that sort of person. Since no court case was filed, any reasonable person would conclude that there is no solid evidence whatsoever implicating the priests who sat on the SIC. That means that the present intimidation campaign is evil, for it is not based on fact. If you have solid actionable evidence against anyone in the SIC, Bobby, bring it forward. Otherwise, leave them alone.
Priests! If Bobby does file such a suit… let him! Then, you could tell the court about his defrocking and everything that surrounded it… it would be relevant, you see. That’s why I believe that he won’t file such a suit… he knows this as well as I do.
If the priests of the SIC have evidence that the accusations against RSK are true, they should file a complaint against him. Credit card fraud, embezzlement, and destruction of financial records of a non-profit corporation are felonious offences. Ask the Episcopalians… they’ll tell you about a treasurer of theirs in New York State who did hard time in the slam (I believe it was eighteen months worth) for her easy attitude towards church funds.
The venue of the alleged offences was New York State… could that be why Bobby went to Florida? It would require his extradition to face charges in New York State, and he’s counting on people not going through the expense and bother of getting the necessary legal scutwork done so that he can he face charges in New York State. A lawyer friend of mine believes that he’s trying to wait out the statute of limitations (I think it’s seven years, but I stand under correction). In short, it wouldn’t be a stretch to believe that he thinks that he is immune to legal efforts against him because they would prove expensive and time-consuming.
My belief is simple. Priests! Bobby doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you or your families. If he has to kick you or them aside, I believe that he’s the sort who would do just that. If you filed a criminal case against him, he’d sic his attack dogs on you. He’s not a Raymond Velencia, who stupidly sent e-mail concerning the private life of a parishioner to all and sundry (that’s a matter of public record… after all, there’s a court settlement… all sealed and all that, you know). He wouldn’t do it directly. Let’s not forget what Archbishop Job Osacky of Happy Memory said:
The attack by the first person, with the motive of character assassination would begin. And, my sisters and brothers, there would be no opportunity for discussion, for dialogue, or for compromise. This scenario was repeated again and again, and continues today, and has become the basis for promoting personal agendas and lusting after power and authority. Is this noble; is it righteous; is it Christian? Can it ever be justifiable as being “for the good of the Church?” God forbid! And may He help us all, because this is how we’ve been operating in the Holy Synod and Central Church Administration for years, and we are slow to adopt an alternative.
Do you honour Vladyki Job’s memory? Do you honour his project of cleaning out the Augean Stable of the Church? Then, if you have evidence against Bobby… file a criminal complaint. Demand his extradition to face felony charges. First, he’d try to bully you… trust me; he’ll have his minions air every little peccadillo that they can dig up plus one. Stand strong. If you do so, then, he’ll turn to wheedling. “Let this go for the good of the Church. Move on. It’s all in the past. I’ll stop harassing you”. If you believe that, I’ll call you thrice-damned fools in public. Then, he’ll threaten to spill all the beans in open court. Any good lawyer would object to that and any good judge would sustain it. That’s not the problem… the problem is the mischief that could occur outside of the courtroom outside of the control of the judge.
Bobby would NEVER hurt you physically or defame you directly. He’s evil… he’s not stupid. Furthermore, I believe that he had no direct part in the Iliff or Koumentakos affairs… if he had been involved, they would have been handled with much more finesse and control. Oh, I do believe that he was asked for his advice, but that his advice wasn’t taken. Bobby would have never sent an e-mail directly to all members of the Metropolitan Council. That being said, I think that it’s clear to all reasonable people that if anyone filed a criminal complaint against Bobby for his activities as the Chancellor of the OCA, “interesting” things would begin to happen.
I can attest that it’s not pleasant at all when the internet trolls gang up on you. It’s rather nasty and it’s why I shut down the comboxes on this website. Yes, one could delete such rubbish, but it became very dreary, shovelling shit day after day. It wasn’t a large number to be sure, indeed, the ratio of complaints to hits was under 1:300, but it was a constant and bothersome irritant, and I’m glad it’s gone. You see, invasion of privacy is actionable, but if it’s done by anonymous “usernames” rather than by actual people, you have no recourse. Here’s a citation:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 generally immunizes from liability parties that create forums on the Internet in which defamation occurs from liability for statements published by third parties. This has the effect of precluding all liability for statements made by persons on the Internet whose identity cannot be determined.
It’s not fair, but this fallen world operates that way, so get used to it. Are you willing to “swallow a kopeck’s worth”, as St Innokenty put it? You’re going to have to come forward and put your name down on a complaint… put up or shut up. Yes… put your name down, just as I do. I know that signing my real name leaves me open to attack… so be it. That’s the same attitude that the SIC priests have to take. “They’re gonna attack me and they’re not gonna be fair about it. I’ll have no defence. My family will have no defence. But I’m gonna carry on… I won’t let the bastards grind me down. I’m gonna keep right on to the end of the road, come what may”.
THAT’S the way to win against the dragon!
Do you want to be a hero or do you want to be lunch?
It’s your choice…
Sunday 30 May 2010