What part of ‘YES’ does Jeff Anderson not understand?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 13, 2014
CONTACT: Marlene Reid 651-788-9138

What part of “YES” do Attorney Jeff Anderson and his media henchmen not understand?

In reading the deposition Attorney Jeff Anderson conducted with Archbishop Robert Carlson of St. Louis regarding clergy sexual abuse cases while Archbishop Carlson was in the Twin Cities, it is apparent that there is a blatant discrepancy between Carlson’s actual answers to the questions and the results reported in the media,” charges Marlene Reid, board member of the Catholic Defense League.

Reid continues, “The Anderson legal team so distorted and misrepresented Carlson’s answers that they would have the public believe that Archbishop Carlson is naïve and so unaware of the severity of the sexual abuse problem, that he doesn’t even know it is illegal for priests to have sex with children. Archbishop Carlson’s reply of “YES” and “CORRECT” to direct inquiry regarding his understanding of the law was unequivocal. Any middle-school student reading the communication exchange in the deposition would never reach the erroneous conclusion that has been publicized. So, it becomes pretty obvious that the real reason for all this repetitious digging, grand-standing, and attention-seeking is not to get to the truth, but to further smear and discredit the Catholic Church and our priests, unscrupulously using any tactics it takes.”

“It isn’t as though Jeff Anderson hasn’t deposed Archbishop Carlson in the past,” explained Reid. “In fact, this 5/23/14 occasion was one of four. During the May 23rd deposition, Anderson had access to memos written by Carlson as far back as 30 years, and testimony he gave in court in 1990. Carlson was not provided any of these documents for review prior to the deposition, yet he was maligned for not remembering exact details of communications and circumstances of events at that time.”

“Perhaps it is time,” concludes Reid that the ‘tables get turned.’ It would seem that Archbishop Carlson has grounds for a lawsuit since he has been unmercifully and intentionally slandered, and his good reputation has been impugned.”
-30-