You are on page 1of 79

3

1
1 1

INDEX
EXAMINATION BY MR. ANDERSON BEGINNING OF TAPE 2................ BEGINNING OF TAPE 3,,...,,...,..... DEPOSITION EXHTBTT 18,,.,..,....,,.,.....

STTE OF MINNSSOT
COUNTY

IN
SECOND

2 3

DISTRICT COURl

2
3
4

OF

RMSEY

JUDICTL DTSTRICT

.7r
136
15 1

4 5
DOE 1,

5 6 1

6
Plaintiff,

DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 38.,......,..,,. ......L70 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 45...,...,,..,,...,.., 186


DEPOSITTON EXHIBIT

I
9

RCHDIOCESE OF ST. PUI ND MINNEPOLIS, DIOCESE OF WINON

I
9

ANd THOMS DMSON,

99..,,....,,........., 188

10 11 12 13

l0
11
Deposition NIENSTEDT, taken Deposition, Notary State Public of RCHAISHOP to Notice

***

12
JOHN

I4
15

pursuant

of Taking
a

13

and taken

before

Gary W. Helnes,

14

16
11 18 19 20

n and for

Ehe county

of Ramsey,

l5
16 17 18

of Minnesota,

on th

2nd day of ApriI, St, PauI, 9:05

2014, aE 30 East ?th Stleet, Minnesota, orclock a.n.

commencing at approxhately

2I
22 23 24 25

l9
20
FFILITED

21
COURT REPORTERS
8

sT. PUL, N

935 oAD E IGmY

55113 (612)338-4348

22 23 24 25

2
1

4
1

APPEARANCES:
JEFFREY R, ANDERSON, ESQ,, MICHAEL G,

PROCEEDINGS

2 3

2
3

***

FINNEGAN, ESQ,, SARAH ODEGAARD, ESQ,, and ELIN LINDSTROM, ESQ., Attorneys

4
5
6

at Law, 366 Jackson

4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11

Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, appeared for Plaintiff.
DANIEL A. HAWS, ESQ., Attorney at

7 8

I
l0
11

Law, 30 East 7th Street, Suite 3200, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, appeared for Archdiocese of

St. Paul and Minneapolis.


THOMAS B, WIESER, ESQ,, Attorney at

12 13

14
15

l6
17

Law, 22OO Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St, Paul, Minnesota 55101, appeared for Archdiocese of St, Paul and Minneapolis, THOMAS R, BRAUN, ESQ., Attorney at Law, 117 East Center Street, Rochester, Minnesota 55904, appeared for Diocese of
Winona,
JOSEPH F. KUEPPERS, ESQ., Chancellor

12 13

14
15

l6
17

MR, ANDERSON: Okay. Let's start the record for purposes of the deposition, and before we begin the actual deposition of the archbishop, there are a few matters that we need to put on the record, The first pertains to the disclosure or, more accurately, the lack of disclosure as we interpret the order of the court. It was our understanding and belief that Judge Van de North ordered the archdiocese to produce the documents and the files that we requested, at least for purposes of Archbishop Nienstedt's deposition, and we did not receive anything until 5:45 p,m, on Monday, When we did, it was formatted, I think, in disk and --

l8 l9
20
21

l8
19 20
21

MR. FINNEGAN: USB drive.


MR. ANDERSON: -- or a zip drive, and contained in that were some materials, but far from what had been requested, far from what had been required, in our view, It was not only thus incomplete, there were redactions and deletions and omissions that we

22

for Civil Affairs, 101 East 5th Street, Suite 800, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, appeared for Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis,
ALSO PRESENT:

22 23 24 25

23 24

Dean Hibben, videographer


,<**

25 1 of 51 sheets

believe are not in compliance with the order


O4|O8/2OI4 07:53:37 AM

Page 1 to 4 of 2O2

1 2 3 s
6 7

7
1

of the court as we read it and understood it to be. We, then, hustled to try to review what was turned over in preparation for this, and realizing that we had less than what was expected. Yesterday at five p,m., we received a second disclosure with a letter and in it there was a disk in this case with some additional disclosures pertaining to some additional files. We have not had time, nor will we use or attempt to use any of the materials provided at five o'clock last night. There's no way that is feasible or realistic, On quick review of that, however, it may appear that that disclosure continues to be less than complete and not in compliance with the couft order, so it is our position just for this record that the archdiocese is in noncompliance with the orders of the couft as it peftains to the disclosures required to be made for purposes of this deposition. And I think that's all I have to say about that for the moment. MR. HAWS: Well, just to respond, first, we produced all the priest files that
6

2 3

4 5
6 7

I
9

8 9

l0
11

l0
11

12 13 14

12

13 14 15

l5 l6
17

l6
'|7
18

l8
19 20
21

l9
20
21

22 23 24 25

22 23 24 25

deletions and non-productions and I think the order is clear, but it will speak for itself and we'll take it up another day. Just for purposes of mechanics of today, the court has ordered a deposition to be taken for four hours of the archbishop. I will expect there not to be speaking objections. If you have legal objections, I'm sure you'll state them. If there are speaking objections, I will count that time as not against the four hours. So I will have somebody calculating the time for speaking objections. If you choose to make speaking objections, I just want to aleft you to that. If it at any time you choose to take a break, Archbishop, that's fine. THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. MR, ANDERSON: Anything else by way of housekeeping before we proceed? MR, HAWS: (Shakes head). MR, ANDERSON: Okay. Let's begin the deposition. MR, HIBBEN: We are on the record. This is the videotape deposition of Archbishop John Nienstedt taken on April 2nd,2OI4. The
B

existed and we put the redactions in in 2 accordance with what we had stated we would 3 when we were in front of the court the week 4 before, or last week, whenever that was. 5 We also advised you that this process of producing these files was extremely 6 7 cumbersome and time-consuming and that in our 8 letters we provided additional dates for I depositions of the archbishop if you felt you 10 needed it, and no one contacted us to make any 11 such requests. So we believe that we have 12 complied as best as we possibly can. We've l3 explained the difficulties in getting all of 14 this information to you in the time frame that you had requested, and so we're proceeding by 15 l6 providing you with what we could as best we 17 could and in compliance with the court order. l8 We don't agree with your rendition and, 19 obviously, we'll supplement the record and 20 identify for the court whatever we need to 21 should we get to that point. 22 MR. ANDERSON: I don't expect you to 23 agree with our view today. I do believe, 24 however, that you made those same arguments to 25 the court, I think they were rejected as to
O4/O8/2O14 07:53:37 AM Page 5 to

time now is approximately 9:05 a.m. 2 The deposition is being taken in the 3 matter of Doe 1 versus the Archdiocese of 4 Minneapolis and St. Paul, et al., in the state 5 of Minnesota, District Court, County of 6 Ramsey, Second Judicial District, This is 7 case number 62-CV-13-4075. The deposition is I taking place in St. Paul, Minnesota. 9 My name is Dean Hibben. I'm the l0 videographer representi ng Affil iated Video. 11 Will counsel please identify 12 themselves for the record? l3 MR. ANDERSON: For the plaintiff,
'14

15
16

17
18

l9
20
21

22 23 24

25 of 2O2

Jeff Anderson. MR. FINNEGAN: For the plaintiff, Mike Finnegan, MS. ODEGAARD: For the plaintiff, Sarah Odegaard, MS. LINDSTROM: For the plaintiff, Elin Lindstrom. MR. HAWS: Dan Haws for the Archdiocese of St, Paul and Minneapolis. MR. WIESER: Tom Wieser for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. MR. BRAUN: Thomas Braun on behalf
2 of 51 sheets

I
1

11

of the Diocese of Winona.


MR. KUEPPERS: Joseph Kueppers on

rA.
3

I don't believe so.


You've made representations to the parishioners, have you not, through bulletins and otherwise?

2
3

2Q.
4

behalf of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and


Minneapolis, MR, HIBBEN: And would the court

4
5 6 7

reporter please swear in the witness?


ARCHBISHOP JOHN NIENSTEDT,

54. 6Q.
7

Yes,

have,

You have included such representations in

materials demonstrated -- or prepared by the


archdiocese and distributed to parishioners and the public concerning priests in

I I
10
11

called as a witness, being first duly sworn,


was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR, ANDERSON:

I I
l0

ministries who are safe?

12 a.
l3

Archbishop, would you please state your full


name for the record and spell your last?

14
15

A.

John Clayton Nienstedt, Jr.,

N-i-e-n-s-t-e-d-t.
You've given depositions before, so you understand the protocol here today, do you
not?

16 0.
17

11 A. 12 0. 13 A. 14 0. 15 A. 16 a.
17 18

The -- the priests are safe -Yeah.

-- or the environments are safe?


The environments are safe,

Yeah.
Do you continue to claim that the environment

of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis


is safe for the children?

l8

le A. I -- I think so. 20 0. Okay. And it's correct to state that you were
21

r9
21

A.

I do. I

do.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

20 0.
22 23

I'm going to show you what we've marked -the court reporter)
BY MR, ANDERSON:

appointed and eventually installed as Minneapolis in the year 2006?

22 23

coadjutor in the Archdiocese of St, Paul and

24 A. 25 a.
I
2 3

2007. 2007. What would have been the date of the


10

24 0.
25

At any time since your installation, have you


received any information from any source that
12

installation?

causes you to want to change any of the

A.

4
5
6 7

It would have been June 29th, 2OO7. It wasn't an installation per se. It's just when you become a coadjutor, you're just received.
And then you were appointed to be the

2
3

statements you have made about the safety of children in this archdiocese?

44.
5 6 7

o.
A.

archbishop as of what date?

I a.
9

May 2nd, 2OO8. During your tenure as archbishop, it is correct to state that you have made a number
of public statements concerning the fact that

I I
10

Just in the last month, I did discover that there was a priest who had offended who retired, but continued periodically to celebrate mass on weekends, and I was not aware of his presence and I was not aware that
he was publicly in

l0
11

-- the representation that there are have done that, yes.

no

,l'l
14

ministry. And as soon as I realized it, I had his faculties removed.

o.

And who is that?

12

offending priests in ministry, have you not?

13 A. I 14 a. When did you first begin doing that as


15

12 A. I believe it's Father LaVan. 13 0. And any other time, other than in the last
t5 l6
month, that causes you to believe that the statements that you had made earlier about the safety of the children and the absence of offenders in the archdiocese ministry to be
corrected?

archbishop?

16 A. I don't recall. 17 0. How many times would you estimate


l8 l9
20
21

you had

17

represented to the public and to the people that there are no offending priests in

l8

ministry here in the Archdiocese of St. Paul


and Minneapolis?

le A. 20 0.
2t
22 23

Could you restate the question, please? Have you received any other information that tells you that the statements you made about
the safety of the children in the archdiocese were not true? No. That's it, LaVan?
O4108/2014 07:53:37 AM

22
23

A.

I can't recall exactly, but I don't think that


they have been many.
You have made such representations to the

24 0.
25

media, have you not?


Page 9

24 A. 25 a.
to
12

3 of 51 sheets

of 202

13
1

15

2 3

A. a.

Lavan, yes. And that was last month. How did you get that
information?

14.
2

I did, yes. He had been previously appointed


by Archbishop Flynn. And was it his job, at least as you understood it, his appointment to be -- to make sure that
the environment was safe and he was the point guy for handling that?

3Q.
4
5
6

4
5

A. It

O. 7 A, I O. 9 A. 10 O.
6 11

was in the process of doing our file review. Okay. Who was doing that review? Kinsale. Spellthat, K-i-n-s-a-l-e.
And once you received the information from Kinsale or Kinsale concerning LaVan, what

74. 8Q. I
l0
11

That's correct. And that first meeting, then, was with


McDonough and with the chancellors, both Jennifer Haselberber -- no. She wasn't there then?

12

l3
'14

correction, if any, did you make about the statements you had made to the public and the community of faith?

12 A. 13 0. 14 A.
l5 t6

She wasn't there at that time. Who were the chancellors?

15

t6
17 18 19 20
21

A. I don't believe that I did. O. Do you think one is needed? A. He's out of ministry nowr so I don't see the a.
-- the point of -- of making that announcement, no. It had been known by the archdiocese that
LaVan had been accused credibly of abusing at least two girls and that was reflected in the

17 0. 18 A.
t9
20

22
23

21 0. 22 A.
23

24 25

A.

files back over a decade ago, correct? I don't know that for -- for a -- for a fact' no.
14

24 0.
25

Sister Dominica, I can't think of her last name, but Sister Dominica and Mr. Andy Eisenzimmer. And how long was that meeting, sir? I -- to the best of my recollection, it was approximately two hours, I believe. It was a long meeting. And was that at the Chancery in your office? It was at the Chancery in one of our meeting rooms, yes, sir. And in preparation for that meeting, did you order or request that they review any or all
16

rQ.
2 3

When you came on as archbishop, did you ever make any effort, from the time of your

materials held by the archdiocese concerning priests who may have been accused, credibly or
otherwise?

4
5
6

installation and to the discovery of the LaVan material by Kinsale, to see actually that the statements you were making to the public about the safety of the children were true?

44.
5 6

of the meeting, I asked give they knew concerning me all that to them the safe environments of the archdiocese.

I asked -- at the time

7A.. I met with my staff and they affirmed for me the fact that there was no one in ministry who I
9

7Q. I

And did anybody put or record by memo or recording the contents of that meeting?

10 a.
1'.|

had credibly abused any children. When did you first meet with your staff to make such a determination that the environment
was safe?

t0
l3

eA.
0.

I don't believe

so.

So it was all verbal?

12

11 A. It was verbal, yes. 12 0. And at that meeting, were you presented with
any written materials?

13
14

A.

l5
16 17 18

Shortly after my reception into the a rchdiocese as coadjutor' a. What staff did you meet with to determine the safety of the environment and whether or not
there were priests in ministry who had
offended?

14 A. I was not, no. 15 0. Did you know -- you knew there had been a list
l6
17

compiled, under the Charter for the Protection of Children, a list of credibly accused offenders, correct?

l8

1e
20
21

A.

met with my delegate for safe environments and I met with my civil and canonical chancellors.
And so the delegate for safe environments wasf

19
20
21

A.

that. I'm not sure I was aware of that at that time, but I was aware shortly

I was

aware of

22 0.
23

22
23 24

after my arrival. 0, Well, you were bishop of


established in 2002?

New Ulm when the

then, Kevin McDonough?


He was. Appointed by you to be just that title, right?
Page 13

Chaer for Protection of Children was

24 A. 25 0.

25

A.

Correct.
4 of 51 sheets

O4/O8l2OI4 07:53:37 AM

lo 16 of 2O2

17

19

rQ.
2

And you attended those meetings where promises

rA.
2Q. 34. 4Q.
5

P-O-M-E-S,
Okay.

I believe.
yeah, P-O-M-S.

were made to the public --

34. 4Q.
5

Correqt.

P-O-M-S,
correct?

I believe,

-- across this nation that we're going to have


a zero tolerance policy, correct?

And you said that was a monitoring program,

64. 7Q.
8

Correct.
And you were a part of -- one of the bishops

r0
12 13 14

that made such a representation to the people in the U.S. about zero tolerance, correct? A. Correct.
So you knew at that time the bishops then commissioned John Jay to do a study to

r0
'11

64. 7Q. I I
A.

Correct.
And did you ask him the names of the priests

that were being monitored under the

POMS

program as McDonough recited this to you?

I -- I had asked for the meeting and he was


chairing the meeting and he began to tell me the people -- the -- the individuals who were under the -- the POMS program.
Who were those individuals?

11 a.

12

determine, based on nformation given them, various lists of credibly accused offenders?

l3

14 0.

15
l6
17

A.

I don't recall exactly when that list was asked for. My recollection was it was in 2004, but I'm not -- I'm not sure about that.
That sounds correct?

r5

A.

I can't recall all the names right now.

18 0, 19 A. 20 a.
21

16 0. Why didn't you write it down? 17 A. It didn't occur to me at the time to do so. 18 a. At the time, didn't it seem like one of the
t9
most important things you needed to do as
archbishop, knowing the crisis in America of Catholic clergy abusing kids, to know who in
20
21

(Nods head). In any case, you knew in


2OO4

or thereabouts

that the bishops had compiled lists of


offenders, credibly accused?

22

22

this archdiocese had been accused and who are currently being monitored?

23 24
25

A.

I did, yes.
Did you ask that such a list for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis be
18

23

0.

24
25

A.

Well,

I had asked for the meetng


20

precisely so

that I would know what the situation was and that I could assure myself and assure my publics (sic) that the environments were safe.
But, Archbishop, you can't remember who that
was that you were told today?

presented to you at this first meeting concerning safe environment in this archdiocese?

2 3

3Q.
4

44. I did not. 5Q. Why not? 64. It ddn't occur to me, 7Q. So, tell me, then, who conducted the meeting? 84. Father McDonough conducted the meeting. eQ. And tell us what Father McDonough told you,
10
11

54.
6 7
8

There were several names that were given to me and I was assured that their stuatons were being monitored and that they were not likely to re-offend and that was the primary purpose of the meetng.

Archbishop, responsive to your request about the safe or lack of safe environment in the
Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis and

10 0. And you say "several names." How many? 11 A. I don't recall exactly. There were -- there
12

12

were several.
Well, what does "several" mean? Is that more

t3
14

what priests had been accused and what priests were or were not in ministry.

13 0,
14

than ten or less than ten?


MR, HAWS: Well, objection. You

15
16 17 18

A.

l9
20

Well, he described for me the that we have, which s our montoring system for priests who have abused, and explained to me how that worked and explained the situation of what those prests -- that those priests were not engaged in ministry and -Okay. I'm going to stop you there. I'm sorry
to interrupt you, but you said the POMS
program?

POMS program

t5 l6
17

don't have to guess, Archbishop. If you know, you can answer it, if you don't -A.

18
19

I -- I -- I really don't know.


BY MR. ANDERSON: How many -- how were you told these priests

20 0.
21

21
22
23

0.

were being monitored?

22 A. I don't understand the queston. 23 0. What were you told about how these priests who
24 25
Page 17

24 A. 25 0.

Yes, POMS is -Spell that for us.

had been accused were actually being monitored


so that they would not offend or re-offend? 04/08/2014 07:53:37 AM

5 of 51 sheets

to 20 of 2O2

21
1

23

A.

2
3

4
5 6
7

Well, I was told that we have a promoter of these safe environments who meets regularly with the individuals. I was told that they were undergoing regular therapy, that they were in spiritual direction and that they had to sign a contract to the effect of how they would be monitored.

1Q. 2A..
3

What disclosures did he make?

4
5

-- he did not -- as I recall, he did not tell me exactly who he made the disclosures to, but, generally speaking, they were people in the parish that he served.
He Well, didn't you ask? Didn't you say, "Father McDonough, we have a number of priests who

6Q.
7
8

I A. Who was the promoter of safe environment? I A. Right now it's John Selvig. 10 a. Who was it then? A. I can't recall the name. 11
12

you" -- and that number you can't remember today, "who are are under monitoring, who we know have offended in the past," didn't you 9o
back and say, "Tell me exactly what you're

I
l0
11

l3
14 15 16 17

MR, HAWS: When You saY "then," you're referring to the time of the meeting?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.

12 13

going to do and when you're gong to do it to make the public know"?

14
l5
16 17

A.

I asked for that meeting

so that

I would

A. I can't O,

recall his name.

BY MR. ANDERSON: And when you say that they were to sign an agreement, would that be an agreement not to re-offend?

l8
19 20

l8
20
21

le
22
23

A. It was a -- it was a signed statement


indicating what we expected of them. I don't believe that it said in those categories' although it was understood that they weren't to offend again.

understand more clearly how the environments that we have in our parishes and our schools would be safe for children and that's our primary objective. o. Archbishop, isn't it correct that you really didn't want the public and the people to know
who was being monitored at that time? MR. HAWS: Well, that's objection,

2t
22
23

that's argumentative, counsel.


BY MR, ANDERSON:

24 25

24

O.

And did you have any personal knowledge or


22

25 a,
1

You can answer the question, 24

2 3

experience with offenders, clergy or nonclergy, who are accused and who have offended,

2 3

A. I don't believe that's true, no. a. well, then, can you tell me exactly what
offenders that had been monitored or under monitoring were, then, actually disclosed to

4
5 6

that there's a high recidivsm rate and when they do re-offend, they often lie and deny
about it so that you can't rely upon them?
Were you aware of that?

4
5 6 7

7A.. I believe I was, yes.

A. O.

the public as a result of that meeting? I can't answer that, no.


Can you tell me when any of those offenders

sQ.
I
l0

Well, then, what made you think, then, if you did, that simply monitoring them and asking if

I
9 10
11

who were disclosed to you at that meeting were ever disclosed to the public?

11
12 13

A.

they're re-offending would work? I asked Father McDonough at that meeting to

A. I -- I know that

14 15

tell me what we were doing n terms of making sure that these men were being monitored and that they had a program that we were holding them to.
Did you, as a result of that meeting, disclose

12
'13

14

O.

16 0.
17 18

l5 l6
'17

they have been. I can't tell you the exact dates or the tmes that they have been disclosed, but they have been disclosed. Can you tell me the name of any offender or the time in which it was done when the
archdiocese, under your direction, either Kevin McDonough or anybody else, made an actual disclosure and it wasn't made by somebody, some third party --

l9
20

to anybody in the public or any of the parishioners any of the names that you were given by your team about those priests who
were being monitored and who had offended?

l8
19 20

21 A. I did not personally, no. 22 0. Did anybody under your direction,


23

2t

working with

22 23

A. well, yes. a. -- such as media or ourselves? A. This past October, I believe, we made our
first disclosures.

and under or for you in the archdiocese?

24

A.

believe

was told that Father McDonough those disclosures.


Page

24
25

O.

So is it correct to say, then, that from your

25 carried out 04/08/2014 07:53:37 AM

first meeting, staff meeting shortly after


6 of 51 sheets

2I to 24 of 202

25
1

27

2
3

your installation that you described, between that and October 13th of this last year -October of this last year, you can't identify

4
5 6

today any disclosures made of any of these accused offenders who were being monitored to

I serving? MR. ANDERSON: I'm sPeaking the 2 priests that are being monitored. 3 4 A. well-5 6 7

MR. HAWS: Other than those who are

A.

the public? well, in that -MR. HAWS: Objection, that misstates

serving?
MR. ANDERSON: The question stands.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

I
9

testimony.

I eQ.
10

You identified a number of priests who are being monitored, right?

l0
11

A. In that meeting that I had, Father McDonough


told me how we approach the situation and what kind of disclosures he made. He didn't tell me exactly which disclosures and what day the disclosures were made on a particular individual.

12

11 A. 12 a.
l3

Correct. Correct.
They are all priests who are in ministry, correct?

t3
14
15

14 15 0.
A.
16

No. They were out -- out of ministry.


They're out of ministry, they're still
priests?

t6
17 18

O.

BY MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'm asking you what disclosures were made to the public. I appreciate you have

17

A.

l8
1e
20

0.
A.

Correct. They're still active as priests?

19 20
21

this information in your inner circle of the


chancellors and the delegate, Father McDonough -- who I think was then vicar

No. They wouldn't be if they were out of ministry, they wouldn't be active as priests.
And so they were in various capacities in the

21
22 23

0,

22 23 24 25

general, wasn't he also?

community, right, but not in ministry, is that what you're saying?

A. A.

Not -- at the time

I was coadiutor,

yes.

Yeah. And, in any case, we'll call them your inner circle, but beyond your inner circle,
26

24
25

A.

I don't understand what


"capacities."

you mean

bY

28
1

2 3

I'm asking you to tell me, if you can, if there were any disclosures made of any of
these offenders identified to you who were under monitoring to the public until October of 2013?

O.

well, they were -(Discussion out of the hearing of

the court reporter)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

4
5

4
5
6 7

O.

64.
7

I I 10 0.
11

Father McDonough informed me that as part of our procedures, we would disclose to ceain people in parishes where -- where priests had
served.
And how was it determined who would be told in

Are you saying, then, Archbishop, that the monitoring program only covered priests that

were not in parishes?

I A. 9 O.
l0
11

No. I'm not saying that. Okay. Let's break it down then. How many of
those priests that you were told were under monitoring were actually in parishes then?

those parishes?

12
13

A.

recollect now, it was pastor and the trustees of the parish' the
My recollection is, as What about the parishioners and the public, didn't they have a right to know who was being monitored and who had been accused?

12 13 14 15

A.

Well, you have to understand that the

14 a.
15

16

t6
17 18

17
18

A.

I -- I find it difficult to answer that


question.
Don't you think they have a right to know who has abused children and who's being monitored in addition to the pastor and the trustees so they can protect their kids and know who might
pose a risk of harm to their children?
MR. HAWS: Are you speaking of

1e o.
20
2',1

t9
20
21

monitoring system' the POMS program, included priests who had abused children and -- and priests who had other behavioral difficulties. For example, if they had been arrested for a DW -- a drunk while -- driving while -- while drunk or other kinds of abnormal, I would say' behaviors, so that was all put together. It wasn't just those who had abused children.

O.

How many, then, that were accused of having abused children were disclosed to you that

22 23 24
25

22
23

were under monitoring?

24 25
Page 25

priests that are still in the ministry or

A. I don't recall that number. O. And how many of that number were still in
O4/0812Ot4 07:53:37 AM

7 of 51 sheets

to 28 of 202

29
1

31

ministry?

2 3

A. a. A. O.

My recollection is that only the one that cited before was in ministry and he was
And is that Ken LaVan? Yes.
And that was

14. 2Q. 34.


4
5 6

Well, we --

4
5 6

retired. The others were out of ministry.

-- and when was the first public

-- in terms of public disclosure? We made sure that if there was an incident that happened, that the trustees of the parish would be -- be informed of that. And then, of course, last October we made a full disclosure.

I
9

disclosure of Ken LaVan having been accused as an offender and that he had been under monitoring?

10
11

12
13

A. I don't recall that. Sorry. O. Isn't it reasonable, Archbishop, that if you


as the archbishop and your team saw fit to put

8Q. Are you sure it wasn't December that you made I that disclosure? 10 A. I don't recall an exact date. 11 a. When you say "a full disclosure," what do you
12

mean by that then?

13
15

A.

14

l5 l6
17 18

them under monitoring as you've described in this program, isn't it reasonable that the
public and the parishioners in the community of faith be advised that there is a reason to put a priest under monitoring and that you
have this program so that they can know there is an issue? MR, HAWS: Objection, calls for a

,14 a.
t6
17 18 19 20
21

Of the 43 persons that we put on our website Archbishop, you have resisted very vigorously
through your counsel and publicly the dissemination of the list of accused offenders and credibly accused offenders, have you not?
MR, HAWS: Objection, it's again
a

l9
20
21

legal conclusion. You can answer to the

extent you know, Archbishop.


BY MR, ANDERSON:

22 23 24 25

legal conclusion. Go ahead if you can answer.

A,

Could you rephrase the question for me, please?


BY MR. ANDERSON:
30

22 0. 23 A. 24 0.
25

That is, to the public,

Could you repeat the question? I'm sorry. You have continuously, until ordered by the court, resisted making a public disclosure of
32

O.

2 3

Why didn't you tell the people that you had number of priests under monitoring?

the names of the credibly accused offenders on the list compiled by the archdiocese, have you
not? MR. HAWS: Objection, that misstates

A. I believe that we felt that we could monitor


the situation without making a total disclosure to the people.

4
5
6

4
5

the facts and the evidence,

O. You still feel that way? 7 A. No. r do not. I A. What made you realize that that was a bad
o

64.
7

My understanding is that we voluntarily disclosed those names, the first names on the John Jay list, we voluntarily went to the court, asking them to unseal those names because there had been such a notoriety' I would say, about that lst of John Jay' and as

I
9 10
11

decision? MR, HAWS: Well, objection, that's

10
11

argumentative,
BY MR. ANDERSON:

12

12 13 14 15

we discovered and as we've met -- made public


since then, that there were names on that John Jay list that should not have been there, who had not abused children.
BY MR. ANDERSON: Archbishop, you're aware that it was our office that has persisted in trying to get those lists disclosed by you and your office for years, including the John Doe 76C case, correct, you're aware of that?

l3
14

a.

What made you realize it was a bad choice?


MR, HAWS: Same objection,

l5
t6
17

argumentative.

A.

I think over my tenure

l8
19

as being archbishop, into how we should had new insights have proceed with these -- these situations.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

16

17 0.
l8
19 20
21

20 0. And so when did you realize that? 21 A. I don't -- I can't give you an exact date, but
22
23

it's been probably over the last two years I've come to appreciate that.
So in the last two years, once having realized

22 A. I'm aware of that, yes. 23 0, And you're also aware, are you not, that you
24
25

24 0.

released that list only after we brought

25 it, what did you do about it to correct O4/08/2OI4 07:53:37 AM

it -Page 29

another motion before Judge Van de North and

to 32 of 2oz

of 51 sheets

33
1

35
1

it was very evident and imminent that it was going to be required, correct?
MR, HAWS: Objection, misstates

see any reason to disclose. After that first meeting you've described in which you were informed that priests were
placed on monitoring and no memo was made of that or notes taken by you and/or recording made of that meeting, why not? Why not? Why

2Q.
3

4
5
6

facts in evidence. Go ahead.

4
5 6 7
8

A.

I don't -- I -- I don't recall that, no.


BY MR. ANDERSON:
So you're saying to us today under oath that

7Q.
8

10 A. 11 0. 12 A. 13 0. 14 A.
15
16 17

you made the conscious choice to voluntarily release that list -We did, yes.

not record that? Why not put it in a memo? Why not get that list at that time? MR. HAWS: Objection. Can You break

l0
11

it down and ask a question instead of


BY MR, ANDERSON:

six?

-- when you did?


Yes. And you made that choice for what reason?

12 a.
13 14

Why not make a recording of the whole thing? Ddn't it seem important enough to get down,

18 a. 19 A.
20
21

22 a. 23 A. 24 0. No influence, huh? 25 A. I wouldn't say that, no.

Well, in a -- in an attempt to be transparent with our publics, with the Catholics in the pew, because the media had made such a big deal out of the John Jay list. It was public pressure, wasn't it? I -- I wouldn't say so. I think it was conversion on my pa to see that this was something we should do. Was it legal pressure by us? No, sir.

to get recorded, to get done?

15
16 17

A.

It

l8
20
21

le
22 23

was important to me. I asked for the meetng with Father McDonough so that I could have an idea of where we were n terms of our safe environments.
Were you concerned, Archbishop, that we

o.

shouldn't make some recording of this meeting about these decisions to keep this secret or

not because, if you did, it might be subject to some discovery by us or others who were in litigation with you and the archdiocese? No. That didn't occur to me at the time.
36

24

25
34
1

A.

rQ.
2A.. 3Q.
4
5
6

Yeah.

(Discussion out of the hearing of

There were multiple sources. Okay, If it wasn't us and it wasn't the media
putting on pressure, you say you had conversion. What gave you this conversion, then, if it wasn't public pressure by us or the media? Discussion with my team, who it would be my communications director, my chancellor for

2
3

the court reporter)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

4Q.
5 6
7

Did it ever occur to you at any time or were you told that some of these things, conversations shouldn't be put in writing
because they could be discovered by us in

84.
9

eA.

litigation and known to the public? believe that Father McDonough once said that

10
11

12

13
14

civil affairs, my chancellor for canonical affairs, my auxiliary bishops, my moderator of the curia. 0. And who urged you to keep it quiet on that
team up until that time? MR, HAWS: Object to the form.

l0
11

to me, but it was outside of that context, can't recall exactly the date.

12 0. How long ago? 13 A. I can't -- I can't -- I don't have anY


'14

recollection of that.

l5

16
17

A.

I can't

recall anyone specifically doing that.

18 0.
l9
20
21

BY MR. ANDERSON: Before you actually had this conversion after meetng with the team that you described, had any urged you to make it public so that the public could know who's on it?

15 a. What were you discussing? 16 A. I don't recall. 17 a. Who were you discussing? 18 A. That I don't recall, either. 1e a. Anybody else give you that guidance? 20 A. No, sir. 21 0. Anybody else present at the McDonough
22

meeting

22 A. I don't recall. 23 0. From 2008 until 2013,


24

when he said that to you?

you made the choice to keep that list secret, did you not?

23
24
25

A.

It wasn't at that meeting. I did not want to imply that. I don't recall the circumstances
in which he had said that.
O4/O812014 07:53:37 AM

25

A.

It

already had been kept secret and

I didn't
Page 33

9 of 51 sheets

to 36 of 202

37
1

39
1

o. Yeah, I'm just talking


A.

2 3

about when McDonough you else present? was anybody told that, I don't believe so, no.
You must have been discussing something very sensitive at that time, but you just don't recall today what it was and who may have been involved?

it pertained to sexual abuse of minors by


priests?

34.
4Q.
5 6 7

do not.

4
5
6 7

o. Okay.

Do you have the names of any of the priests in

mind that you're thinking today, I do remember discussing X priest and making the conscious decision that we can't put that in writing because if we do, Anderson and his team will discover it, it could be public?
MR, HAWS: Well, first, that assumes

I I
l0
11

A.

I don't, sir, I'm sorry.


(Discussion out of the hearing of

I I
10
11

the court reporter)


BY MR, ANDERSON:

12 13

o,
A.

You followed his advice, didn't you?

12 13 '14 15

In terms of?
Not putting certain things into writing. Yes. How many different times do you think you chose not to put certain things into writing concerning scandalous material such as sexual abuse by (sic) minors?

facts not in evidence, I don't think he's ever testified to that, Archbishop, don't guess or don't just assume that that's what
happened just because the question is asked

14 15
16 17

o,
A.

that way. A.

o,

16
17

I would

be guessing.

l8 l9
20
21

18 a.
19 20
a 21

BY MR. ANDERSON: Okay, So my question to you is, do you have

A.

have been very many. o. Well, "very many," Does that mean more than
dozen or less?

It wouldn't

any memory of the contents of any conversation concerning any offender today that falls into

that category of no notes or records made?

22 23 24 25

A.

o.

My understanding today is that would -- would have been less. Okay. Tell me the times that you remember
38

22 A. I do not, no. 23 a. Okay, Did you instruct anyone else to not


24

document conversations such as that --

25
1

A.

I don't -40

having conversations where you made the conscious choice not to put it into writing
because you were concerned, as McDonough had advised you, that it may be subject to discovery in litigation and you didn't want it

2 3

2
3

A. -- for the same reasons at any time? A. I don't believe I did, no. O, Okay, So that would be just you and McDonough
that that particular practice would apply to,
correct?
MR. HAWS: Objection, that's not

4
5 6

4
5 6 7

7A..

to be recorded, I can't recall the number of times, I'm sorry.


Tell me the contents of any of those conversations and with whom they were had. be speculating.
And because it was not recorded on any journal, any diary or the contents of any of

sQ.
I 10
11

I
9

what he stated that it was a practice, as you've implied, counsel, Don't misstate the
record,
MR. ANDERSON: Give me a legal

A. Again, I -- I would just be guessing, I would

l0
11

12 a.
l3
14

12

l3
14

objection, not a speaking -MR, HAWS: The objection is don't put facts into the record that are not

t5 l6
17

those discussions, there would be no way to test or determine today how many times you actually did have such a conversation,
correct?

accurate, You are doing that,


MR, ANDERSON: Take it off the time,

l5 l6
17

Give me a legal objection. What's the legal objection?


MR. HAWS: You're misstating facts and absolutely trying to change and taint your

r8

A.

That is -- that is correct.


Do you keep a journal?

1e o. 20 A. I do not. 21 a. Do you have any memory today of having


22 23 24 25

l8 l9
20

record for your media and that's not what is

any of

21

those meetings or the contents of any of those meetings where you made the conscious choice
not to record it because it could be discovered or discoverable in litigation and

22 23 24
25

appropriate, counsel, and you know it, MR, ANDERSON: That is not a legal
objection.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

A.

Archbishop, the question is, anybody else


10 of 51 sheets

04/08/2OL4 07:53:37 AM

Page 37 o 4O of 2O2

41
1

43
1

besides yourself and Father McDonough made a

2 3

pafty to such a practice of not recording


sensitive meetings such as that?

2
3

A. A. O.

had been dropped before he left the Gountry. Did you not know that until you reviewed the
summary?

44.
5
6

Not to my knowledge. MR. HAWS: Same objections' (Discussion out of the hearing of the cou reporter)
BY MR. ANDERSON:

4
5 6

That -- that happened before archbishop.

I became

Had Montero ever been on your radar as a

priest who had been accused of offending and

sQ.
10

Archbishop, did you review any materials in preparation for your deposition today?

11 A. r dd. 12 a. What? 13 A. I reviewed


14

had left the country and the archdiocese? I I A. Yes, I was aware of that. t0 O. How did you become aware of that? A. I believe at the time that -- at the time that 11
12 13 14 15

l5
16

the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. I reviewed a summary of the Adamson case. And I reviewed the case of Father Montero.
Anything else?

he had left and a letter was sent from Bishop Pates to the bishop in Mexico, explaining to him the situation that we had experienced here.

l6
17

O.

Did you, yourself, ever request or demand that

17 0.

l8
20
21

A.

No, sir.

l8
19

any of your subordinates and those in the inner circle, the chancellors or the vicar generals or auxiliary bishops, ever retrieve any files of those who had been accused so that you could make an independent decsion to review those files YourselP

1e o. 22
23

Okay, When you're saying you reviewed a summary of the Adamson case, what was that that you looked at?

20
21

A.

It -- t was a summary of his particular file


that we had.
Prepared by whom?

22 23 24 25

24 0. 25 A.

A. O.

Could you repeat the question? Had you ever reviewed any of the files, except for what you just described involving Adamson
44

By Mr. Kueppers.
42

rQ.
2

And when was it prepared and was it for your review in this deposition?

2
3

34.
4Q. 54.
6

7Q. 84.

I beg your pardon? When was it prepared? I believe it was in the last two to three weeks. And for this deposition to helP You?
Yes. And was the same kind of thing prepared for Montero, that you reviewed?

and Montero prepared for you, have you, yourself, ever reviewed any of the priest files personally so that you could be satisfied that you were making the right
decisions concerning that Priest?

4 5
6

A.

Well -MR. HAWS: Object to the form, it's

eQ.
l0

I I A,
l0
11

compound and --

We've had in -- since December a complete review of the files by an outside company called Kinsale.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

11 A. No. It wasn't as extensive. 12 0. But was that also prepared by Mr. Kueppers
13

for

12 13

you in preparation for this deposition?

O. A. A.

14 A. 15 a.

Correct.
Anything else that you reviewed?

14
15 16 17 18 19

t6
17

A.

No,

sir. I did review the

names of the 43

l8
21

19 20 0.
22 23 24

priests that are on our website. 0. That's it in terms of review? A. orrect.


Did you learn anything in your review of the

Okay, That's something you delegated, though, isn't it, to somebodY else? Something that we hired a group, outside company for, yes' Now, I'm asking you personally' Have you ever
said, "I want to review the file of Father X," and have that file produced to you in its

20
21

Montero summary prepared for you in this deposition -- in preparation for this deposition that you had not known before about Montero and his historY?

entirety so you could make a fully informed decision about what to do or not to do? Have
you personally ever done that?

22

23 24

A. I don't recall that I have. O. And until recently, you had delegated that
O4108/2OL4 07:53:37 AM

25

A.

I dd, I learned that the charges against him

11 of 51 sheets

responsibility, then, to whom? 25 Page 41 to 44 of 2o2

45

47
1

14. To the delegate for safe environments. 2Q. And that would have been McDonough? 34. It was Father McDonough until about a year ago
4
5

now look back upon as deficient in the protection of children?


MR. HAWS: Object to the form'

when Father Dan Griffith, another priest of the archdiocese, took that position over.
And did you make the decision to remove McDonough because of disclosures about how he had handled this publicly and there was both

4
6 6 7 8

A. O.

Could you rephrase that question, please?


BY MR. ANDERSON:

6Q.
7 8

Any other actions taken by Kevin McDonough as your delegate for safe environment or as vicar
general that you look back on now and say, "He

I 10
11

criticism and scrutinY of that?

I
10
11

blew it when it comes to protection of the children and the recommendation he made to
me"?
MR. HAWS: Object to the form, it's

A.

12 13

No. I realized that he had multiPle responsibilities, he'd been in the job lor L7 years and I felt it was time that we needed a change. Excuse me.
Have you at any time warned, penalized or

12

t3
14
15 16 17 18 19

14 0.
l5
16

A. O.

argumentative. Go ahead. I don't believe so, no.


BY MR. ANDERSON: So you think he did a good job about that,

reprimanded McDonough for the way he handled his job as the delegate for safe environment under your charge?

17

huh?

18

A.

I don't believe so, sir.


Do you fault him for any of the decisions he

1s
20

o.
A.

made or recommendations to You now?

20
21

A. I believe he did. O, Do you think you're doing a good job? A. I believe I am, yes.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

21
22 23 24 25

I've always believed that the -- the best intentions. He ceainly shared with me the priority we had of

Father McDonough had

22 23 24
25

the court repoer)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

maintaining safe environments in our parishes, our schools and our other programs.
46 My question goes to actions, not intentions. Have you ever reprimanded or criticized or

O.

Have you, yourself, when you reflect on what has happened to date and all that has been 48 revealed to you to this date and time, have you, yourself, made any mistakes in failing to protect children and provide the safe

1Q.
2 3

,l

2 3

4
5

faulted him for any of his actions taken concerning any of these priests who have offended and have been accused of offending? I don't recall having done so.
As you reflect today and look back at the

4
5

environment to this community that you promised when you took the job?

64. 7Q.
8 9

64.
7
8

The only mistakes that

history now before you, do you fault him for any of the decisions that he made as your delegate and/or as vicar general in this archdiocese concerning the safety of children?

I
l0

know for sure I made was not removing the faculties from Father Lavan, but I didn't know that that was happening at the time. Once I learned it, I

t0
11

-- I acted,
Any others? Is that it? Father Lavan, then, for a moment, You continued to maintain publicly Protection of Children adopted in 2002 to believe that this archdiocese has a zero

11 0.

12
l3
14

A.

The only thing that comes

fact that

l5
16 17

l8 t9
20
21

to my mind is the learned subsequent to -subsequent to the -- the fact that when Father Wehmeyer was arrested for drunk driving' that that was not shared with the trustees and I -there was some reason that he had for not doing that, I disagreed with him in that decision. That's the only one I can think of.

,12 A. That's it. 13 a. Let's talk about


14 15

and as a part of the Charter for the

l6
'17

l8 l9

tolerance policy when it comes to sexual


abuse, is that correct?

(Discussion out of the hearing of

20
21

A.

We have tried to maintain that as our

the court reporter)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

standard, yes'
And you say you have tried to maintain that as

22

22 0.
23 24

23 0.
24 25

Any other decisions concerning sexual abuse of


mnors and Father McDonough's actions

your standard. Have you maintained that as your standard?

peftain ing to that that you either fault or

25

A.

I believe

we have.

I think the record shows


12 of 51 sheets

04/Oe/20L4 07: 53: 37 AM

Page 45 to 48 of 2O2

49
1

51

2 3

4
5 6 7

that in the last 20 years, we have had two incidents; now, those are two too many, but two incidents in which a child had been abused by priests who were in ministry at the time.

1Q.
2

Do you have any information that the police

investigation had not been completed?

34.
4Q.
5
6 7

No,

I don't.

Are you aware that as soon as Montero was allowed to leave the archdiocese and return to his home diocese in Ecuador, he was placed in active ministry?

a.
A.

And what two priests are you referring to,


Archbishop?

Father Francis Montero and Father Wehmeyer.


And how was, then, the zero tolerance policy as represented to the people violated as it pertains to Father Freddy Montero?
MR. HAWS: Well, objection, that

I a. I
l0
11

84. I
l0

We removed his faculties when the accusation arose. We never gave him back faculties and he returned home to his own home diocese.
And did you tell the bishop of his home diocese that his faculties had been removed because an accusation of child sexual abuse

11 a.
12

12 13

misstates facts, He didn't say that it was.


BY MR, ANDERSON:

l3
14

14 a.

Didn't you say that it was?

had been made against him?

r5
17

A.

Did

I say what?

15
16

A. Yes,

16 0.

Didn't you say that the zero tolerance policy was not adhered to when it came to Montero?

I believe Bishop Pates was the one that wrote to the bishop about that.

r8
19

A.

20
21

No. I didn't say that. We -- we immediately removed him from ministry and turned the case over to the police, so I believe that we maintained the zero policy that we had.
Did you ever review the Montero file itselP

17 a. 18 A.
l9

And what bishop did Bishop Pates write to? To the bishop of the diocese,

20
21

I can't recall the -- the exact diocese in Ecuador. 0. And were you aware that Father Montero was
immediately returned to active ministry in
Ecuador?

22 0. 23 A. 24 a.
25

22

No.
Were you aware that Montero was living with

23
24

A.

I would only be speculating to say that I did. I -- I don't know for sure.
I called Father Montero shortly after we
52

Father Kevin McDonough?


50

25 0.
1

14. I believe I did know that. 2Q. Were you aware that Father McDonough
3

learned and brought suit concerning that case

had some

2 3

4
5

responsibilities for supervision over him because Montero was an extern priest from
Ecuador?

that he was in Ecuador and talked with him and he was, then, in active ministry; and did you know that we had a conversation with him?

64.
7

Well, my understanding was that he -- he lived in the rectory at St. Peter Claver.
And that's where Father McDonough was assigned as pastor?

54. 6Q.
7
8

I did not.
Did you see anything in the Montero file that you reviewed that we had had such a conversation?

r0
12

8Q. I
A.

eA.
10
11

Correct.
And he was assigned there so McDonough could keep an eye on him; were you aware of that?

I did not specifically review the Montero file. I had a summary from my civil
chancellor.
Father Montero did not indicate that any restrictions on his faculties had been placed and he was in active ministry. Does that concern you that he's now in Ecuador in active ministry?

11 a.

'12 0.
13 14

13 A. I was not aware of that. 14 a. Were you aware that Montero -15 A. That was before my time. 16 a. Were you aware that Montero was allowed to
17

l5 l6

leave this archdiocese and return to Ecuador

17
l8
19

A.

l8
19 20
21

before the police could complete an adequate investigation?


MR, HAWS: Objection, it misstates

204
2',1

believe that's why Bishop Pates wrote the letter to the bishop, we were concerned about that. But I'm talking about today, about the kids in Well,
Ecuador. Having reviewed what Mr. Kueppers
gave you in preparation for this deposition and having reviewed that, are you now
concerned that maybe something more should be done about Montero being in Ecuador, given the
04/08/2014 07:53:37 AM

the facts and the evidence.

22
23 24 25

A.

My understanding of the facts is that he

--

22
23

the -- the -- the charges aganst him were dropped before he left the country.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Page 49

24
25

13 of 51 sheets

to 52 of 202

53
1

55
1

benefit of what you now know that you didn't


before? MR. HAWS: Objection, it's

2 3

2 3

demoted or taken any disciplinary action against any priest or official of the
archdiocese for their mishandling of child

argumentative. Go ahead.

sexual abuse allegations?

54.
6

I would agree to that,


BY MR. ANDERSON:

Yes.

7Q. I
9

Maybe we should do something about was able to call him and talk to

that. I

54. I don't believe sor no. 6Q. Do you believe you should have? 7A.. No.
8

him. Maybe

(Discussion out of the hearing of

l0
11

this would be a great opportunity for you to directly contact the bishop of Ecuador and
say, "Bishop, we do have concerns based on what Mr. Kueppers has told me and the information we have about the safety of the children in Ecuador, about Freddie Montero."
Maybe you should give him a full disclosure of

I
l0

the court reporter)


BY MR. ANDERSON: Do you believe there are any priests in the

11 0.
12

'|2
13 14

archdiocese or oflicials in the archdiocese

t3
14 15

that have mishandled childhood sexual abuse?


MR. HAWS: At what Point in time? BY MR, ANDERSON:

l5 l6
17

what you know here and about what happened. Do you think that's a good idea?
MR. HAWS: Objection, that has

t8
19

16 0. 17 A. 18 0.
19

Allegations since your installation'

No. I don't believe so.


Father Michael Stevens, what do you know about
him? he pled
a

nothing to do with this case, counsel. It's

20
2',1

argumentative, it's a speech, it's compound, asks dozens of questions within it, it assumes
facts not in evidence, it's your facts, Ask question and he can answer.
MR. ANDERSON: SPeaking objections
a

20 A. I don't. 21 a. Are you aware that in mid-1980s,


22

22 23 24 25

guilty to criminal sexual conduct with


minor?

23

MR. HAWS: Ask a good -54

24 A. I'm not, no. 25 0. Are you aware that in 2002, he was publicly -56
1

BY MR. ANDERSON:

excuse me, he was removed from ministry?

a.

Are you willing -MR. HAWS: -- question that's one question,


BY MR. ANDERSON:

2A. I'm not aware of that. 3Q. At any time, are you aware that the
4
5
6

4
5
6 7

parishioners or the public were ever informed that Father Michael Stevens posed a risk of harm to the children in the archdiocese?

O.

Are you willing to do that, Archbishop? MR. HAWS: Willing to do what?


BY MR. ANDERSON:

I I O. l0 A. 11 O. 12 A.
13

74. 8Q.
o

That was all before my time. Are you aware that Father Michael Stevens is
in monitoring?

Contact the bishoP in Ecuador --

As

r indicated --

14

l5 t6
17 18

A.

-- about Freddie Montero. As I indicated before, he's already been contacted, yes. That happened before I became archbishop. I would be willing to contact him again and to share my concerns with him, yes. I would appreciate that. I think it's very
important that you do

l0 A. 11 0.
12

Excuse me?
Are you aware that Father Michael Stevens is on monitoring now?

13
15 16 17

A.

In the

POMS program' yes.

,14 0.

And the only ones that know that are now us and those in your inner circle, correct? MR. HAWS: Object to the

form. I

that. Thank you.

don't know if "inner circle" -BY MR, ANDERSON:

A. l9 O.
20
21

You're welcome.
Have you at any time reprimanded, punished,

l8

1s
20
21

o.

Well, the inner circle would be the


chancellors, the auxiliary bishops and vicar

demoted or taken any action against any priest for -- or official for their mishandling of childhood sexual abuse while archbishop?

generals and your officials and the monitors.

22 23 24

A.

Could you rePeat the question again? You had

22 A. I don't know that for -- as fact. 23 0. Are you aware that Father Michael Stevens,
24
25

several verbs there.


Have you at any time reprimanded, punished,
Page 53

while on monitoring, still performs IT work for the archdiocese and for varous parishes?
14 of 51 sheets

25 0.

O4l08l2OI4 07:53:37 AM

to 56 of 202

57

rA.
2

My understanding is that he had in the past'

rA.
2 3

Deacon o'Rourke

*." a:: PoMS person, that's

but no longer does pet{orm that servce.


And he is still a priest, correct?

3Q. 44.
5
6

I believe that's correct.


(Discussion out of the hearing of

4Q.
5

the name I couldn't remember before, but Mr. John Selvig is now the monitor. Is it O'Rourke or Rourke? I've seen it both
ways,

the court repofter)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

8Q.
9

And when, then, did he stop doing the IT work

64. 7Q. I
o 10

Yeah,

I can't tell you.


MR. KUEPPERS: That's correct' MR, ANDERSON: OkaY. Thank You.

Okay. I've got it as Rourke'

in parishes and for the archdiocese while


priest?

l0

BY MR. ANDERSON:

1'l
'12

A.

It

was some time ago, but exact date.


his IT work?

can't tell you the

11 a.
'|2

Are you aware, Archbishop, that Father McDonough communicated to the monitor, Rourke, concerning Stevens that Stevens was in four to

13 0.
14

What prompted the revocation or termination of

t3
14

five parishes and the pastors in those -doing IT work and a priest, the pastors had

r5
18

A.

I don't have that answer.


Father McDonough would know' think that that happened under his watch.

16 a. Who does? 17 A. I would presume

l5 l6
17 18

not been informed of the fact that Stevens had


been accused of sexual molestation?
MR, HAWS: On what date are You

te
20

I a.

His watch as promoter, but your watch as

l9
20

referring to?
BY MR. ANDERSON:

archbishop, correct?

21 A. I don't have those dates. 22 a. Does it concern you to hear and learn that you
23 24 25

had and have a priest by the name of Michael Stevens who was on the monitoring plan -- and by the way, that monitoring plan, did you
58

21 0. I'm just asking if you're aware of that. 22 A. I was not aware of that. 23 0. Are you aware that Jennifer Haselberger, your
24 25

former chancellor for canonical affairs, raised concerns with Father Laird in 2011
60

inherit that from your predecessor or did you start that?

2 3

about Stevens' status as a priest in the parishes doing this IT work and that he had
had a criminal conviction?

4
5 6 7

A. a.

I inherited it from my predecessor. Does it concern you that you have Michael Stevens on such a montoring plan and that he
is still a priest and allowed to go into parishes and do IT work, knowing that he had been accused and not under monitoring?

44. I was not aware of that. 5Q. Is it your testimony that Father Laird never
6

discussed that topic with You?

I
9

A. It would be a cause for concern. l0 O. Isn't it a conscious choice being made by


11

7A.. 8Q. I
10
11

To the best of my recollection, he did not'

Is it your testimony that lennifer Haselberger


never brought to your attenton concerns that Stevens would not be working in the parishes, being able to do IT work if he had been a layperson because he wouldn't have gotten by record check?
a

Father McDonough to take the risk to let that

12

guy out there as a priest even work in the


pa

12 13

t3
14

rishes? MR. HAWSI Objection, that's

14
15

A,

l5 l6
17 18

argumentative and misstates facts and


evidence.

am not aware that Jennifer ever brought that to my attenton.

A.

I would have to talk to Father McDonough about


that.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

l9
20
21

o,
A.

Do you think it deserves some attention?

I -- I would
Thank

be willing to talk to Father


is some indication that

16 0. Did you remove Father Laird as vicar general? 17 A. I did not. 18 0. Did he resign? 19 A. He did. 20 0. whv? 21 A. To the best of my recollection, he had
22

22 23 24 25

McDonough about that.

o.

you, Now, there

23 24 25
Page 57

Deacon Rourke is the monitor of Stevens. Are

you aware of that?

disagreed with me at the tme that I had made Father Wehmeyer pastor of Blessed Sacrament and St. Thomas the Apostle parishes and he felt that when the MPR story came out on the
04108/2OL4 07:53:37 AM

15 of 51 sheets

to 60 of 202

61
1

63
1

2 3

4Q. 54. 6Q.


7

28th of September, that that reflected poorly on himself and he felt that he had to resign because of it. Did you ask him to resign? I did not.
Do you hold him responsible for the failures

O.

Did you feel bad for Laird and consider him to have been a victim?

2
3

A. I don't know that I considered O.

4
5 6 7

him a victim, but I felt badly that he felt he had to resign, yes.

that led to his resignation or do you hold


yourself.2

There was an audio recording made of a meeting you had with priests and reported by MPR where

I
o

I think, to paraphrase, you described Father


Laird as having been a victim in this whole thing, Did you use those terms to your fellow priests in the meeting?

eA.

I don't know what -MR, HAWS: Objection, it assumes

t0
11

t0
11

facts not in evidence, What failures?


one's discussed failures,

No

12

12

A. I don't recall. I

13
14

A.

I don't know what failures you'd


about.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

be talking

13

14
15

remember the event and I -I spoke positively about Father Laird and the contributions he had made to the archdiocese

l5

I don't remember the exact words I

16 0.
17 18

Well, you referred to the MPR story, What was

l6
17
18

A.

used. Did you listen to the MPR recording of your

the

MPR story

that caused the ultimate

own words about Father Laird?

resignation?
MR, HAWS: Well, objection' That's

l9
20
21

19 20
21

not what he stated, either, counsel, Try to


ask questions that are questions -MR. ANDERSON: Just a minute, Don't

A. I did not. A. Did you hear about that? A. I heard that they -- I heard that that was -surreptitiously and secretly that that recording was made, but I didn't listen to it.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

22 23 24 25

22 23

instruct me.
MR. HAWS:

-- and not Put -- I'm


62

24 25

the court rePorter)


BY MR, ANDERSON:

instructing you, counsel, because you continue

64
1

to misstate evidence and try to create your


own evidence by putting facts into a question that don't exist. That's an inaccurate

A.

2 3

Did you discipline anybody or investigate anybody for having made such a recording?

4
5
6

statement.
MR, ANDERSON: Just stoP. I'll

4
5
6 7

A. I did not. O. Do you know who did? A. No, I don't.


MR. HAWS: Who did what? Who did

rephrase.
BY MR, ANDERSON:

the -BY MR, ANDERSON:

sQ. Did the MPR story trigger Laird's resignation? eA. I believe t dd. l0 a. Okay, What was it that caused -- in the MPR
11

I
9 10
11

A. A. O.

The recording.

story that triggered it?

12
13

A.

14

l5 l6
17

l8

le
20
21

Well, I -- we didn't talk about that specifically, so you'd have to talk to him about that. But my recollection is that he said -- he used the expression, "I'm being painted with the same brush you are"' And he said, "I need to resign to maintain my integrity." o. I'm sorry, I wasn't able -- there was pounding, I didn't hear what you said he said'
Could you repeat that?

12

l3
14

l5
16 17 18

There were only probably nine people, ten people in the room, but if I were to guess, would just be a guess as to who it was. Okay. Don't need You to guess' ArchbishoP, I'd like to ask You about Father Gilbert Gustafson' His current
status in the archdiocese is what?

it

A. I believe that
a

l9
20
21

he is retired. He -- he's in our monitoring program and he's living on his own. You're aware that he had been convicted of
criminal sexual conduct?

22
23 24

A.

He used the expression -- he said, "The media is painting us with the same brush, and for my own integrity, I need to resign." I believe

that's what 25 04/08/2OI4 07:53:37 AM

he said.

22 A. I was, yes. 23 0. When did you first become aware of that? 24 A. I think during the -- the last six months. 25 a. Were you aware that he had been at some Point
16 of 51 sheets

Page 61 To 64 of 2O2

65
1

67
1

2 3

in time, either prior to or after Your installation, working at the archdiocese offices in the tribunal?

diagnosis?

2A.. I'm not aware of those


3

facts.

MR, HAWS: Objection, that's a legal

44. I was not aware of that, no. 5Q. Were you aware that a protest had been done,
6 7 8

4
5 6
7

conclusion, There's no foundation here, but also a legal conclusion. And I don't think

prior to your installation, at the Chancery about Gustafson's presence as a priest at the
archdiocese?

that the Archbishop is qualified to evaluate who it qualifies under its insurance policies
for disability, counsel,

l0
11

eA.
0.

I was not aware of that.


Are you aware that Father Gustafson has worked as a consultant at Cristo Rey Jesuit High
School?

eA.
10

I'm not aware of those facts.


BY MR. ANDERSON:

11
12

0. Okay. When you say you know what pedophilia


is, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing.
Manual

12

l3
14
15 16 17

A.

I I

learned about that just recently.

I wasn't

aware of it at the time.

o.
A.

And when did you learn that?

l3 ,14 A, Okay. l5 a. Under the Diagnostic and Statistical


16 17

l8
19

o.

believe -- I believe I -- I learned that in the -- as a result of the Kinsale file review. Were you aware that Father Gustafson, after
some -- after a lawsuit was brought against him by Anne Bonse, who became quite public

used by mental health practitioners and for purposes of establishing disability and the

l8
t9
20
21

like and other reasons, pedophilia is defined as a compulsive sexual interest in


prepubescent adolescents. Now, keeping that diagnosis in mind and now being informed that he is getting, through this Program, disability payments for that diagnosis, does

20
21

22 23 24 25

about it, was placed on disability and is now receiving disability payments?

22 23 24 25

A.

I'm not aware of that.


Are you aware that there is an insurance company in the archdiocese that insures the
66

o.

that concern you?


MR. HAWS: Same objections and, 68

archdiocese and Priests in it --

Archbishop,

I don't know if you -- if you know

24. 3Q.
4

Yes, I am. -- that qualifies somebody such as Gil


Gustafson for disabilitY?

2 3

how to answer how he qualifies under an insurance policy contract, you can answer.

If

4
5

54. I'm aware that there is a -- such a Program. 6Q. What's the name of that comPanY? 7A.. I -- I can't recall right at the -- at the
8

you don't, you can advise that you don't understand or know.

64.
7

I don't understand and I -- I -- I have not had those facts. I'd have to look into the
facts to see where the truth lies.
BY MR. ANDERSON: Well, does it concern you, having heard what you just did, that he was working at Cristo
Rey and allowed to?

sQ.
10

11

A.
C.

,12

13 A. 14 0.
15

moment. Is that administered effectively by your office -It would be --- at least under the control of? It would be done through our finance office. And are you aware that Gil Gustafson, as we
speak here today, is receiving disability payments every month for the diagnosis of pedophilia?

I
9

l0
11

a.

12

13
15 16 17

A. That would -- would have been a concernr yes'


Why haven't you gone back to the files pertaining to Gil Gustafson and others like

,14 a.

l6
17

18

A.

I was not aware of that,

no.

l8
19

1s o. Do you know what PedoPhilia is? 20 A. I do. 21 a. Do you think that's appropriate, Archbishop,
22 23 24 25

him, Stevens and LaVan and those that we've discussed at least so far, and made sure that you're abiding by the promise of zero tolerance and the safety of the children in this archdiocese? MR. HAWS: There's no evidence, counsel. You've implied that that hasn't -that there's been some violation of zero tolerance and there's no evidence of that, so you r statements again, if theY're -O4108/2OL4 07:53:37 AM

20
21

for him to be getting disability payments for having the diagnosis and having been
established as being a compulsive sexual offender that qualifies him for that

22
23

24
25
Page 65 to 68 of 202

17 of 51 sheets

69
1

71
1

2 3

MR. ANDERSON: If you have an objection, state a legal objection. MR, HAWS:

O.

2 3

I do, counsel.

My

That means other people learning. He couldn't have been in there without other people having known, right, other people under your control?

4
5
6 7 8

concern -MR, ANDERSON: Don't give me a

4
5 6

A. I don't

know that as a fact. (Discussion out of the hearing of


MR. FINNEGAN: You want to take a

speech.

the court reporter)


break?
THE WITNESS: We can take a break, MR, HAWS: Is it a good time to take

No, Here's my concern, counsel. You are trying to make sound bites
MR. HAWS:

I
o

I
l0
11

for yourself and for media by inserting facts that do not exist. And so when you say that and imply that there's some violation when

l0
11

a break?
MR. ANDERSON: Sure, if you like. MR. HAWS: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Thanks, MR, HIBBEN: We're going off the

12 13

there is not, that is unfair and it's inappropriate. So if you want to ask the
archbishop questions about which he knows and can answer, he'll do his

12 13

14
15

14
15

best. But don't

16 17

imply and don't create your facts for a media sound bite.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

l6
17

record at 10:31 a.m.


(Recess taken) MR. HIBBEN: This is video number 2

l8
19 20

l8
19 20
21

the court reporter)


BY MR, ANDERSON:

in the deposition of Archbishop John

21 0.
22 23 24

Why do you think you don't know that one of

Nienstedt, taken on April 2nd, 2014. Time now is 10:47 a.m,


BY MR. ANDERSON:

your priests, Gil Gustafson, is getting payments for a diagnosis of pedophilia while
he works at Cristo Rey?

22 23

O.

24 25

25
1

A.

Well, I would have to |ook into the facts.


70

Archbishop, going back to the monitoring program for a moment, today, are there currently any priests on the monitoring
72

2 3

4
5 6
7

I I
10
11

You're -- you're telling me facts that may or may not be true and I would have to look into that. We just had this Kinsale group, as I mentioned, go through 80O files and they're still in the process of doing that. I suspect that their findings are going to be enlightening for us and we will follow up on whatever they -- they have come up with. (Discussion out of the hearing of the court reporter)
BY MR, ANDERSON:

program pertaining to accusations of sexual


abuse of minors?

34.
4

Are there -- those on the -- on the POMS

program?
Yes.

5Q. 64. 7Q. 84. eQ.


10
A.

Yes, there would be.


How many?

l't

o.

12

O.

Do you consider it a violation of the promises

l3
14 15 16 17 18

you made to the people and the zero tolerance policy to have allowed LaVan to have worked in
a parish?

12 A. 13 0. 14 A.
l5

A. O. A. O. A.

I didn't know he was working in parishes. He was retired, and so he shouldn't have been working in the parish.
You learned he was, though, didn't you?

16 0.
17

Well, living members who are on our website. You're talking about the 36 that are living -The --- that are still priests? Thirty-six, that would be -- yes. Did you say six or 36? Thirty-six, I think. That's my recollection, anyhow. So is it your testimony that if they're still a priest and still alive, but on the list of
credibly accused as reported on the website, which is 36 in number, they are on the POMS monitoring program? My understanding is yes, although they have been taken out of ministry and they've had

t8

t9
20
21

l9
20

22 23 24

Just recently f've |earned. So it was a violation, wasn't it? Well, we took him out of ministry as soon as we learned.

2'l
22 23

A.

25 04/O8/2OI4 07:53:37 AM

O. You say "we learned," A. I learned. I learned. I'm sorry.


Page 69

24

their faculties removed, so they can't function as priests any longer.


Are there any that are on monitoring that are
18 of 51 sheets

250
to 72 of 2o2

73
1

75
1

not on that list currentlY? Yes, there would be because the -- the

MR. ANDERSON: No.

24.
3

4
5

6
7

monitoring program includes those who have abused children, but also includes others who have not abused children, but who have maybe had a drinking problem or a problem with a -an adult, some -- some form of bad behavior.
Are there any that are on monitoring

MR. HAWS: You've made Your record that's wrong and there's no evidence of child

4
5
6 7

pornography, as you said. The claim has been

pornography. And so let's be clear, when you try to assert your facts, they're different maybe than the real facts. Ask the proper
questions.

sQ.
9

pertaining to sexual misconduct?

eA.
l0
11

I -- I was going to make that intervention

and

l0
12

A.

11 a. 13
14

Yes, there would be. Has that been made public and known to any of

the parishioners or the Public? A.

12 13

say that it was -- it was submitted to the St. Paul Police Department twice and twice they said they didn't find child pornography.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Was everything in possession of the archdiocese files turned over to the police for their investigation at the time they were doing that?

If there's an accusation of sexual misconduct,


we ask the individual priest to step aside from ministry and that becomes known to the -the public, yes.
Is there an instance where you can point to where the priest has stepped aside, resigned

14 0.
l5
16 17

l5 t6

17 a.
18

18

A.

l9
20

from ministry and the reason for that has been


disclosed as allegations of sexual misconduct?

te
20

Yes. Yes, sir.


Was the report done by Setter & Associates

o.

turned over to the police? Yes, that was Part of the file' Was the report done by Johnson, the forensic
report?

21
22 24 25

A.

You -- you lost me there for a minute. Could

you repeat that?


Have there been any instances that you've disclosed that the reason they're stepping aside or stepping down is because of
74

21 A. 22 a.
23

23 a.

24
25

A.

believe that was part of the file. We turned everythin g over in those three filest

76
1

allegations of sexual misconduct? Yes, there are cases of that.


And what case?

everything that we had.


Have you reviewed the Shelley file personally?

2A,. 3Q. 44. 5Q. 64.


7

2Q. 34.
4
5

I'm thinking of Father HubeY.


Anybody else?

Personally, I -- I've -- I've read an awful lot about that. The files themselves I have not gone through.
Okay. We'll go through that a little later. Have you told the parishioners and the public the names of all the priests in the POMS
program?

to mind. That's the case that comes to mind as the most recent.
No one comes Any cases that you know of where sexual misconduct was involved and it wasn't
disclosed to the public and the parishioners as to why the priest was taking a leave or a

6Q.
7

8Q.
9 10
11

r0
11

I I

A.

12

sabbatical or resigning?

12

13
14

A.

To the best of my case. What about ShelleY?

ability' I can't think of

13 14 15

15 0. 16 A.

Well --

l6
17

Well, there would be, as you stated before, the -- the number that have been removed from ministry and that would be known to the public. I'm not sure that those -- and so my answer would be that everyone who has an allegation of child sexual abuse would be known to the public.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

t7
l8

a.

I mean, the parishioners weren't told that he had been in possession of child pornography?
That's -- that's true.
And they weren't told and the public was never

l8
19

the court reporter)


BY MR, ANDERSON:

19 A. 20 a.
21

20 a.
21

22

even alefted until October of this last year when you made that Public, were theY?

I'm asking broader than that. I'm talking about everybody in the program. Have the
parishioners and the public been informed of all the priests who are in the POMS program

22 23

23
24

A.

Well -MR. HAWS: Well, counsel, again,

24

for whatever reason? A.

25

you've --

25

I'm pretty sure they -- they -- they have


04/08/2Ot4 07:53:37 AM

19 of 51 sheets

Page 73 to 76 of 202

77
1

79
1

2 3

4Q.
5

I can't say for sure. My impression is that they have been made known, they have been disclosed. I get the impression that a lot of the
been, but
responsibility for the safety of the parishioners and the public is delegated by you to folks. Is that a fair characterization

A. O.

Yes.
Do you have a practice that if an allegation

4
5
6 7 8 9

is being investigated by the police, that you do not take action as to that priest because

you believe that to do so would suggest the


priest's guilt?

6
7 8

or not?

eA.
l0
11

Well, I'm -- I -- typically I'm a hands-on person and -- but I have to delegate responsibilities, yes.
You have been described by various people at

A. No. That's not correct. We -- we -O. Just a moment, A. Okay.


MR. HAWS: Well, let him

l0
11

-- he

can

answer his question.


MR. ANDERSON: He said that's not

12 a.
l3
'14

12 13

15

various times, priests included, both in New Ulm and in the archdiocese, as a micro manager in terms of your management style, Would you
say that's a fair characterization?

correct,
MR. HAWS: He can answer and tell

14

l5
16 17

l6

you why, So you can finish, Archbishop. MR, FINNEGAN: He can ask him whY'
MR, HAWS: He can finish his

17 A. No. I don't think so. 18 0. You would say a hands-on manager is a fair
t9
20

l8
19

question -- an answer to the question'


BY MR. ANDERSON:

characterization because your words, right?

I think those were

20
2',1

21 A. 22 0.
23 24 25

Correct.
Do you feel you have taken a hands-on approach

O. A. O.

22 23 24 25

Is your answer no? ould you repeat the question, please? I'm a little confused right now.
Do you have a practice that if a priest is

to sexual abuse of prests -- excuse me, sexual abuse of minors by priests in this
archdiocese?
78

being investigated by the police for child sexual abuse, that you do not take any public
80

rA.
2Q.
3 4
5

Yes,

believe so.

What action, besides the POMS program that you've talked about, demonstrates your hands-on approach to sexual abuse by priests in this archdiocese?

2 3

action as to that priest because you believe to do so would suggest the guilt of the
priest?

4
5
b 7

A. O.

No, sir.
Have you ever expressed that view to any of

64.
7

I I
l0
11

Well, the whole VIRTUS program that we have that assures us that people are being -- that people are receiving background checks, they're given training in terms of what to look for, signs. We've had clergy study days in which we've discussed all these related
issues.

those who occupy positions as officials in the archdiocese, such as your current chancellors or your former chancellors or your auxiliary bishops or vicar generals?

I I
10
11

A. No, Because we let the police do their own


work and then we would have our own investigation. We have two boards set up, one that deals with precisely the charter issues, and then we have a ministerial standards board that we set up for everything else. And those would be the areas that would ask for and do the investigation,

12

12 13 14 15 16
'17

13 a. Anything else? 14 A. It doesn't come to mind.

t5
l6

0. I'd like to ask you


he on any list?

about Joseph Gallatin' Is

17

A.

t8
l9
20

0.

He would be on the POMS Program. And besides those -- and that would be for sexual misconduct pertaining to minors,
correct?

18

a,

l9
20 2'l 22
23

Did you ever express that view or practice or the desire to employ such a practice to Jennifer Haselberger?
MR. HAWS: I'm sorrY, what view or practice?
BY MR, ANDERSON:

21
22 23

A.

24
25

was an allegation. That allegation is being investigated now and so I can't say definitively that it was. a. When you say "being investigated," is that by
the police?

It

24 25

a.

The view that you would take no action concerning a priest while there's a police
20 of 51 sheets

04108/2014 07:53:37 AM

Page 77 to 80 of 202

81
1

83
1

nvestigation.

A.

2A..
3

Well, we do take the action of removing them

2 3

from ministry.
But do you say why?

When the incident -- prior to my time, so I can't give you a date, but it was on' my understanding, two -- two occasions that that

4Q. 54. It depends on the case. 6Q. Okay. And do you also choose
7

4
5

was given -- the files were given to the


police.

not to tell the

6 7

O.

ln 2004, you're aware that your predecessor,


Archbishop Flynn, and his subordinates became aware of his possession of materials that were borderline child pornography at least,
correct? MR. HAWS: Objection, You're again

people in the pews in the parishes and the public because you don't want the suggestion of guilt of the priest to have been made by

I I
10

I
o

11
12

A.

that disclosure? Well, by the very fact that the priest is removed from the public ministry is a signal

t0
11

12 13 14

misstating facts.

l3
14

t5
l6
'17

to the people that something's wrong, but we don't -- we haven't done our investigation.

A. I don't

a.

Well, Father Jon Shelley went on sabbatical and he told everybody he went on sabbatical, right? He did,

t5 l6
17

know when that happened, I don't have a recollection of that. I -- I do know that on two occasonsr that computer was taken to the Police, but on two occasions it was also said that it wasn't child pornography.
BY MR, ANDERSON:
Did you ever, while the archbishop here, tell anyone to report Shelley to the police?

t8
20

le
21 22
23

A.

believe, yes. your -- with your permission under o. That was that he told everybodY that, right? A. That's true, he was on sabbatical. 0. But the fact of the matter was that it had
been discovered that he had been in possession

l8
19

a. A. O. A.

20
21

Did

I?

The incident happened prior to my

22 23 24 25

being archbishop. I know. But he continued as a priest while


you were archbishoP,

24
25

of possible child pornograPhY? MR, HAWS: Well, objection. That


82

That's true.
84

misstates the facts and evidence as well.


BY MR. ANDERSON:

1Q.
2

And he continues as a priest to this day, although he is on sabbatical, correct?

2 3

4
5 6 7

O. Is that correct? A. No. It's not correct. O.

34.
4

He's on a leave of absence at this present

The -- he was in pornography, but he was never possession of accused of a crime. Is it your belief that for him to be guilty of the crime of sexual abuse or possession of
child pornography, he has to be charged with

moment.
And when he took that leave, he told the people that he was going on sabbatical, did he not?

5Q.
6

I
9 10
11

84.

Yes, he did.
And a party was held?

A.

12 13
'14

l5
16 17

it by the law enforcement authorities? Our standard practice is that when we receive an allegation or we have reason to believe that there has been a violation, we turn that matter over to the police immediately, which is what we did in his case.
And then if the police do not charge, is it,

r0
12 13

eQ.
A.

I don't know that.


So my question to you is, did you personally

11 0.

order anyone in your charge to report Shelley

to police?
What

14 A. I don't know that I did' no. 15 0. You say you don't know that you did'
16

O. A. A.

does that mean?

then, your belief and practice that the priest


is effectively exonerated?

17
18

A.

Well,

I don't

have the recollection of having

l8
19 20
21

We would do our own investigation after that. And -(Discussion out of the hearing of

1s
20
21

o.

done that. So you don't recall ever having told anybody or instructed anybody to report to the police
or having done it yourself, correct?

22 23

the court reporter)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

224
23 24
25
Page 81

24
25

O.

You said that Shelley was turned over to the

My understanding is that there was a question on the part of my canonical chancellor as to the matter to the -- of the computer, and my

police. When was that?

moderator of curia, Father Laird at the time,


O4108/2OI4 07:53:37 AM

21 of 51 sheets

to 84 of 2o2

85
1

87
1

instructed her to take it to the police.


Are you referring to Jennifer Haselberger?

2Q. 4Q.
5

A. A.

Correct.
She urged you, because they were borderline

34.
64.
7

I am.
She was urging you to report to the police,

4
5
6

and you couldn't make the determination and by looking at them you couldn't make the determination and didn't, that it should go to the police, correct?

wasn't she?

I I 10 0.
11

she was working in our priests'work group and the topic came uP and mY understanding was that Father Laird had

I thought

7
8 9 10
11

A.

She --

I don't recall her at the time saying

that.

instructed her to take that to the police.


Archbishop, you wrote a letter to the C.D.F', the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith and Cardinal Levada, specifically stating that your concern that your advisors had told you that you may be in violation of the law by
reason of possible possession of child

'|2
'13 14

12 13

O. What did she say? A. I don't recall. O. When did you view those images, Archbishop? A. I -- I don't recall the exact date. I -- I'm
trying to think, but I -- I can't recall the exact time.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

14

l5
16 17

l5
16 17

pornography previously possessed by Shelley,


correct?

the court repoder)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

18 A. 1e o. 20 A.
21

No.
Never wrote such a letter?

l8 l9
20
21

A.

When you made the determination that you,

22
23

No. The letter was drafted by Jennifer Haselberger, but when I read t, I dd further investigation, realized that this was not correct and the letter was never sent.
Yes.

yourself couldn't tell on viewing those images whether it was adolescents or adults, did you report that to the Police?

22
23

A. I did not. A. You're a mandatory

reporter, aren't you?

24 0. And did you look at the images? 25 A. I did, she showed me some images,
86

24
25

A.
O.

r am.
And you're aware as a mandatory repoer that 88

I
2 3

O.

She claims that those images that she brought

you are required to repoft immediately any


suspicions of child abuse, correct?

4
5 6 7 8

to you and showed to You were child pornography or borderline child pornography and should have been reported to the police,
correct?

34. 4Q.
5

Correct.
And you're also aware that pornographic images

of children is child abuse?

A. No. I looked at those

images and

I could not

64.
7

A. I A. It was, yes. 10 O. Yeah. And so she urged you to turn that over
11

tell whether they were adolescents or older. It was a close call, wasn't it?

Correct. I was not able to determine that that was child pornograPhY.
Why do you think we have reporting statutes?

8Q.
9 10

It's for the police and professionals to make


that determination? Correct, and they alreadY had. When did you learn they had already determined that these images were not illegal?

to the law enforcement for them to make that

12

13 14

A.

determination, didn't she? She may have, but it had already been turned over to the police depament and the verdict had come back that it wasn't child

11 A. 12 a.
l3

l5 l6

14 A. 15 0.
16

Prior to the time of her showing them to me.


Who told you the police had made that

pornography.
You're talking about in 2004?

determination?

O. 18 A. l9 O.
17

Well, probably, yes.


Well, what are you talking about? already been turned over?

17 A. I believe it was Father McDonough. 18 0. When did he tell you that? How soon before
It had l9
you viewed those images?

20
21

20
21

A.

I don't recall. It was sometime before, I


believe.
What does "sometime" mean, a month, a week
day?
a

A. It O.

22
23

had been given to the st. Paul Police Department and the police department had said

22 0.
23

it wasn't child PornograPhY'


When Jennifer Haselberger placed the images

24 26

24
25

A.

before you and you looked at them, correct?

I'm trying to recollect and I don't -- I don't have that answer.


22 of 51 sheets

O4/O8/2OL4 07 : 53: 37 AM

Page 85 to 88 of 202

89

91
1

1Q.
2 3

Jennifer Haselberger was telling you that she believed them to have been child abuse and, in

2 3

fact, pornographic images of children,


correct?

worked on the computer' and he indicated that everything had been encrypted into those files.
What person are you referring to?

54.
6

believe that she -- she believed that to be

4Q. 54.
6

I think it was the -- whoever worked for the


Setter Corporation.
There is a record that that person's report
and the forensic report done by them has been

true.
Yes. And Kevin McDonough also had viewed
those images, correct? To the best of my recollection, had.

7Q.
8

7Q.
8

sA.
10

I think

he

I
l0

withheld by your lawyer Tom Wieser from the


police,

1'l

o.

And he took a different view, didn't he? He did.


And what was his view expressed to you?

12 A. 13 a. 14 A.
1 16 17

1'l A, 12 0.
13

That's not true.


When was it turned over, then, bY the archdiocese?

Well, I can't say for sure that he expressed this to me, but I know that from others that he believed that they were not child pornography.
Did McDonough tell you he had reported it to

14

A.

l5 l6
17 '18

l8 0.
l9

o.
A.

Subsequent to that -- to -- to my seeing the images, Jennifer took that to the St. Paul Police Depament and they had -- they were given all the materials over again. You did not instruct lennifer to make that
report, did you?

the police? A.
He told me that the -- that in 2OO4 that the

t9
20
21

20
21

No. Father Laird did.


Did Father Laird tell you that he had told her

22

computer and everything on it and the -- the disks had been reported to the polce, yes.
So you were relying on McDonough's

a.
A.

22
23

to report?
Yes.
When was that that Laird told you that he had

23 0.
24
25

representation to you in 2000 -- I think it's '12, that it had been repoed back to the
90

24
25

o.

instructed her to make such a report?


92

police in 2004, is that what you're telling us today?

rA.
2

I think it was in two -- 2OL2. I can't -can't give you an exact date.

34. 4Q.
5

Yes. Did you ever learn if it actually had been reported to the police in
2OO4?

3Q. Did Father Laird view the images? 44. I don't -- I can't say for sure. 5Q. Then why was Laird involved in this
6 7 8 9

64. 7Q.
8

Well, yes.
What informs you that in fact the police had received a report concerning these images in

conversaton about whether it should be

reported and how is it you now claim that it


was Laird that told Haselberger to make the report?

2004? I 10 A. See, there was a record. 11 a. A record in the file? 12 A, Yes. 13 0. Prepared by whom? 14 A. I can't tell -- answer that.
15 16 17

10
11

A.

12

l3
14
15

(Discussion out of the hearing of

the court reporter)


BY MR, ANDERSON:

l6
17

18 0.
t9

When did you see that record that you're

l8
19 20
21

relying upon for that assertion?

20
21

A.

22
23

When the whole matter was brought up about whether or not the whole file had been turned over, there was some discrepancy there,

Well, because we had a -- what we called a priest working grouP that Father Laird started when he came on board as the moderator of the curia, they would meet twice a month and they would review any misbehavior on the pa of any of the priests or deacons and they would dscuss this among themselves. There would be the canoncal chancellor there, the civil chancellor, the moderator and the delegate for safe environments, so that everyone had a complete picture of what was going on. And it was at one of those meetings that this question of the Shelley files came upr and t's my understanding that Father Laird indicated to Jennifer that she should take

22

24

25 23 of 51 sheets

Jennifer believed that the whole file hadn't been turned over. Subsequently when we did an investigation with the -- the person who

23 24
25

that to the police.


04/08120t4 07:53:37 AM

Page 89 fo 92 of 2O2

93
1

95
1

o.
A.

Did you disagree with Laird?

your belief, in 2004?

2 3

No.
Did you disagree with Jennifer Haselberger on

2 3

A.

It would

o.

have been either Mr. Eisenzimmer or Father McDonough.

4
5
6 7

whether this should be reported to law


enforcement?

4
5 6 7 8

o.
A.

Are you speculating or do you have some reason

A.

No. Not at the time, no.


Did you express disagreement to her at any

a.

to believe they actually did? Well, they were the ones that had the responsibility, so I -- I guess I am

I
9 10

time that she should not report this because

speculating.
So you're assuming that, aren't You?

it was not a violation of the law or for some


other reason?

l0
12

eQ.
A,

I think wth reasonable certitude.


And you base that reasonable ceftitude on what?

11
12 13

A.

14 15

suspect, thinking back on it, that I told her that it had already been submitted to the police and that, having received an answer from them on their opinion of what was on the

11 a.
13
14

A.

trust I have in the people who were tellng me that they had already done it.
On the
So because you trust them and because you know

l6 ,17 0.
18

-- on the file, that it was not necessary to take it to the police a second time.
And when you told her that, she told you in

15 0.
16 17 18

fact the file does not reflect that it had


been reported to the police earlier, correct?

that this information was possessed in 2004, you're assuming they made a repoft as required by the law in 20O4, is that correct?
MR. HAWS: Well, again, counsel

l9

l9
20
21

20 A. I don't believe so. 21 a. Do you recall her becoming


22

you're misstating the record.


MR. ANDERSON: Well,

quite animated and

I'm asking if

adamant about that?

22 23 24

that's correct. If it's wrong, he can say so.


MR. HAWS: No. BY MR. ANDERSON:

23 A. I don't recall that, no. 24 0. Did you instruct her to leave it alone? 25 A. She asked my opinion. I told herr "I cannot
94
1

25 0.
1

Is that correct, Archbishop?


96
MR, HAWS: MR. ANDERSON:

2 3

make a judgment here. This has already been looked at by the police. It doesn't seem to be reasonable that we would take it back to

2
3

No. Wait, ArchbishoP. IfYou have an I am making it, and, no.

objection, make it.


MR, HAWS:

4
5 6 7

the police a second time."

4
5 6 7

o.

And you have no recollection of having been

Don't. Wait, Archbishop. Counsel, again,


your facts are not the record. You can't
create facts, okay? You can't misstate -MR. ANDERSON: Don't give me a

I I
10
11

told by her that, in fact, the police had not examined this earlier, only internal archdiocese officials and their consultant had
reviewed it?

I
o 10
11

lecture.
MR. HAWS:

It was not my understanding.


20o4.

My understanding was it had been turned over to the police in


At that time when there was this differing view, did you make an effort to actually discern, by review of the file itself, whether or not such a repoft had ever been actually
made to the police concerning Shelley?

I am giving You a lecture

because you continue to do it and it's

12

12

13 a.
14

13 14
15

improper, That's not what the law allows. Now, he's already told you that someone told
him that and you've asked him five times at least the same question. So if you want to
ask another question in a proper way that has

l5 l6
17

16
17

l8
19

A.

me if I reviewed the file with that purpose in mind, no' I did not.

If you're asking

l8 l9

information in it that asks him what the facts are as opposed to your facts, that's fine.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

20 0.
21

What law enforcement agency do you believe it


was reported to?

20 0.
21

Today you can't tell me who made the report, can you?

22 A. St. Paul Police Department. 23 a. And what date do you believe that was made? 24 A. I think you indicated in 20O4. 25 0. Who at the archdiocese made such a report, in
O4/O8120I4 07:53:37 AM
Page 93

22
23

A,

I I

24 0.
25

with reasonable certitude, but cannot tell you for sure. Okay. So who made the report with reasonable
can tell you ceftitude?
24 of 51 sheets

to 96 of 202

97
1

99

A. I would suspect it would have been O. A. O. A. a. A.


reasonable certitude?

Father

2 3

McDonough. When did that person make that report with

2 3

O. A.

And what did he say to you?

4
5
6 7

4
5 6

-- I believe -had been done there were three files that by the forensic persons had been taken to the
He explained that the three files

When the matter was brought up in --

St. Paul Police Department.

apparently in 2OO4.
The question is when do you know with reasonable certitude the report was made' No.

I
9

O. Anything else? 7 A. No. I O. Did you inquire further? I A. I don't believe I dd, but I -- I don't have a
recollection of having asked that.

l0
11

With reasonable ceitude, to whom was that


made?

t0
11

O. A.

When you, yourself, reviewed those images and had the concerns as you've expressed it,

12 13 14 15 16 17

To the --

I don't understand the question.

To

12

the St. Paul Police Department you mean?

l3
'14

Shelley was still in ministry, wasn't he?

a. Who at the St, Paul Police Department? A. I have no idea. That was before my time. A. And on what do you base your answers using the
term "reasonable certitude" that the report

Not at the time that

I saw those images,

no.

l5
16 17

He had been taken out of ministrY.

l8
19 20
21

A. O.

was made? On what do You base that? On the trust and confidence that I have in the people who were working for me.
Have you ever seen a record that demonstrates

t8

O. What date had he been taken out of ministry? A. I can't recall that, O. How long after, then, according to your
belief, was it -- well, what was the time differential between his resignation or sabbatical in ministry and you having viewed those images?

l9
20
21

22
23

in the file that such a report was made?

22 23 24 25

24 25

A. I did not see a receipt, no. I was told that there was one and I had no reason not to
believe it,
98

A. I think he was on sabbatical

for six months and then he was put on a leave of absence, and so it probably would have been about eight
100

1Q. And, again, who told you that? 2A.. I believe that would have been
3

Mr.

O. A.

months, I think. That's my best guess. Okay. I want to go for a moment to -(Discussion off the record)
BY MR. ANDERSON:

Eisenzimmer.
And when did he tell you that?

4Q. 54. 6Q.


7

4
5 6 7

84. I
t0
11

When the whole matter came up again in 2OL2. And have you reviewed anything since then that demonstrates that not to have been the case? No. I have not.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

-- Jeff Gallatin, I had begun to ask you -MR. HAWS: I'm sorrY, let me just interrupt real quickly, Anything with respect
to Shelley, starting with the Shelley
questioning till now when you switched gears

I
9 10
11

the court reporter)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

to be put under seal and noted as under seal pursuant to -is MR. ANDERSON: No, it's not.

12 0.
l3
14
15

Is it fair to say, then, that there was


there a question in
2OO2

'12 13 14 15

question -- or let me put it this way. Was on whether a report


a

Shelley's been a public matter. I've not used anything that has been turned over here' Shelley came up in the first hearing in October of this last year concerning this very

t6
17 18

had been made -- excuse me, Was there question in 2012, as Shelley was being

l6
17 18 19 20
21

discussed, whether Shelley had been reported

matter. It's a very public matter, There's


nothing that was made by way of my questions that we consider under seal, If you want to take that position, your position is noted, We're not going to discuss it further'
MR, HAWS:

in 2004?

19
20
21

A.

There was not a question. It was taken as a fact that that had already been turned over to the police and the police had made a decision

22

23
24

Cl.

on t. And the only fact that was taken from was what Andy Eisenzimmer told you?

22 23

It is noted,

And

24
25

anything that involves Gallatin is the same, but we'll -- that is for the record and we'll have to address that with the court' And

25

A.

believe that's correct.


Page 97

25 of 51 sheets

to 100 of 202

O4/O8/2014 07:53:37 AM

101
1

103

raise these issues that we would make that objection and note that to be addressed later,

14. I -- I can't say. 2Q. If you can't say, why did you allow it to be
3

4
5
6

I'm just telling you, counsel, that it shouldn't be disclosed by you until it's
resolved,
MR. ANDERSON: So far anY question

described as inappropriate boundary violations

4
5

when it could have been criminal sexual conduct and described as such?

64.
7

that I've asked, counsel, has not been in


reliance upon any information other than what has already been made public and both known to you and the public and reported, So there's nothing that has been produced in this case that has been relied upon in the questions

I
9

I I
10

t0
11

There had been -- there had been an investigation into this and there had been a determination made that it was inappropriate boundary violations, that it was not criminal intent.
An investigation by whom?

'l'l
12
13

o.
A.

12 13
14 15 16

I'm trying to recall and I iust can't recall


right at the moment. It was an internal investigation done by
somebody in the archdiocese, is that what you're saying?

that I've asked. Later on, we'll get to that discussion, And I'm now going to Joseph
Gallatin.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

14 0.
l5 l6

17 0.
l8 l9

Isn't it correct that there was a public


disclosure made by the archdiocese on December

17
l8 l9

A.

I can't recall in this particular instance


whether that was turned over to the police or not.
Has the Gallatin file, to your knowledge, ever

29th, 2OL3, concerning Joseph Gallatin?

20 A. I believe that's true. 21 0. So let's talk about that.


22 23 24 25

20 o.
21

been turned over to the police in its

MR. ANDERSON: And that's not under

22

entirety?

seal, right, counsel? Right?


MR, HAWS: GAIIAtiN? MR, ANDERSON: YCAh.

23 A. I can't say for sure. 24 0. To your knowledge, has any file of any priest
25

accused of sexual misconduct ever been turned 104

102
1

MR. HAWS:

No, I think it is, isn't

2
3

it?
MR. ANDERSON: TheY're the ones that

over to the police in its entirety maintained by the archdiocese?

A. O.

4
5 6

made the public disclosure that Gallatin -- on December 29th, 2013, That's not under seal. MR. HAWS: Well, counsel, we have

4
5 6 7
8

Again, I don't believe so, but I can't say for sure.


And why do you guys withhold information from
police? MR. HAWS: Well, again, counsel

I I
l0
11

the ones that are under seal, you're aware which is under seal, I'm not going to fight with you here, It's under seal. And if you violate the court order, you take your risk. But we have said that the ones that are under seal are not to be disclosed publicly until we resolve that with the court. You have to bring your motion for good cause.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

you've misstated -MR. ANDERSON: Just a moment.

I
l0
11

No. Can You quit trying to put words in for your sound bites? That is
MR. HAWS:

12

12 13

inappropriate, counsel,
MR, ANDERSON: Give me an

l3
'14

14
15

15

16 a.
17

Let's talk, Archbishop, about the public disclosures and representations made to the people about Gallatin on December 29th, 2013. It's correct that the archdiocese admitted that he'd been engaged in inappropriate boundary violations with minors, is that correct?

l6
17 18

appropriate legal objection to it. MR. HAWS: What facts do You have to state that they withheld a request that they provide -- that the archdiocese provide a file to the police?
BY MR. ANDERSON:

18 19 20
21

l9
20
21

O.

Have you ever provided a file to the police?


MR. HAWS: Have they requested a

22

22 23 24
25
Page 101

file? Counsel, your misstatements are


inappropriate and you know it.
BY MR, ANDERSON:

23 24

A.
Cl.

I believe so.
Who made the determination that that was not

25 criminal sexual conduct? 04/O8/20L4 07:53:37 AM

a.

Have you ever provided a file to the police?


26 of 51 sheets

to 104 of 2Oz

105

107
1

rA.
2

3Q.
4
5 6 7

We have provided to the police anything they've ever asked for. No. Tell me this, First answer this yes or

2
3

that room just a few weeks ago' There's no -no intent whatsoever to withhold information from the police.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Before a few weeks ago, had you ever told law enforcement about the archival file room where Jennifer Haselberger retrieved the Shelley

no,

Has the archdiocese ever turned over any

file to law enforcement concerning sexual


allegations and a priest?
MR, HAWS: And, ArchbishoP, Your last answer to his question, which was the same one, was just fine,
MR. ANDERSON: Don't instruct the

5Q.
6

7
8

I
9

materials and the Wehmeyer materials and brought them to you?

l0
11

I 10
11

A.

And -- and your question is -MR. HAWS: Whether the ArchbishoP's done that?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, BY MR, ANDERSON:

witness how to answer,


BY MR, ANDERSON:

12

12

,13 0,

Did you hear the question?

l3
please.
14

14

A.

If you could repeat it again,


to law enforcement? I don't know.

l5
16

a.
A.

Has the archdiocese ever turned over any file

15 0.
16

Have you ever told police about that archival

17
l8
19

(Discussion out of the hearing of

the court reporter)


BY MR, ANDERSON:

17 A. 18 0. 19 A.
20
21

file before a few weeks ago? I think they had been informed before that.
By whom?

20

21 a.
22 23 24 25

Have you ever told any of your subordinates or officials to turn over the files in the possession of the archdiocese to law

My understanding in terms of the Shelley case, t was -- would have been Mr. Eisenzimmer. He was the one that worked closely with the

22

police.
In connection with Mark Wehmann, W-e-h-m-a-n-n, there are some public statements made by the archdiocese and I quote
108

23 a.
24 25

enforcement to assist them in their investigation?


106

A.

have always made -- maintained that -- that whatever the police ask for, we are cooperative and we give them.
tr

2
3

in a release done by the archdiocese, "There were several incidents of inappropriate conduct with minors involving boundary violations." Who made the determination to
use a descriptor "boundary violations" and

4
5

o.

So is it your position and practice that you

4
5 6 7

64. 7Q.
8

don't turn it over unless theY ask? That is correct. What if you get a report from somebody other than the police that a priest has abused? We turn that over to the Police. Yeah, but if the police don't ask, you don't

A. O.

I
9

that it was not criminal sexual conduct? I believe that would have been an internal decision that had been made on that.
Who made that? Dan Griffith, who is

l0
11

eA.
a.

l0 A. It would have been Father


11

12
13

14

turn it over, right? A. No. If we get -- if we had an allegation that was credible, we would turn it over to the police.

12

our new delegate for safe -- safe environments.

l3
14

a. A.

And do you know what he based that on or if he interviewed or on what he based such a determination?

l5
l6
17 18

a.

Have you ever told the police that you keep files on each of the priests, both in separate

l5 t6
17

Well,

I think it -- he -- he knew that it

locations, some secret locations, some not so


secret? MR. HAWS: Objection, that misstates

t8
19

19 20
21

evidence. Again, your 9ames, counsel' Ask a proper question and then he can answer your
questions,

20
21

22

22 23 24 25

234
24 25

There are no secret archives. The files are kept in a -- in a room. We had invited the St. Paul Police DePartment to come in and view
Page 105

O. A. O. Was Gallatin ever reported to law enforcement? A, I have no recollection of that. A. So what qualifications does Dan Griffith have
to determine what's a crime and what's not crime? He's a priest, right?
a

wasn't a question of sexual abuse and it was inappropriate behavior. Was that reported to law enforcement? I don't believe it was, no.

27 of 51 sheets

to 108 of 202

04/08/2OL4 07:53:37 AM

109
1

111
1

2 3

4
5 6 7

A. He's a priest, yes. Yes. Has a law degree. O. I mean, a civil law degree, right? A. civil law, yes. A. So what qualifications does he have in child
detection and the criminal investigation of

BY MR. ANDERSON:

2 3

O. A.

4
5 6 7

A. I a.
8

what constitutes a crime involving children and what doesn't? I don't know that I can answer that.
There have been some public disclosures concerning Father Keating and he was either removed from ministry or resigned his position on or about the same day that he was sued. Is

I I
l0
11

10
11

"we," Who is "we"? Well, it would have -- the information came in to the civil chancellor and the civil chancellor notified another person on our staff, Father McDonough, who was at the time the delegate for safe environment. And he also informed me that Father McDonough and this Deacon Vomastek were being sent over to tell Father -- Father Wehmeyer at the time to leave the premises and to take a leave of
You say

12

12

absence.

l3
14 15 16 17

that your understanding, Archbishop?

l3
14 15 16 17

O.

When did Jennifer Haselberger first bring to

A.

That is my understanding.
MR. HAWS: Before you get into

another one, counsel, I'm sorry, just Wehmann is under seal as is Keating, if you get into

your attention that she believed that Wehmeyer posed a risk of harm to the children in the archdiocese if he was allowed to continue in
ministry?
MR. HAWS: Well, again, you're

l8 l9
20
2',1

that.
MR, ANDERSON: This is public and

t8
it
19 20
21

assuming facts not in evidence. If that's

-- it's already out there, counsel. He's been


sued,

22 23

It's our request it's under seal and we'll take it up later.
MR, HAWS:
BY MR, ANDERSON:

22
23

statement, I don't know. If the archbishop can answer whether that came to his attention, listening to what he asked you, that's fine.

A.

24 25

24 25

A.

What did you know about Keating and what he


110

Jennifer prepared a memo for me prior to the time that I had made him pastor of Blessed Sacrament of St. Thomas the Apostle' pointing
112

2 3

had been accused of and how it had been handled before Keating got sued and that suit made public?

out that five years previously he had -BY MR. ANDERSON: The question was when now. When did she bring

3Q.
4

44.
5 6 7
8 9

The situation surrounding Father Keating happened before my time as archbishop.

I was

5 6 7

10
11

aware that something was going on when I became coadjutor because I knew a relative of the person who was involved in the caser but I didn't know -- I didn't -- wasn't privy to -to the case itself, to all the details of the
case.
Can you think of any priests that have neither

this risk to your attention? MR, HAWS: You're answering and that's fine, Archbishop. Counsel, he can answer your question.
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, I asked a question of when now. I'm just trying to get

I
9

l0
11

the anchor for the date here. MR. HAWS: And he's providing that.

12 0.
13

12
l3
'14

A.

been discussed or identified that have --

I can't tell you the -- the month or the date, but I -- I think it was in 2OO8 prior to my
making him pastor. He was already parochial administrator of Blessed Sacrament and we were talking -BY MR, ANDERSON:

14

l5 l6
17 18

well, let me put it this way, Can you name for me the priests that actually have been reported by the archdiocese, either you or
somebody at your direction, to law enforcement

15

t6
17

l9
20
21

for suspicions of sexual abuse under the mandatory reporting act? MR, HAWS: You're talking about
since he became archbishop?
MR. ANDERSON: YES.

18 0.
l9
20

So let's just get the when so we're talking

about the right time frame here, You're

talking about sometime in 2008, right?

22

21 A. 22 0.
23

Right.
And you're saying that it was when Wehmeyer was at what parish? He was parochial administrator of Blessed

234
24
25

The case of -- the one case under my tenure was the case of -- of Curtis Wehmeyer and we

24
25

A.

reported that immediately.


Page 109

Sacrament in St, Paul.


28 of 51 sheets

O4/O8/20I4 07:53:37 AM

to LL2 of 2o2

113

115
1

1Q.
2

And are you able to identify the month in 2008?

2 3

34.
4
5
6

It was shortly after I had become archbishop, I became archbishop on the 2nd of May' so I
believe it would have been in the month of June.
And at that time, what did you learn about Wehmeyer's fitness as a priest to continue in ministry and the risk that may be posed by it?

A.

believe that he was on the monitoring program based on that Previous incident. Yeah. I'm looking at some records and I think
that's correct. It looks like he had been on monitoring for four years as of 2009' Does

4
5 6 7

7Q.
8

I 10
11

A. I O. I

that sound right? That sounds right. Okay, Did you become aware, at least in 2009, then, that he'd been in monitoring for
misconduct in 2004 and in 2006 for seeking out sexual encounters with 18-, 19-year-olds?

A.

12 13

The informaton that Jennifer brought to my attenton was that Father Wehmeyer had a samesex attracton, that he had approached two young men in their mid-20s at a book store of some sort and made an advance on them. That was repolted to the -- I think that was five years previously' that was reported to the Chancery and Father Wehmeyer was sent off to a

l0
11

12
13 14 15

A. I didn't know about that second incident. I


did know about the first incident' which happened, I thinkr in 2004 in a book store
somewhere.

14

l5
16 17 18 19

l6
17

I don'tthink, counsel, your words of 18, 19, I don't know


MR. HAWS: And

20
2',1

22
23

rehabilitation program' a clinic, and came back and had a -- I mean, it confirmed the fact that he was same-sex attracted and he was put on the montoring program. He was to do therapy once a month and spiritual direction
once a month. And I obviously didn't see him being same-sex attracted as an indication that he had any interest sexually in young children
114

l8
19

that that's what the Archbishop testified to. You can ask him that. Again, you've inserted your own facts -MR. ANDERSON: I'm asking him if

20
21

22 23

knew.
MR. HAWS: Well, how is he

--

he's

24
25

24
25

answered he knew, but you have your little sound

bite. It's completely inappropriate yet


116

2 3

5Q.
6 7

and that he was a pedophile. I had no reason to believe that he was. And I believe that he was fit at that tme to take on these two parishes. There's some indication that in February of
2009, Rourke was his monitor, Do you have
recollection of that?
a

again that you insert your facts or what you

2 3

want to be the facts for whatever reasons. Let's get to what the truth is and ask the
questions that the Archbishop can provide you'

4
5 6 7 8

Try to get to the truth and not made-up facts' MR. ANDERSON: That little sPeech doesn't count on our time. And look at the
documents.
MR. HAWS: You ask him and then he

84.

I think that would be true.


And that you signed on to a monitoring plan at

sQ.
10

I
t0
1',l

,11 A. 12 0.

that time. Do you recall that? That I signed on? Could you explain that? Did you sign on to monitoring Plans?
For whom, please?
Each of the priests that were being monitored

can answer. He can answer. If that's what it


s,

then, fine, but don't just say things'

12 13

Ask him to answer those.


BY MR. ANDERSON:

13
l5

A.

'14 0.

14 0.
t5

for sexual abuse, A.

In April of 2009, I think you just said that -- well, let me put it this way. In 2009, did you believe that Wehmeyer was fit to continue in ministry without informing any of the
parishioners and the public that he was on the

16
17

That program was already in place when


became archbishoP. But in 2009, in order for somebody to go on
monitoring, didn't it require you or, as a matter of practice and protocol, to approve
that?

16
'17

18
l9
20
21

a,

18

l9

monitoring program?

20
21

A.

22 A. 23 0.
24

Yes, that would have -- that would be true. And when did you place, then, Wehmeyer on the monitorlng program?

22

At that time we didn't -- I -- I don't believe that we had informed the trustees that he was on the monitoring program.
And you didn't inform anybody other than those in the official postion of the archdiocese, so that would be your chancellors, the vicar

23 0.
24 25

25

A.

believe, and

could be wrong on this'

I
Page 113

29 of 51 sheets

lo LI6

of 2O2

O4|O8/2O14 07:53:37 AM

117
1

119
1

general, yourself and the monitors, correct?

BY MR. ANDERSON:

2 3

A.

At the time I don't believe so. If that were

2Q.
3

Did Father Laird warn you against making him


pastor?

4
5

to happen today, we would disclose to the trustees.

o.
A.

We're talking about in 2009 now, okay?

44. 5Q.
6 7

He did. And he told you that there were questions about his fitness to be in ministry, much less

6
7

a.
A.

Uh huh. Is that correct?

I
9

Correct.
In April of 2009, do you recall receiving information from Haselberger about concerns about a change in Wehmeyer's status from being the business administrator to being the
pastor?

o.

l0
11

eQ. l0 A.
11

sA.

to be a pastor, didn't he? He thought he was somewhat unstable.


And in -- was that a yes?

12 13

12

t3

14
15

A.

16 0.
17 18

l9 A. 20 0.
21

Well, that would -- would have happened, I think, in 2OO8, if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, but she raised concern in 2009 to you is my question. Do you remember, you know, you made that decision in 2008? I thought I had. Could have been 2OO9. Okay, Let's assume/ then, that you made the
decision in 2008, do you recall Haselberger bringing the concern to you about why that was
done?

14
15

That's what he told me. I -- he said he had an unstable personality, but Father Laird clearly didn't like Father Wehmeyer and there was a -- I think a bias there. 0. So you thought it was a personality conflict
between Laird and Wehmeyer?

16 A. I thought to a certain extent, yes. 17 0. And so you didn't think about the fact that
18 19

Laird was speaking for the safety of the

potential children where he was serving as


pastor?

20

21
22

A.

22
23

23 24
25

Well, there was no indication that he had interest in -- in sexually abusing children, there was no indication at all.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

24
25

A. She brought the concern to me that he -- about the incident that I told you about in the book
118

the couft repoer)


120
BY MR. ANDERSON:

store and that he was same-sex attracted.


(Discussion out of the hearing of

2
3

2Q.
3

the court repoer)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

When you read the St. Luke's repo and received the other information you've described at the time you made him pastor and continued him in ministry, did you tell anybody at the parish what you knew about his

4
5
6 7

5Q.
6 7

And she also raised with you the concerns about the St. Luke's findings that had been made and in the file, correct?

history as reported in St. Luke's, as raised by Father Laird or as raised by Jennifer


Haselberger?

84.

She may have.

I don't recall that.

eQ.
l0
11

You recall that he had been diagnosed with having sexual compulsion or sexual addiction and unable to control his sexuality?

r0
11

I I

A. At the time

,12 A. No. I don't remember that at all. 13 0. Did you read the St. Luke's repo?

12 13 '14

14

A.

believe

I did, yes.

l5
18
19

0.

When?

l5

16 A. 17 a. 20
21

At that time before

made him pastor.

16
'17

When you made him pastor and changed his status from business administrator to pastor, did you know that he was a risk of harm?

18

le
22 23 24

believed that that was the responsibility of Father McDonough. I found out subsequently that he did not inform the trustees, but normally in those situations at that time we would have informed the trustees of the parish. a. So when did you learn that McDonough had not done what -A. I think it was in the last week of September.

o.

Of what year?

A.

I did not know. I would him pastor if I'd known.


He proved to be, didn't he?

have not have made

20 A. of 2013. 21 0. Did anyone ever tell you or did you ever learn
from review of the file that Curtis Wehmeyer had been restricted from working with youth in
2004?

22 0. 23 A.
24

Unfounately (Nods head).


(Discussion out of the hearing of
Page 117

the court reporter) 25 04/08/2014 07:53:37 AM

25

A.

No.
30 of 51 sheets

to t2O of 2Oz

121
1

123

A.

Had you ever heard that before

made that

didn't know --

2 3

asseftion today?

A. I had not.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

3Q.
4
5
6 7

24.

No. I didn't know he was on monitoring. I said you didn't know that, you didn't know
about the other things, At that time after the DWI, did you call Curtis Wehmeyer and say,

4
5 6

the couft reporter)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

"I need to get to the bottom of this," and ask


him if he had been engaging in inappropriate sexual contact of any kind with anybody?

O.

Did you learn that Curtis Wehmeyer had gotten

a DUI in 2009? I I A. r dd. l0 O. How? A. It was reported to us. It 11


12

sA.
,l0
11

l3
14

was after I had made him pastor and it was reported to us, think, through Father McDonough.
And did you also learn that as a part of that arrest relating to the DUI, he had been trying to solicit some young people to a party with
him?

12

l3
14

During that time period, I called him in four times from reports that I had gotten in the parish about his anger management or mismanagement, I would say, but I did't have the knowledge at that time to question him on his -- on any sexual activitY.
Well, you knew about the St. Luke's repod, he was a sexual addict, you knew that?

a.

l5 l6
17

15 0.
16

17
l8 l9
20
2',1

A.

But that --

I hadn't had any -- but that had

18

A. I don't recall that as pa of the DUI. l9 O. What do you recall as a part of the DUI,
20
21

A.

22 23 24
25

trip and that he went into kind of a 7-11-type place and they noticed that he was unstable in his walk and someone called the police and they came and -- and stopped him from driving and
122

either what you were told or learned? I learned that he was on a camping

been five years before and he had been in therapy and he had been in spiritual direction and St. Luke's report indicated that he was

ft to go back into ministrY.


Well, if you had reason to call him in on four different times and ask him about ceftain

22 0.
23

24
25

things not pertaining to his sexuality, why didn't you ask him about his sexual conduct or
124

gave him the citation.

possible misconduct? Didn't you want to know?

a.

Were you aware that when he was arrested for

2A..
3

the DUI, that he called Joe Kueppers as his


criminal lawyer?

4
5 6 7 8

4
5 b

A.

I was not aware of that. I knew that he was friendly with the Kueppers, so it doesn't
surprise me.
Were you aware that at the time of that he was

Well, those were not things that had been reported to me. There's nothing of a sexual nature that had been reported to me except the St. Luke's remarks and the report of the 2004 incident.
But sometimes the way you get information, Archbishop, is to ask; and why didn't you ask
him?

o.

I
'|1
12
13

still on monitoring?

l0 A. I was aware of that, yes.

a.

Did you ever see the report or get informed by

7Q. I I 10 A. 11 0.
12

Because there was no reason to. The St. Luke's report gave you reason, didn't
it?

any of your -- any of your officials that the report says that he was trying to pick up teenagers to go back to the campground to party?

13
14
15

A.

14

dd, but that had already been a matter of at least a year and -- that I had received

It

l5 l6
17
18

A.

No, sir.
Having heard that, is that the first time you've heard that?

l6
17 18 19

o.

l9 A. I believe so, yes. I didn't know that.


20
21

a.
A.

Does that alarm you?

20
21

It

does.

that repo -- no. That would -- that would have been in 2OO4. I'm getting confused here. And I had to deal with the situation of what was current in his administration and that happened to be the question of his getting along with staff, his anger mismanagement, those were the -- the topics that were on the
table.
Scerbo was urging you to not continue him in

22 23 24 25

o.
A.

And would it have alarmed you if you had been

22

told that back then?

23 0.
24 25
Page 121

Gertainly would have' Yes.


You didn't know he was on monitoring, you

ministry because of his sexual issues, wasn't


he? O4|O8/20I4 07:53:37 AM

o.

31 of 51 sheets

lo

124 of 2O2

125
1

127

2 3

A. I don't believe that, a. Well, then, what was Scerbo concerned about as
expressed to you?

rA.
2Q. 34.
4

No.

What is she? She is the -- she's the chancellor for

It was sexual

issues,

4
5 6 7

wasn't it?

canonical affairs. Okay. And when was such a list first compiled
for your eyes?

A. A. A. O. A.

No. Scerbo never expressed any sexual concerns to me.


What was the basis for him being concerned

5Q.
6

I I
t0
11

about his unftness to be and continue in ministry, if not sexual? Are you talking about Scerbo --

7A.. In October of 2013. 8Q. And how many priests or deacons were on it? 94. My recollection is that there were 36 on the
l0
original list.
And then how many -- that was the original

12

l3
14

l5 l6
17 18

I mean, excuse me. Okay. He never mentioned anything to me about his whole sexual nature. His concern primarily, as I recall t, was that he said he didn't think he had a stable personality.
Laird, Did you ever tell anybody to get the 2009 police report that reflects what I just told

11 0.
12 13

list of the credibly accused as has been


described you're talking about?

14

A.

Correct.
And then were there any added to that?
Because that list had been compiled originally

l5
l6
17

0.

O. A.

in 2004. We're now in 2009. Any new names?

you about him and the teenagers?

l9
20
21

22

I did not -- I -- I wasn't -- I was aware of the -- the arrest, but I wasn't aware -- aware of the other incident that you iust alluded to.
Did you tell anyone to get the 2009 report?

18 A. 19 0. 20 A.
21

2013.
20L3.

There were subsequently another nine that were added to the lst.
Any of those now on the credibly accused publicly disclosed?

22 0.
23

23 a. 24 A. 25 0.
1

No. I don't believe so.


You knew there was a polce report? 126

24
25

A.

They're all publicly disclosed and they're all out of ministry.


128 All nine?

A.

Sure,

I would have known there was

a police

I
2 3

2 3

report.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

O. A. O. A.

Yes, out of ministry without faculties to

function as a priest.
Did you ever see any lists of priests accused of sexual abuse of minors before October of 2013?

4
5 6 7 8

the court reporter)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

4
5 6 7

A.

When is the first time you asked that a list

of abusers be compiled, both accused or credibly accused?

No.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

I A.
10
11

When was the first time I asked that that -- I believe it would have been in October when we were making our plans to do disclosure.

I I
10
11

the court reporter)


BY MR, ANDERSON:

O.

Did you ever ask anybody to compile one or prepare one or give you one?

12

O. You're talking about October of -l3 A. 2013. 14 O. And who did you ask to do that? l5 A. It would have been the members
l6
17 18

12 13 14

A. r did not. O. As the archbishop, isn't your first goal and


primary to make sure first the children's
souls are safe in the archdiocese?

of the staff,

the canoncal chancellor, the civil chancellor and the delegate for safe environment'

l5 l6
'17

A. O. A. O. A.

O. A. O. A. a,

And, specifically, who are you talking about


here?

18

Certainly is. It's my primary goal' to make sure that children are safe.
Well, then, why wouldn't you make making sure

19 20
21

l9
20
21

22 23 24 26

I'm talking about Father Dan Griffith, talking about Joe Kueppers, I'm talking about Susan Wilhern.
susan who?

you get all the information possible from all those under your charge about --

22 23 24
25

well, r had -Just a minute. Let me finish -- who


As

could

wilhern,
She's a secretary to the vicar general?
Page 125

pose a risk of harm to those children?

I ndicated

before,

had that conversation


32 of 51 sheets

O4/O8120I4 07:53:37 AM

fo 128 of 2Oz

129
1

131
1

5Q.
6

wth Father McDonough and others when I first became coadjutor archbishop. I knew that they were under the monitoring system and I felt that they were not putting children at risk. But that was back in 2008. We're now in 2013.
Why hadn't you done more before?

MR. HAWS: Well, objection, that

misstates evidence. I'm not sure that the


Archbishop has a -BY MR. ANDERSON:

6Q.
6 7

You can answer the question. There's a

7A.. I
9

Well,

I think we

have done more.

l0
1',|

12 13

14

we've done the VIRTUS program' we've done background checks on everyone, we've had seminars and programs for our clergy and for our staff, So we -- it isn't -- isn't as if we weren't working on this. And, as I've said before, that our number one priority is to make sure the children are safe.
When you got the compilation in 2013 in

I mean, as I indicated'

difference between disclosing names to the public and turning over files concerning those
names to law enforcement, correct?

sA.
10
11

0.

There would be a difference, yes. Okay. Let's talk about those two things' You're saying you turned over the names to the
public, right? Yes.
Yes?

12

15 0.
16

October, was that made publicly known?

13 A. 14 0. 15 A. 16 0.
17

Yes.

Okay. How many of those files of those names


of offenders that were made public were turned over by the archdiocese to law enforcement?

17

A.

Yes, To all the people?

l8
21

a.

l8

19 A. 20 0.
22

That was publicly disclosed, Yes.


And did you turn any of the files pertaining

to any of those and/or all of those accused


offenders over to law enforcement agencies?

19 A. I can't answer that. I'm sorry. 20 0. Can you answer that any were? 21 A. No. 22 0. Is it correct to say that no file had ever
23

23
24

A.

To my knowledge, we did

not. They were all

been turned over after termination had been made and a prest was credibly accused to law

out of ministry'
Yeah, but they may have been guilty of crimes,
130

24
25

25 0.
1

enforcement until and unless law enforcement


132
asked?

right?

2A..
3

That could be, And so I believe some of them would have been -- already been turned over to

2
3

MR. HAWS: Object to foundation' Are you talking about while he's been the archbishop?
MR. ANDERSON: YCS.

the police.
But you don't know which ones, do You?

4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11

5Q. 64. I don't. 7Q. Because you made a conscious choice to not turn them all over, correct? I MR. HAWS: Well, objection, counsel. I
10 1rl 12 13

A. I don't recall.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

A.

So is it fair to say that your answer, then,

you have no recollection of ever having voluntarily said, "Look it, we just looked at this file and made a determination internally

Again, you've made a misstatement of facts for

the purposes of your own needs here.

If

anyone has ever asked, you can ask did anyone ever ask you that you've not turned over a

12 13 14 15

that this is a credible allegation. Let's just turn it over to law enforcement, whether it's Chisago County, Washington County, Ramsey County, Hennepin County, let's just do that
voluntarily without a request"? As far as you can tell or remember, you've never made that
decision?

14
15

file, you can respond, ArchbishoP.


BY MR. ANDERSON:

16 0.
17

Archbishop, the question was, you made the conscious choice to not turn all the files over to law enforcement, correct? I don't believe it was a conscious decision.

l6
17 18

t8

19
20
21

A.

l9
20
21

A. O. A, O. A.

I think we were trying to disclose to the


public for the safety of children those who
had abused. But there's a difference between identifying names and turning over files to law
enforcement, correct?
Page 129

22

22
23

No. I think that there were cases that were turned over to the police in -- in Decemberr I believe with Father Gallatin -Okay. Now we're talking about December of -2013.

23 0.
24 25

24
25

-- 2013? okay. Anybody else? There were three, but I can't think of the
O4/O8/2014 07:53:37 AM

33 of 51 sheets

to 132 of 2O2

133
1

135
1

other two.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

quinquennial report?

2 3

24.
3

I don't recall right off the top of my head.


The quinquennial report would have been'

the court repofter)


BY MR, ANDERSON:

4
5
6

5Q.
6

Did you turn those files over to law

enforcement, to the police?

eA. I think it was the St. Paul Police -- Police Department. 10 11 0. Had they requested or did you do that on your
12

74. I believe we did. 8Q. To whom?

7Q.
t0

sA.

eQ.
A.

wanna say, 2O1O, but I'm not sure about that and so I just don't have that recollection right now. Did you report Shelley to the C,D.F'? I don't recall. Isn't that something you would recall if you
had?

11
12

own initiative?

I agree. I would be speculating, though, to say that I

It should

be,

did.

13 A. I don't recall. 14 C. So, do you recall ever on your own initiative


15

13 0.
14

Do you have any recollection of any others

t6

ever ordering any files to be turned over without request by law enforcement?

l5

16
17

A.

having been reported by you or your offices to the C.D,F. under the SST requirement? AII that we were required to would have been

17
18

A.

I don't have that recollection. I'm sorry.


(Discussion out of the hearing of

handled by the canonical chancellor.


And you're the reporter and the one that signs off on that report, however, are you not?

18 0.
l9

l9
20

the court reporter)


BY MR, ANDERSON:

21 0.
22

Have you reported any of the offenders to the

20 A. I am. 21 0. Father Wajda, Joseph Wajde -22 23 24

c.D,F.?

MR, HAWS: Counsel, isn't it a

23 A. I -- I believe we have, yes. 24 a. Who? 25 A. Wehmeyer, certainly. And I


134
1

decent time for a break?


MR. ANDERSON: Sure' MR. HAWS:

believe Montero.

25

mean, if You wantto


136

2 3

And I believe there was another priest by the name of -- of Bussman, so there have been

2 3

files turned over to the congregation.

finish this, that's fine, but it's -MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. MR, HAWSI We've been going an hour-and-a-half, MR, HIBBEN: We're going off the
record at 12:15.
(Recess taken) MR. HIBBEN: This is video number 3

4
5
6

o.
A.

Wehmeyer, Bussman and whom else?

4
5
6

Montero, I think, although that may not be it because he wasn't our prest, so I -- I -- I'm not sure about that one.
When was WehmeYer?

I o. I A.
10
11

I
9

Shortly after he was charged with the crime.


When was Bussman?

o.
A.

t0
11

in the deposition of Archbishop John Nienstedt taken on April 2nd, 2014. Time now is 1:04 p.m.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

12 13 14 15

o.
A. A.

as archbishop. you're not sure about -And Montero

Before
No,

I -- my arrival

12

13 0.
not have been dorie by you?
14 15

o. -- it would

It probably wasn't

l6
17
18

o.
A.

because he wasn't our priest. He belonged to another diocese. Under the SST issued in 2001, you're required

t6
17

Archbishop, before the break I had begun to ask about Joseph Wajda, and did you become aware that Rome had conducted a canonical trial, a penal trial of him and findings had
been made?

to report to the C.D.F,, are You not?


Yes. And required in your quinquennial report to also disclose any allegations of sexual abuse?
Have you done that in the quinquennial report?

l8

19 20
2',1

1s
20
21

o.

A. I -- I do recollect that, Yes. o. Did you become aware that it was -- the instruction was to remove him from the
clerical state?

22 23 24

A. Yes.

o.

22 A. I don't recall that particular part of it' 23 0. Did you become aware that at some point in
24 25

A. Yes.
Page 133

25 o. And so who did you disclose in the O4lO8l20I4 07:53:37 AM

time, the instruction from Rome was reinvestigated by your office or at your
34 of 51 sheets

to 136 of 202

137
1

139
1

instruction by Kevin McDonough? Did you ever instruct that to be done?

when you were making decisions about Shelley

2
3

in 2012 or was that just a correction for


today?

34.
4Q.
5

dd not. So that if it was done, it was Your


predecessor?

44. 5Q.
6 7

64. It must have been, yes. 7Q. Are you aware that McDonough did reinvestigate Wajda after the Rome instruction I and made the recommendation that Wajda be I
l0
11

That's just a correction for today. Okay. Thank you. Archbishop, you have made number of statements to the public and the parishioners that the primary goal is to care
for those abused by priests and made promises to the people that that is one of your goals,
is it not? did you not, to

I
9

suspended for ten years from ministry? Are

l0

you familiar wth that?

12 13

A. I'm not familiar with that at all. C. At this point in time, what are your plans pertaining to Joseph Wajda? Is he going to be 14 allowed to continue in ministry or is he going 15 to be reinstated? t6 17 A. He's -- my understanding is he's not to be functioning in -- in ministry at all. 18 o. Did you become aware that there was some controversy around McDonough's findings that 20 contradicted those of Rome? 21 22 A. That must have been before mY time.

11 A. It -- t is, yes. 12 0. You did make the decision,


13 14

l5
16 17 18 19

permit the taxation of costs against Jim Keenan, who had litigated against the archdiocese and have a judgment entered against him for $64,000 for having brought that case, Do you consider that to be
consistent with a promise to care for the victims?

le

20 A. I'm not familiar with that case. 21 0. It is John Doe 76C and it was the one that
22

went to the Supreme Court under your watch,

23 0. 24 A.
25

Okay.

Could -- could I make a correction? I was told by my counsel that I was confused about
138

23 A. And what -- what year was that? 24 a. 2010, I think. 25 A. I -- I -- it's not registering with me' I'm
140
1

2 3

4
5 6 7 8

eQ.
10
11

the 2OO4 investigation of the Shelley computer. Apparently' we turned that over to this Mr. Setter, who was a retired police officer. That's why I thought he had been turned over to the police. And then that was turned over to the forensics, so I got that mixed up. I thought it went to forensic first and then to the police. Well, Setter, yeah, Setter, S-u-t-t-e-r (ph) -- S-e-t-t-e-r, is an investigator hired by
the archdiocese, You're aware of that?
Yes. All right,

sorry.
Are you aware that the statute of limitations had -- the Supreme Court had determined the

2Q.
3

4
5 6 7

statute of limitations had expired and, therefore, his claim and others like it could not be brought? Did you learn that at some
point?

sA.
t0

No. I don't believe I did.


So you have no knowledge of the taxation of

sQ.
11 12 0.
A.

the costs against him?


No.

12 A. 13 0. 14 A.
l5

l3

Apparently a retired officer, so

I got that

'14

epresentatives

confused, I apologize for that.


So as we speak, then, you have no information that any official law enforcement agency acting as a law enforcement agency ever received a report in 2OO4?

15 16 17 18

16 0.
17 18 19

l9
20
21

20 A. No. 21 0. Is that correct? 22 A. That's correct. 23 0. Okay. 24 A. I apologize for that. 25 0. Were you relying on that same mistaken belief
35 of 51 sheets

22
23

24 0. 25 A.

'
0410812OI4 07:53:37 AM

Page I37 to 140 of 202

141
1

143

rQ.
2 3

Had you received information

that Wehmeyer had

2 3

been known to have been taking minors on camping trips?

4
5
6

44.
5

No. I only became aware of that the first


week in October of 2013'
Did you ever -- did you become aware that one

6Q.
7

of the officials had called the mother of one of the children who had been taken on camping trips to discuss that relationship? A.

I
9

I
9

l0
11

r0
11
12

learned about that in October of 2O13.

0.
A.

What did you learn about that? Who had made

12

that call?

13
14 15

13
14 15

It was

a Father -- at the tme Father Scerbo,

Father Paul Scerbo, who was at -- had iust been pointed the vicar general and moderator of the Curia.

l6
'|7
18

l6

17
l8

0.
A.

So he was empowered to handle this on your behalf, correct? He was. And so when you learned on October 13th, then,

l9
20
21

r9
20
O.
In the case of Curtis Wehmeyer, when did you first learn definitively that he had been
accused of or suspicions arose that minors
21

0.

22 23 24 25

22

that minors were involved definitively, October 13th -A.

were involved?

23 24
25

No. October 2O13'


Oh, excuse me, October of 2013' What did you do about that? 144

0.

A.

The day that he was arrested.


142

1Q.
2 3

What day? Do you have that date?


MR. HAWS:

lA.
2 3

I don't understand the question.


(Dscussion out of the hearing of

If

You don't remember,

Archbishop, don't guess if you don't know.

the court reporter)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

44.
5

I -- I don't remember'
BY MR. ANDERSON:

5Q.
6 7

6Q. Okay. 74. I beteve it was a Friday' though, I do remember that. I eQ. Some records show that his arrest was June
l0
11

Okay. So I want to get my dates correct. I think you had told me earlier that the date
you first learned that minors were involved was the date that he was arrested and some records show that he was arrested on the 22nd.
Does

I I
10

22nd. Is it correct -(Discussion out of the hearing of

that sound right?

11
12

A.

'12 13

the court reporter)


BY MR, ANDERSON:

That's when I first learned about the allegation, yes,


And what action, if any, did you take responsve to havng learned that?

13
that date and from
14

0.
A.

14
l5

0.
A.

So what did you learn on

whom?

r5
16 17 18

That day,

agreed with the decision' and when

16
17

learned from,

believe t was Mr.

l8 l9
20
21

Eisenzimmer, that Father McDonough had been informed of the allegaton and that he and Deacon Vomastek were going over to Blessed Sacrament to tell Father Wehmeyer at the time that he was being removed from his assignment.

Mr. Eisenzimmer told me that they were -Father McDonough and Deacon Vomastek wanted to
go over there,

I said yes due to -- right

l9

away.

20
21

0.
A.

And that was before it was reported to the police, though, wasn't it?

22
23 24

0.

And you had received no information before

22
23

that time and that date that Wehmeyer had been


suspected of involvement with minors?

I think t was reported at the same time. I think they were simultaneous.
Why would you want Father McDonough and Deacon Vomastek to go to Curtis Wehmeyer before it
36 of 51 sheets

24
25
Page 141

0.

25

A.

No.

had not.

04/08/2OI4 07:53:37 AM

to t44 of 2O2

145
1

147
1

had been reported to the Police?

impoftant.
The statute provides an obligation, not an

2A..
3

Well, in hindsight, I -- that was a mistake, but I think we wanted to act immediately on the information that we had.
And you're aware that Father McDonough and
Deacon Vomastek met with Wehmeyer that morning

2Q.
3

authority, correct?

44.
5 6 7 8 9

I believe so.
MR. HAWS: Objection, it's a legal

5Q.
6

at the parish?

conclusion. Statute speaks for itself. (Discussion out of the hearing of the court reporter)
BY MR. ANDERSON:

84. I think t was mornng or afternoon' t was -eQ. And you're aware that they retrieved the gun
10
11

and got a computer from Wehmeyer, correct?


MR. HAWS: Objection. I'm not sure

10 0.
11

What did Eisenzimmer tell you about when the archdiocese had first gotten a report when he talked to you? He told me Yes. All right. Let me show you Exhibit 18.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

12

l3
14 15

that that's facts in evidence, counsel. Again, if you've got something to show him that, ask him.
BY MR, ANDERSON:

12

13 A. 14 0.

that morning.

That morning of the 22nd?

r5
17

A.

16 0. Are you aware? 17 A. I -- I heard about the gun. I didn't know


l8

16
l8
19

0.

ls
20

about the computer,

the court reporter)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

o.

Is that the first you heard of Wehmeyer having

turned a computer over to McDonough? To my recollection right


Wehmeyer?

20
21

0,

And before I do, let me just ask you, Archbishop, what did you find out specifically about who had made the report, then, about Wehmeyer to law enforcement and when?

21 A. 22 0.
23

noq

Yes.

So you never looked at the computer of

22 23

24 25
1

A.

No. And that if McDonough took possession of it,


146

0.

24 A. 25 0.
,l

Could you repeat the question?


What did you find out about who had repofted
148

where is that computer?

and when they made that rePoft?


MR. HAWS: I'm sorrY, to the Police

2A.. I don't know, sir, This is the first I've


3

2 3

4Q.
5 6 7

heard of that, so -I'm going to show you Exhibit -(Discussion out of the hearing of

or to the archdiocese?
MR. ANDERSON: To

4
5
6

the archdiocese.

A.

I think I learned later that day' is my


recollection, that the police had been called and that Father McDonough and Deacon Vomastek
had gone over to Blessed Sacrament.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

the court reporter)


BY MR, ANDERSON:

r0
11

8Q. I
A.

Who else did you talk to besides Eisenzimmer

about this, then, that daY?

I I
l0
11

That day, I don't believe else about this.


it?

spoke to anyone

o.

Who is the first in the archdiocese, then, to have received the information that minors were
involved?

12 0.
13

And once you learned it, why didn't you report

'12

13
'14

A.

That would have been Father John Paul


Erckson.

14
15 16 17 18

A.

My presumpton was that the one that would normally do the reporting is the civil

le
20
21

chancellor. And so my understanding was that he was gong to report it and -- and had already reported it, had called the police.

15 a. And what were you told about that? 16 A. I was told that he was informed of that, that
17

the person in question had told hm that there


had been an incident of incest in the family. Well, let's go back a moment. I'm talking
about the abuse of the child and by Wehmeyer,

l8

o.

Do you believe that the mandatory reporting

19 0.
20
21

statute that applies to you permits the delegation of your responsibility to somebody

okay? So s it your testimony that that was


imparted by Father Erickson?

22

else? Don't you --

22

23
24 25

A.

I -- X have the -- the authority'

but I believe that as long as t's -- that thngs are done correctly, that that's what's
Page 145

234
24
25

Father Erickson was the frst one' I believe' to have been told of -- of the abuse because the -- the mother in question had discovered
04/08/2014 07:53:37 AM

37 of 51 sheets

to L48 of 2O2

149
1

151
1

2 3

4
5
6 7

some ncest n the family and she had subsequently, in talking to her children about that, discovered an involvement of Father Wehmeyer. And she went back and told Father John Paul Erickson again and -- but it was in the context of spiritual direction, so it was a privileged context, so he had to call her and get her to report this to us outside of

A.

believe so, yes.

o.

Same day that McDonough and Vomastek had gone to visit Wehmeyer at the parish?

4
5 6 7 8

A. That is correct. o. I'm going to refer you to Exhibit 18. And you have it before you, Archbishop, and this is
entitled a decree, and it's typewritten with your name at the bottom, correct?

I
9

that context and to the Police.


Who told you that?

10 a.

sA. t0 a.
11

Correct. And it states, "On June 18th, 2012, the


Archdiocese of St, Paul and Minneapolis received a complaint that Reverend Curtis Wehmeyer, a priest of this archdiocese, supplied alcohol and sexually explicit images to a minor, and fondled or attempted to fondle

1'l
14 15

A.

Father John Paul Erickson.

12 0. When did he tell you that? 13 A. I believe that was -- excuse me, I misspoke
myself. I think Andy Eisenzimmer told me the same day of that.
On June 22nd?

12 13

14

l5
16

16 a. 17 A. 18 a.
19

the minor's genitals," Correct?

Yes,
Were you told that the report had been made in

17

A. Yes, correct.

l8
l9
20

a. It then goes on to state, "I have concluded


that this constitutes information which 'at least seems to be true unquote,"' Correct?

20
21

A.

the context of the confession? I hadn't been told that it was in the context of confession. What I had been told is that

2'l
23

A.

Correct.
So this reflects that on June 18th, the

22

it was in the context of spiritual direction.


And you also knew that Erickson was mandatory reporter?
a

22 0.

23 0.
24

information was received, does it not?

25
1

A. Yes.
150

24 A. It does, but it's incorrect. 25 0. And who prepared this?

o.
A.

And that what he'd been told would require a

rA.
2Q.
3

152

Jennifer Haselberger.
And what makes you say that or believe or assert that it's incorrect?

2 3

report?

Correct.
Have you talked to Father Erickson to get some

4
5
6

o.

44.
5
6

more clarity about what he was actually told and the circumstances of it since?

I have since learned that the information didn't come to us officially until the morning of the 22nd.
Because
Well, mandatory reporting doesn't make a distinction between official and unofficial'
So what do you mean by "official"? MR, HAWS: Again, objection to the

A. A.

have not, no.

I o.
9
10
11

Why not?

7Q. I
9

I thought he did what he should have done and


the end result was what needed to be done to get Father -- Father Wehmeyer out of the -the -- to get him reported to the police and take him out of ministrY.

t0
11

12

12

legal conclusion in the start of your question.


BY MR, ANDERSON:

13 14
15

l3

a.
A.

What should he have done?

14 0.

What do you mean by "official"?

t6
17

l8
t9
20
21

Well, in -- in hindsight, I suppose he should have taken this to the police himself once he had clarified the context of which the communication had taken Place. o. And do you have any knowledge that he did? A. I do not have. o. And your knowledge to this date as to who
actually made a report to the police, then, is limited to -- who is that to?

r5
l6
17 18

A.

What

mean by "official" is the -- the context in which it was first revealed was a

t9

20
21

context that was privileged, and so what I refer to as privileged is the part that's not privileged. 0. Okay. It goes on to say at the third
paragraph, "Since my other duties prevent me from conducting this investigation personally,

22 23 24

22
23

I hearby appoint Reverend Peter


matter." Correct, you did that?

Laird, Vicar

A.

To Mr. Eisenzimmer.
Page 149

24
25

General, to act as investigator in this


38 of 51 sheets

25 a. The same day that You learned? 04/O8|2OI4 07:53:37 AM

lo

152 of 2O2

153

155

14. 2Q.
3

Correct.
And then you also, at the fourth paragraph, instructed that in conducting his

rA.
2

Well, this whole period confusing one.


you, really?

I -- is -- is a rather

3Q.
4
5
6

You're not sure about any of these dates, are


MR, HAWS: Objection, that's argumentative, counsel. He's testified to what he can testify to.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

4
5
6 7

investigation, Father Laird is to take care

that such investigation does nothing to harm


Father Wehmeyer's name or to violate his rights to protect his prvacy, correct?

sA.
10

Correct.
Is there anything in this decree that talks about protecting the victim or their family? The decree, to my understanding, is a

sQ.
11
12

sQ.
10

All right, You're not sure about the dates' are you?

A.

l3
14

canonical document that pertains particularly to a priest who has acted out badlY.
MR. HAWS: The bottom ParagraPh

11 A. I'm sure that these dates are wrong. 12 0. And what document is there that establishes,
t3
14 15

other than this document, this decree, exactly when you learned, then, of the abuse of the
minor? MR. HAWS:

l5
16

(Indicating),
BY MR. ANDERSON:

l6
'|7

I'll object. First of

17 a.
l8

Did you sign the decree before Vomastek and McDonough went to the parish?

1s A. 20 0.
21
22

No. I did not.


When did you sign it?

l8 l9
20

all, the decree, Exhibit 18, does not establish that, as the archbishop said. But
go ahead as to whatever,
BY MR. ANDERSON:

23
24 25

A. Well, I couldn't have signed it on the 2oth, so the -- the dates here are wrong. a. Well, that's where we're going to go right now, It says, "Given on June 20th, 2012," and
then it's signed by you.
154

21 a.
22 23

The question is, is when did you first -- what document is there, if there is one, that can establish the date you learned it?

24
25

A. There would not be a document. I'm giving my testimony of what I recall.


156

14. 2Q.
3

Correct.
So you're now asserting that that date is also

A.

The conversation with Eisenzimmer, was that in person or by telephone?

2 3

incorrect?

44. 5Q.
6

orrect.
And you're assefting that's incorrect on what
basis?

4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11

7A.. I I l0 0.
11

On the basis that, subsequently, I found out that I dd -- I learned this on the 22nd, so I couldn't have signed t on the 20th. This is a pretty serious matter when it's your
decree for an internal investigation, isn't
it? is your signature, so you did

12

12

A. rt was in person. O. At the chancery? A. At the chancery, yes. O. And in his office or yours? A. My office, he came down to my office. O. Anybody else present? A. No. O. Did you make any notes of that conversation? A. r did not. O. Has there been any record made by him of that
conversation?

13

A. Yes, it is. ,14 0. Okay. And that sign it? l5

13 14
15

A. I don't know that. O. Has there been made any record by anybody that
you know of, in or out of the archdiocese, that establishes that the report was actually received by you on the 22nd versus Exhibit 18,
which seems to demonstrate the 18th?

16 A. I did sign it. 17 0. You're just confused on the dates, is that


t8
right?

l6
17 18

l9 A. 20 0.
21

Ri9ht.
So you did order an internal investigation.

l9
20
21

22
23

Did you order this internal investigation before or after the report to the police was
made?

A. I don't know of any other document, no. a. There is evidence that on the 19th, there was
-- or 20th, there was a meeting called by Greta Sawyer and she was employed to interview this mom and child, Were you aware of that? r was, yes.
04/08/2014 07:53:37 AM

22
23

24 25 0.

A. It -- my best recollection, it was after.


You're not sure about that, are You?
Page 153

24
25

A,

39 of 51 sheets

to 156 of 202

157
1

159

a.

You ordered that as a part of the

rA.
2Q.
4
5 6 7

That I don't

know.

2 3

investigation, did you not, and empowered


Laird to do it?

Well, weren't you overseeing this?

34.

I was overseeing it.

4
5 6

A. I don't believe that was the right order. O. Well, you decreed an investigation and Laird
was given the authority to do it?

My understanding is that it was Father Erickson that had advised the woman to go to see Greta Sawyer and to -- and

7
8 o

A. A. A.

That's correct.
And he was given the authority to give to her to interview these people, right?

to reveal this event and the allegation therein.

10
11

12

l3
14
'15

a.

That I don't remember. I -- my -- my understanding is that she -- that the mother had been advised to go to see Greta to reveal this allegation. Right. Been advised by either Erickson or
Laird, correct?

8Q. Did Greta Sawyer tell you about the meeting I before it happened? 10 A. No. She did not. 11 0. Did Laird tell you that they were going to
12

meet before it happened?

13 A. No. He did not. 14 0. Did Erickson?

r5

A.

No. He did not.

l6

A. I think it was Father Erickson. O. Right. l8 A. Yes. 19 O. And so she did and she brought the child at
17

16 0. So you didn't know there was going to be? 17 A. I did not know. 18 a. On the 2lst of June, there's an indication of
19 20

20
21

the request of Father Erickson, correct?

a meeting in the morning between Haselberger, Laird and Eisenzimmer. Are you aware of that?

22 23 24
25

A. O.

That r don't know.


And you're aware that an interview was

conducted of the child at that time?

A. I wasn't aware of that, no. a. Is that news to you?


158

21 A. No. 22 a. That's news to you? 23 A. It is. 24 0. Have you looked at any of the documentation
25

pertaining to this matter at all?


160

14.
2 3

That is news to me. My understanding was that the mother went and I dd -- until now I had not heard that she brought the child with her.
The child was interviewed, according to the
records that we have, at one of the Chancery offices on the 20th by Greta Sawyer and tape

rA.
3

No. I didn't know it existed.


At9:42 there's an indication that
a

2Q.
4
5
6

4Q.
5
6

litigation hold was placed and there was an instruction given by Andy Eisenzimmer on that
day to not destroy any files or evidence. Are you aware of that?

sA.
l0
11

recorded. Is that news to you? That is.


And that it could have been the 19th or the

eQ.
12

20th. In any case, that would be before you


claim a report was even made to the police,
correct?

7A.. 8Q. I l0 A. 11 0.

I'm not,

no.

Had there been some destruction of files and

evidence before this time -No.

-- on any cases that you're aware

of?

13
14
15 16 17 18 19

A.

Well, my understanding of the sequence of things all revolves around this privileged context, and I -- my understanding was that Father Erickson had suggested, because he didn't feel he could break the confidentiality of the conversation, that she should go to see Greta Sawyer.
Well, the interview done by Greta Sawyer was done at your offices at the Hayden Center?

12 A. No. 13 0. That you know of? 14 A. No. I do not. 15 a. Why would he give such an instruction
l6
hadn't been a practice in play before --

if that

17

A. A.

I I

have no -know?

l8 le
20
21

a. -- do you

20 0.
21

have no idea. It was not our practice. a. After you, then, first met with Eisenzimmer and learned what you claim to have learned,
what was the next thing you did or what did you do responsive to the information you
received?

22 A. 23 a.
24
25

At the Hayden Center, yes'


And that was not a confessional secret kind of

22 23 24

thing, that was done at the request of Greta


Sawyer and Father Laird, correct?
Page 157

25

A.
202

I instructed him to do what he had told

me we

04/08/2074 07:53:37 AM

to 160 of

40 of 51 sheets

161
1

163
1

2 3

should do as the next steps, which was to inform the law -- legal -- I mean, the -- the police and then to inform Father Wehmeyer of the accusation.
And it's your belief you prepared the decree,

Eisenzimmer told you?

2
3

4
5 6 7

A. O. A.

Correct.
And --

That
right?

I can recall,

yes.

5Q.
6

MR, HAWS: Talking about that day,


MR, ANDERSON: Pertaining to

then, after that time?

7A..
8

That's my recollection, yes. I didn't prepare it. Iennifer Haselberger prepared it.
But you signed it?

that

sQ. r0 A.
11 0. 12 A. 13 a.
,14 A. 15 a.

I I
10
11

subject, yes. (Discussion out of the hearing of

I did sign it, yes.


And she was authorized to prepare it as --

the court reporter)


BY MR, ANDERSON:

Correct. -- your canon lawyer? Correct.


Did you read it?

12 13

O.

Did you have any discussions of having

meetings with your top officials at that time, Haselberger, Laird, Eisenzimmer, about whether

14 15

it either should be reported or should have


been reported sooner?

16
17 18

1e
20
21

A. I read it, but I wasn't paying attention to the -- the dates per se. I was looking at the content of the -- the statement. a. In the first paragraph you are reciting when
you received the information and you used both a quote and an "I," don't you?

l6
17 18

A. I don't recall any discussions on that at that tme. I know that there were discussions of
that subsequently when it was reported in the newspaper, but at that tme I don't recall any discussion of that.

l9
20

2t
22 23 24 25

22 A. Yes. 23 a. You read that, didn't you? 24 A. r dd. 25 0. Okay. When's the next tme you received any
162
1

A. A.

What discussions are you talking about

subsequently? What was said and by whom? When -- there -- there was a sequence of discussions that took place, I believe, in
164

2
3

information from any source pertaining to either the internal investigation or


Wehmeyer's status?

44.
5 6 7 8

Well, I had asked, as the document indicates, I asked for a regular repott from Father Laird, and so that would have been given to me, generally speaking, at our weekly meetings, which is on Tuesday mornings.
(Discussion out of the hearing of

4
5
6

7 8

O.

early October of 2O13 about what the -- the dates were and how the sequence fell out. And there was a great deal of confusion about that. Of course, Jennifer had already left our employ at that point, so we weren't able to ask her about the confusion of the dates. Who have you asked about it to try to clear
it?

I
10
11

I A.
10
11

the court reporter)


BY MR. ANDERSON:

We talked about it in terms of my staff at the time, it would have been Mr. Kueppers and

12 a. 13 A.
'14 15

Was that after the arrest? Yes, it would have been after the arrest. (Discussion out of the hearing of

'12

t3
14

I believe our communications director. we were trying to figure out the sequence of how that all
Susan Mulheron and happened.
And you're talking about Jim Accurso?

the court reporter)


BY MR, ANDERSON:

l6

l5 l6

17 a.
18

So is it correct to say, then, the only

t9
20
21

information you had and the only source of that information before the arrest of Wehmeyer was that told you by Andy Eisenzimmer and
nothing else --

A. A. 17 a. l8 A. 19 A.
20
21

He was not involved in the -Who was the communications director then?

Sarah Mealey.
So, really, discussions were more about communications management and crisis management than trying to get to the bottom of really what happened?

22 A. 23 a. 24 A. 26 0.

Correct.

22
23

-- is that what you're saying? Correct.


And you've told us everything that Andy
Page 161

A.

No. No.
MR. HAWS: Objection, that's

24 25

argumentative and misstates facts,


04lO8l2Ol4 07:53:37 AM

41 of 51 sheets

to 164 of 202

165

167

14.
2

I would not agree to that.


BY MR. ANDERSON: Then why have a communications person involved?

rA.
2 3

3Q.
4

4
5
6

have my memory and my memory doesn't correspond to what you're telling me she has said. (Discussion out of the hearing of

54.
6

Because she was involved in all of our

the court reporter)


MR. ANDERSON:

7Q. I I
10
11

discussions. But that's for purposes of public relations, I'm interested in what you did about
protecting the children and making sure you adhere to the law. Why did you bring the
communications person into that conversation?

I think we need to

7
8

take a break here, so let's take a shod


break,
MR, HIBBEN: We're going off the

l0
11

record at 1:44 p,m,


(Recess taken)
MR. ANDERSON: This will be on the

12
13

A.

14

l5
16 17 18

le
20
21

Well, because this was subsequent, this was in October 2O13 is what I'm saying, but when I first discussed it after the event had taken place, we acted immediately to inform the police and to make sure that he was taken off of the premises so that he couldn't be a threat to the -- to the -- the children.
You have made and your office has made a

12 13 14 15

the transcription record and not used for purposes of time. We just took a break
because we were posed with the dilemma of the

l6
'17

l8
19

o.

time limitation and the fact that the archbishop began the last segment with a correction to his earlier testimony concerning Shelley, and he began it with a correction by stating that a report, he believed, had been made to law enforcement in 2004, he corrected

number of statements that you have acted immediately to inform the police concerning

20
2'.1

22 23

24
25

Wehmeyer. And do you make those statements to try to assure the people that they can trust what you say about child safety and your reporting of it?
166

22
23

that by saying that the report had been made to a person working for the archdiocese who
had been in law enforcement earlier' That correction changes the questions that we now
168

24
25

14.
2 3

We say that because that's our policy, and as

need to ask or would have asked, had he not

we would say in any other situation, we would quote our policy and this is the way we -- we act and we let people know that.
Jennifer Haselberger has been very critical of you and the way you handled Wehmeyer, has she
not?

made it, regarding Shelley, So I just had a discussion with counsel about taking more time

4
5
6 7

5Q.
6
7

to make sure, using that correction, we ask the questions that need to be asked. And your position on that, counsel, was and is?
MR. HAWS: The archbishoP testified

sA.
I l0 0.
11

I don't know. I haven't talked to


t.

her about

I I
10
'11

when you asked him the questions, and you did do follow-up questions, and he testified that when you asked specifically, "Does that change any of your testimony that I've asked you

Well, you've seen the MPR reports where she


has?

12
l3 l5
16

A. I've heard her quoted, but her directly about this.

I haven't talked to

'12 '13 '14 15 16 17 18 19

about and how you took actions," his answer was no, only as to today when he said it was
his belief it was a repo to St. Paul Police, but it was a report to what was a retired police officer, That's all that it changed. It changed nothing else and he told you that'
MR. ANDERSON: Well,

14 0.

And she has reported very publicly that you did not report when you learned that Wehmeyer had abused?

,17 A. Well, she's -- she's inaccurate on that. l8 She's not correct. 1e a. And as a canon lawyer, she's your record
20

it may not

keeper, isn't she?

20
21

change how he answers some of the questions' but those are questions that haven't been asked and the questions that now need to be asked are very different than those that were asked pre-correction. So if you're not going

21 A. 22 0.
23 24

She should be. And you have no records today, nor are you aware of any, that contradict the assertions she has about what you told her and when it
Page 165

22
23

24
25

25 was repoed, correct? 04/O8/2Ot4 07:53:37 AM

to give the time, just state it on the record' MR. HAWS: You have 20 minutes' You
42 of 51 sheets

to 168 of 202

169
1

171
1

4
5 6 7
8

can ask whatever questions you want. MR. ANDERSON: Wait a minute. Well, I just want to see if you're going to agree to the additional time by reason of the

Jennifer Haselberger to you, correct?

2 3

A.
O.

4
5
6

A.
O.

I
t0
11

correction or not. And I think it's 15 minutes -- there was actually 32 minutes taken on Shelley -- no. There was actually 32 minutes remaining, according to our calculation, and, you know, if I can get through it, I just want to know if we're going

I I
l0
11

Correct. And pertaining to Shelley in February of 2Ol2? Correct. At that time, at the bottom of the second paragraph, it reflects Shelley was without supervision. Is that your understanding? MR. HAWS: ArchbishoP, just read the document, the entire document -MR. ANDERSON: No' MR. HAWS:

to have more time or not.


MR. HAWS: You have what time is

-- so You have it

in

'12

12 13 14 15

context.
MR. ANDERSON:

l3
14
15

left. I don't think it's 32 minutes, either.


MR. ANDERSON: Well, we've been

No. No, he's not'

MR. HAWS: Well, counsel, You can't

l6
17

keeping time on that and excluding your speaking objections, counsel, and so we're

l6
17

ask out of context. MR. ANDERSON: Go off the record. Let me -MR. HAWS: Well,

going to start the deposition of the

l8 l9
20
21

22
23

archbishop. I'm going to assume that you are not affording more time and I'm going to, for purposes of Shelley, given the correction made, I'm going to use the 32 minutes remaining to do the best I can to get through what I can today, knowing that that isn't
feasible.
MR. HAWS: You have the oPPortun

l8
19

no'

He's not going

20
2',1

22
23

off the record. He has a right to read the deposition -MR. ANDERSON: No. We're not going to have him reading documents, taking the time on the record, That's intended to delay the
process. MR. HAWS: You want to ask a 172

24
25

24
25

170
1

4
5 6 7

to ask whatever additional questions on Shelley to clear up what you need to do now' And, again, the time left is whatever it is' MR. ANDERSON: OkaY. We're going to go back to the video record now. MR. HIBBEN: All right. I just need
one moment, please.
MR. HAWS: What is the actual time,

question about a document that's in front of the archbishop and you want to be unfair and not let him read to see what the context is,
is that your position? MR. FINNEGAN:

4
5 6 7

No. We'lltake

I I
10
11

I
9

videographer, of what we've got on the videotape deposition? MR. HIBBEN: I have three hours, 35 minutes and 52 seconds. MR. HAWS: Thank You. MR. HIBBEN: Yes, sir. We're back on the record at 2:03 P.m.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

break and let him read it. MR. HAWS: Well, whY would You take a break? When do you ever do that in a deposition? This is a deposition. Ask your questions.
MR. FINNEGAN: We don't have PeoPle

l0
1',l

12

12

that are trying to delay the depositions like


you.
MR. HAWS:

l3
14
15 16

l3
14

I hardlY am trYing to
If questions were

t5 l6
17

delay the deposition.

17 0.
l8
19 20
21

22

23 24

25 43 of 51 sheets

Archbishop, because you made a correction at the start of the last section concerning Shelley, I'm going to go back and try to get your testimony concerning some of the things that need to be asked, given that correction, that weren't asked because of your testimony given before it. I'm going to show You an Exhibit 38 and it is a memo from you -- excuse me, from
Page 169

l8
19

asked properly, it would have been much quicker. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Haws, You're an

20
21

officer of the court. You know better than this.


MR. HAWS:

am.

22 23 24 25

it uP with the judge, but I'll tell you right now, I'm going to read a portion from this and ask you
MR. ANDERSON: We'lltake a question, ArchbishoP
2O2

to t72 of

04/0812014 07:53:37 AM

173

175

BY MR. ANDERSON:

1Q.
2
3

2Q.
3

In this memorandum to you, she states, "The reason this was not given more attention in
2008 only became clear recently, For, while there is reference to the misconduct in Father Shelly's green personnel file, the detailed information relating to the misconduct, including the investigator's report, was of 48 restricted files that were archived (meaning moved to the basement, wthout reference to it being placed in the personnel files) in the

There's also reference to the archdiocese ordering an investigation and a computer analysis to be done of the machine' Did you see that yourself?

4
5

6
7

54. I did not. 6Q. You were told there were images on there by
7

I I
10
11

I I l0
11

the experts that did the analysis that there was questionable or borderline child
pornography, were you not?

A.

I did read the context and I think they would


-- it said they were borderline, but they didn't think it was child pornography.
But there were questions about that, were

12
13

early months of 2008." Do you remember discussing that with her at that time?

12

13 0.
14

14
15

A.

16 0,
17

(Examining documents) I don't at this moment, I don't recall discussing that with her. She goes on to state, and I'll ask you, "I
have attached a list of files that were moved to the archives, although we have not been able to locate all the files on the list." Were there files moved to the archives,
Archbishop?

there not?

15 A. I think there were questions for Jennifer. 16 0. And you had questions about that? 17 A. r dd.

l8 l9
20
21

l8
19 20

0.

And aren't questions the same as suspicions enough to justify a repoft to the police at

that time? A.

21
22 23

I sincerely thought that what we were doing


with this outside investigation, that the person -- the forensc person and the retired policeman had the wherewithal to make that investigation.
176

22
23 24 25

A,

We have -- we have two archive rooms and the

files of active priests are in one, files of priests who have left and priests who are dead would be in another room.
174

24
25

rQ.
2 3

And in the same memo at the second page, there's a recitation of various things known about Shelley that -- my question to you as is

O,

You say "outside investigation." The fact of

2 3

the matter is, this is a --

4
5

stated in the memo to you, she says, "In 2004


while Shelley was assigned to St. Jude, Father Shelley's" -MR, HAWS: Where are You reading?

4
5
6

A. well, internal. O. -- internal investigation? A. Internal investigation with an outside


company.
An outside company hired by the archdiocese --

6
7

I I
l0

Counsel, can you just tell him where you're reading from?
BY MR. ANDERSON:

11 a.
12

l3
14

At the top. "shelley's personal computer (one of three) was mistakenly donated to a parishioner during the parish garage sale," Do you know what happened to the three
computers?

O. I A. I O. l0 A. 11 O.
7
12 13 14

Correct. -- to find out for them what's on it, right? Right.


And all of this investigation was done and handled by those retained and those in your office, correct? Nobody outside the
archdiocese? MR. HAWS: You're now referring to

l5

16
17

A.

l8
19

(Examining documents) I only see here one computer -- one of three. 0. Yeah, but I'm talking about there were three
computers, Do you know what happened to those three computers? I know that the one comPuter that they referred to was ultimately turned in by the person who received the donation. He came to

l5 l6
17

the 2004 time frame here?


MR. ANDERSON:

I'm referring to the

t8 l9
20
21

-- yes,

A.

Well, what

20

21
22 23 24 25

A.

meant by "outside" was that they weren't people that worked directly for us on our staff.
BY MR. ANDERSON: Father Shelley's still in ministry, isn't he?

22
23

the archdiocese about it. I don't know what happened to the other two computers.
Page 173

24 25

O, A.
2O2

Father is not in ministry. He's on a leave of


absence.
44 of 51 sheets

O4/O8/2OI4 07:53:37 AM

to L76 of

177

179

1Q. 2A..
3

Okay. Excuse me, he took a sabbatical?


Took a sabbatical and then he was placed on leave of absence, The point that this memo was sent to you and you read it, Shelley was in ministry, was he
not?

rQ.
2A..
3

That means you received it, correct?

That somebody would have received itr yes


Yes.
Well, this is to you?

4Q.
5 6

7A.. 8Q.
9

He was. And he was continued in ministry, was he not, by you?

4Q. 54. 6Q, 7A.. 8Q. 94.


10 a. 11 A. 12 0.
l3
14

Yes.
So you're not disputng you received

it --

No.

-- correct?
No. That is correct?

t0
11

A.

have those dates. This is 2OL2. He was -- 2O12 he would have been out of

I don't

That's correct.
Okay. The last paragraph, and she writes to you, "Father Shelley has not been assessed by
SLI since the computer was determined to have images that were borderline illegal." Did you do anything responsive to that information, Archbishop?

12

13 14
15

ministry. 0. It was June 2012 that he took a sabbatical? A. (Examining documents) I don't -- I don't know where you're getting that date.
Archbishop, Haselberger refers also at the bottom paragraph that she's attaching a copy of a September 23rd,2004, letter -- 2004

l5
16 17

16 a.
17

l8
19

letter of referral to the SLL That would be St. Luke's Institute, correct? Correct.
And you had seen that report, had you not?

18 A. I don't recall. 1e o. At the next page, the last sentence, she


20
21

20

21 A. 22 a. 23 A.
24 25

writes to you, "You will recall that this has not been without problems, including" --

(Examining documents) I can't recall at this moment whether -- whether I did. I'm confused
by this.
178 MR. HAWS: You're referring to the

22 A. 23 a. 24 A. 25 0.

Where -- where are you reading, please?


The next page.

Yes.
Last sentence of the first paragraph.
180

rA.
2Q.
3

2 3

letter or the report?


MR. ANDERSON: The repo, the St.

Okay. She writes, "You will recall that this has not been without problems, including the fact that
Father Shelley had an 18-year-old male living in the rectory of St. John the Baptist in

4
5

Luke's Institute report.


BY MR. ANDERSON:

4
5 6 7

6Q. Had you ever seen that? 7A.. I don't believe I dd. If it came in I September o1 2OO4, I wouldn't have been
9

2009," Did you know that, Archbishop, before


having received this?

84.
9

I don't
this.

believe

knew it before receiving

l0
11

present on the site at the time. a. The records seem to reflect that they actually
got the report and sent him there before they got the computer evaluated or completed. MR. HAWS: Archbishop, if you know.

10 0.
11

So when you got this information, did you do

anything about it?

'12

12
13

A.

I -- I -- I

13
14

l5

I don't know if those are facts or not, but if you know. A. Well,

14
15

do believe that it was looked into by -- by somebody on the staff and I think it was my delegate for clergy, who would have been Father Tiffany. Okay. And did he give you a report or take
any action?

16
17

I would

have to look more carefully at

16 a.
17

this.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

t8

le
21

l8
l9

A.

I think it was past the time that the young


man was living there.
Was Shelley interviewed by you or any of your delegates --

o.

Okay. Well, let's just look at the sentence,

20

It says, at the last paragraph she says, "Archbishop, I'm attaching the copy of our
September 23rd, 2004, letter of referral to SLI as well as their repo to this memo."
Correct?

20
21

0.

22 23 24

25

A.

Correct.
Page 177

22 A. I believe by my -23 0. -- to find out? 24 A. I believe by my delegate. 25 0. And was that recorded or reported to police?
to 180 of 202
04/0812014 07:53:37 AM

45 of 51 sheets

181
1

183

A. I believe it should have been. I don't know


-- I can't say definitely it was, but it should have been reported.

rA.
2

2 3

I can't -- I can't remember what I did about it.


Did you alert any of the parishioners or the public or the police of what you were alarmed about and the information you're receiving in

3Q.
4
5 6

4
5
b 7 8

O. A. O.

Do you have any knowledge that it was?

No,

I don't.

The next paragraph goes on to state, at the second sentence, beginning -- the paragraph

this memo that concerns you?

7A.. I
8

starts with "However," Yes.


And the second --

A. l0 O.
9
11

sQ.
l0
'|1
12
13

I'll read it, it says,

12 13

14
15 16

"However, now that you have access to the information that was recently recovered (including DVDs of the material that was found on the computer) I think there is a great risk

14
15 16

honestly can't say right now what I -- what I did or didn't do. At the last paragraph you do state -- it is stated by her, "I shared this information with Father Laird last July," Do you have any memory of having taken any action to report Shelley to law enforcement, to alert the parishioners or the public about the risks now
discerned concerning Shelly's danger to children or use, possible possession of child pornography?
MR. HAWS: Objection, that misstates

-- "a great risk associated with reassigning Father Shelley." I read that
of associated" correctly?

17

17

l8 l9
20
21

A. You did. O. You did reassign him, didn't You? A. I believe -- no. I don't believe I did re -reassign him at that point.
Hugo.
He was already in

l8
19

20
21

22 23 24 25

22 23 24 25

the facts, the evidence, the document you just read, counsel. There's not a word in there that says that there's a danger to children, so you've misstated the record again, inserting your own facts. If you ask it another way, it would be a proper question.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

O. A.

Actually, you left him there for six months, didn't you, in the parish he was? r believe I did, yes.
182

184

1Q.
2

Without notifying anybody of this information that you had received from her, correct?

rQ.
2

Did you take any action responsive to the

34.
4
5 6

7Q. I I
t0
11

That would be correct, but I don't know that her information was -- was correct here. I'm just looking at this again for -- it's been a long time since I've seen it. Well, let me ask you another question, Under
that same paragraph enumerated number 1, she states, I'll read and then ask you questions.
"Collecting all the personal computers/ laptops that Father Shelley is using at this

34.
4
5
6 7

information contained in this memo? I believe that there was a question of the

sQ.
9

l0
11

ongoing nature of the -- the images that were on that computer and I believe I was waiting for a final analysis of that in order to make some kind of reaction. And so it is correct that four months later, Shelley was allowed to resign from his parish, claim to the parishioners he was taking a
sabbatical, correct, with your permission?

12

t3

14 A. 15 0.
l6
17

time and sending them for similar analysis." This is a recommendation action? Uh huh. It states, "If the SLI report is correct and Father Shelley has an ongoing problem with
compulsive sexual behavior in his Internet pornography use, it is very likely that this use will have continued, and since Father Shelley's never received treatment to address

12 A. I -- I'd have to look at the record. 13 0. Do you have a memory of that? 14 A. I don't have a memory of that. I know that he
15 16 17

did ask for a sabbatical and he was granted a sabbatical, and then I put him on leave after other information came to the fore.

t8 l9
20
21

l8
l9
20
2',1

a.

And did you or anybody under your direction ever alert the police or the public of what

you knew as contained in this memo about


Shelley?

this." Did that alarm you or do you remember


that alarming you at the time? A. believe that would have alarmed me at the time, yes.
What did you do about it?
Page 181

22

23
24

22 A. 23 a.
24
25

Not to -- not to my knowledge. And I'm going to refer you to Exhibit 45'
Before

I do, do you remember

a dispute between
46 of 51 sheets

25 0.

Jennifer Haselberger and Kevin McDonough about

04/08/2014 07:53:37 AM

to t84 of 202

185
1

187

whether these images on this computer were illegal and child porn and, thus, a form of sexual abuse?

rQ. 2A.. 3Q.


4
5 6 7

Okay. I'll show you Exhibit 45.


Yes.
And

I'll direct your attention to 45, which

is

44. I do remember there was an argument, yes' 5Q. Tell us about that argument' what you heard
6

dated February 8th, 2013, it's to you from her. Fifth paragraph down she writes, "I would also like to reiterate that I think all of this information should be turned over to law enforcement for their determination, in hopes of avoiding prosecution for you and your

and what you did resPonsive to it'

74. I
9

t0
1',l

12 13 14

Well, Jennifer maintained that the images were those of child pornography and Father McDonough said they were not. And we had the -- at the time the investigation that was done with the retired policeman indicating that these were borderline. And so there was a dispute, obviously, about the nature of these
images.
And Kevin McDonough took the position that 60 percent of the images are created by law enforcement and because he had not been caught, he had not been guilty and he made

I
9

l0
11

staff by offering an affirmative defense." She wrote that to You, didn't she?
She did.
And then she states, "Finally, I am attaching

12 A. 13 0.
'14

a memo written by Father McDonough when he


made a similar assessment of Father Wehmeyer
His conclusion, which Father Laird supported'"

15 0.
l6
17 18 19

l5 l6
17

l8
19 20
21

In other words, she's saying, "Don't make the same mistake here that you made with Wehmeyer." Is that the way you read this? MR, HAWS: Objection, it's assuming
facts not in evidence. That's not what the memo says.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

that case to you, didn't he?

20 A. I don't recall that at all, no. 21 0. He also claimed that they may have been pop-up
22 23

images and innocently, then, on that computer. Do you remember that?

22

23

24 A. 25 a.
1

Subsequent to this, yes,

remember that.

Jennifer Haselberg er disputed that vigorouslY'


186

24 a. 25 A.

As you recall, is that the way you read it?

No.
188

did she not?

rQ.
2 3

A. r believe she did, A. And she went to the length to even copy some
of those images and put them on your desk,

You didn't turn this over because you were worried that you were in possession and you could be prosecuted?

4
5 6 7
8

4A..
5

That's not
because

true. I didn't turn it over

A.

didn't she? Those were the same images

I didn't think it was child


(Discussion off the record)

believe that you

6 7

pornography.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

referred to before.

a. How many images? I A. I think there were only three, that I recall. l0 O. And she told you that she had showed those to
11

eQ.
10

So what training do you have in the area of what is and isn't child pornography?

McDonough and he ordered her to put them back

12

in the archive, didn't she?

A. 14 A. A. 15 t6 O. A. 17 t8 O. l9 A.
l3
20
2',1

believe she did, yes.

11 A. 12 0. 13 A.
. l5

Not very much.


Well, what training at all? None.

And she was upset about that?

I believe she was, yes. And she wanted you to take action, didn't she? I believe she did' yes.
And you chose not to, didn't You?

well, r didn't think they were child


pornograPhY.
She also urged you to report to law

O.

22 23 24

enforcement what those images were and what the archdiocese knew and included in Shelly's

file, including the earlier stuff, correct?

I don't 25 47 of 51 sheets

A.

recall that.
Page 185

to 188 of 202

04/O8l2Ol4 07:53:37 AM

189

O4/O8/20t4 07:53:37 AM

Page 189

to 192 of 2Oz

48 of 51 sheets

193

195
1

rA
2Q.
3

counsel. You're trying to make sound bites'


There's no evidence that the archdiocese has

4
5 6 7

Let me ask you this, Archbishop. You've now testified and publicly declared that you have identified those that you believed credibly accused and that you have files pertaining to

2
3

not cooperated with any law enforcement officials, with any person that's been -MR. ANDERSON: That's not a legal objection.
MR. HAWS: That is a legal

4
5 6 7
8

them, don't you think it's past time to turn

it over to law enforcement and, if so, will


you do that now?
MR. HAWS: Objection, that calls for

I I
l0
11

objection, counsel, because you continue to try to create your own clips and that's not -MR. ANDERSON:

a legal conclusion and something that the


archbishop doesn't have -- isn't going to do

t0
11

No. We're trying to

protect kids here, we're trying to protect


kids, counsel. Give me a legal objection

12 13

at this point in tme.


BY MR. ANDERSON:

12 13

about it.
MR, HAWS: Ask him questions about

14 0.
l5

Well, I'm going to ask you. Will you turn the files over to the law enforcement agencies?

14
15

it.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

16
17

A.

t8

l9
20
21

mentioned before in this testmony' we've had a thorough review of the files by the Kinsale -- Kinsale and with the -- and they're still in the process of doing that and I'm waiting for that -- results of that to be able to -- to do exactly what You're
Wetl, as suggesting.
But Kinsale was hired by you, aren't they?

l6 ,17 a.
18 19 20
21

And I ask you, Archbishop, and giving you a chance to give the law enforcement people to know what your office knows by turning those files over to them privately and letting them

investigate it.
MR. WIESER: Time's up.
BY MR. ANDERSON:

22

22
23

23 0. 24 A. 25 0.
1

Correct. Okay. Just like the clergy review board


194
is

24 a. 25 A.
I

Why don't you do that?

As

I ndcated to you,

once we have the


196

appointed by you, correct?

2A.. 3Q.
4

Correct.
Just like Setter was hired by your former --

2Q.
3

file -Why wait? Kids are at risk.


MR. HAWS: Counsel, we're done. MR, ANDERSON: What do you mean

the former archbishop, correct?

4
5
6

54. 6Q.
7

Correct.
And jusl like the forensic investgator was hired, So the question I put to you, and maybe it's a request, why not just privately

we're done? We're not done with this


deposition.
MR. WIESER: What time does -MR. ANDERSON: You're declaring the

7 8

I
9 10
11

turn the files over of those priests to law enforcement to let the professionals review it instead of trying to do this yourself?
MR. HAWS: Same objections. BY MR, ANDERSON:

I
10
11

time is up?
MR. HAWS: Let's take a break and

find out what the time is, okay? Let's take

12

12

break right now from the video and we'll find

13

l3
14

14 a.

Why not?

out how much time you've been on the video. MR, HIBBEN: We're going off the
record at 2:34.
MR. HAWS: We can stay on the

r5
l6
17

A.

My answer would be, we are prepared to do what we have to do when the Kinsale file review has

l5
16 17

been done.
Don't you realize how risky it is and the danger this poses by keeping all these things within your control and those you hire and
keeping it under the internal processes that

record.
MR. HIBBEN:

18 0.
19 20
21

l8 l9
20
21

I have four hours

and

seven minutes and five seconds.


MR. HAWS: We're over the time. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I told You at

22 23 24

you have instead of turning it over to the


professionals who are trained in law

22 23

the start, you've got speaking objections. You're not going to get away with creating
delays by your crazy speaking objections, counsel. There's not one legal objection you
04/O8120L4 07:53:37 AM

enforcement investigation?
MR. HAWS: And

24

25 49 of 51 sheets

I'll object again,


Page 193

25

to 196 of 202

197

199
1 even more acutely problematic by reason of two 2 things: One, the archbishop's change in testimony that altered the necessity to ask 3 4 questions that otherwise would not have been, 5 in which after a break was taken, the decision 6 was made; two, there have been speaking 7 objections, none of which have been legally 8 based or identified in law as anything other 9 than recitations of belief; and, three -MR, HAWS: You can take the l0 archbishop out. 11 MR. ANDERSON: So I guess counsel is 12 leaving now, we're considering the deposition 13 14 open, They're gone -- and are you prepared to continue, Archbishop? 15 MR. WIESER: ArchbishoP, whY don't 16 you come? 17 MR. HAWS: No. ArchbishoP, You l8 don't have to. We can go. 19 For the record, You had ShelleY 20 the Wehmeyer files beforehand. In files and 21 22 terms of testimony, I believe you've actually gone beyond what the court had authorized you 23 24 to do in the deposition in any event. And the ections were necessitated by your own 25 200 1 conduct. And we'll deal with what we have to 2 with the court. You've preserved your record and we've made ours, so there's no other 3 4 reason to argue about it. MR. ANDERSON: No, We're done. 5

have posed that was legitimate' It was either privileged or, you know, if you want to do 2 form or something like that. All it has been 3 4 is speaking objections and a waste of time. I warned you in advance and I said I'm not going 5 6 to count that on the time. So given that I've had a timekeeper here and according to my 7 I timekeeper -- and your speaking objections 9 took up how much time? MS, ODEGAARD: Two-and-a-half l0 11 minutes. MR, ANDERSON: Two-and-a-half 12 t3 minutes. MR, WIESER: For the record, I've 14 15 been also keeping track and I have less than a half a minute of total time spent on what 16 17 you're referring to as speaking objections. t8 So at this point you're saying there are an additional two minutes left? 19 MS. ODEGAARD: Two-and-a-half 20 minutes left. 21 MR. WIESER: Will You keeP track of 22 23 that, Mr. VideograPher? MR. HAWS: Well, mY sPeaking 24 25 objections, for the record before you oon
1

198

r the video, are because of improper questions 2 you posed, improper hypotheticals, improper g factual scenarios that require that, counsel' And as an officer of the court, you should s know that you cannot do that, that is not 6 appropriate nor is it fair to insert your own z facts in order to create whatever it may be 8 you're trying to do here. The archbishop has g been here to answer whatever questions he can lo as best he can in a proper form, so -MR. WIESER: We're over alreadY. I 11
12 think we can wrap it up at this point, if you

6 7 8

l0
1',l

12 13

t3 want to. MR, HAWS: Yeah, let's just do that' 't4 MR. BRAUN: I'm good with that' ls MR. WIESER: That's fine. 16 MR. ANDERSON: So are we done? 17 MR. HAWS: We're done. You're Past 18
19
your time.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I consider this 20 21 deposition to be open for reasons that were 22 legitimate at the start of this deposition by 2g reason of the failure to disclose, which 24 should have been, and the untimely disclosures 2s as well as the incomplete ones' And now it's
04/O8/20L4 07:53:37 AM
Page 197

14

l5
16 17 18

l9
20
21

22

23 24 25

to 200 of 202

50 of 51 sheets

201

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I
9

I, ARcHBISHoP JoHN NIENSTEDT, do hereby certify that I have read the foregoing transcript of my depositon and believe the same to be true and correct, except as follows: (Noting the page numberand line numberof the change oraddition and the reason for it)

l0
11

'12 '13

14

l5
16 17 18 19 20 2'l 22 23 24 25

Subscribed to and sworn before me this --- d a y of___,20L4.

202

I
2 3 4

STTE OE UINNESOT COSNTI OF WSEI

5 6 1

the that I lepotted I hereby cetify of RcHBISHoP JoHN NIENSTEDT, on deposition 2oI4, !^ st. Pul, the 2nd day of p!il, nd that the witness was by ne Mnnsota, the whole truth; duly sworn to tell first unde hy was transcribed That the testimony direction and is a tlue record of the of the witness, testimony has been chargd rht the cost of he orignal and to the party who noticed the deposition, vho oldeled coies have been that all parties charged at the sahe rate for such coPiesi or employee or That I n not a elative ol counsel of any of the Parties, attorney ol or employee of such attorney a lelative or

I
9

10 11 T2 13 14

15
16 1? 18 19 20

in the interested Tht I am not financially with th palties, action and have no contlact in th or persons with an interest attoneys, or has a substantial action tht affcts ny ihpartialityi tendency to affect to read and sign the deposition Tht the right by the witness vas not waived, and a copy was plovided to hih for his review;
WITNESS Y HND ND SEL THIS 4th
dAY

of April,

2014.

2I
22
23 2A

Gary W. Hemes

51 of 51 sheets

Page 201

to

2O2

of 202

0410812OL4 07:53:37 AM

1
102:5, 102:18 139:8,'l4O:17, 166:16 abusers Irl - 126:7

$
$64,000 trt - 139:16
I

124:5,124'.16,
127'.17,138:1 138'.19, 167:21, 174'.4, 176:16, 177:'18,178:8, 178:22 2006 tzl - 9:23, 115:10 2007 rel-9:24,9:25,
,

2:03tr: - 170:15

7
7-11-typetrl -121:22

2:34il-

196:15

2ndltt - 'l'.17,7:25,
1O7,71:20,113:4,
136'.10,202:4

abusing

- 13:21

76Cpt- 32:20,139:21 Tthtzl - 1'.18,2:8

19'.2'l, 119:22

access[1]- 181:11
accordance - 6:2 accordng Il - 99:18, 158:4,'169:8, 197:7 accurate ttl - 40:14 accurately t1 - 4:9

'12tl-

89:25 'at trl - 151 :19 1

3
3trt - 136:8
3......................1 36 t - 3:4 30 tzl - 1 :18, 2:8 32 tl - 169:6, 169:7, 169:13,169:21 3200 t1t - 2:8
35 t1l - 170:1
36+7

I
8tl - 1:24 800 tzl - 2:21 ,70:4 8th t1t - 187:4 9
9'l ttl - 141 'l 91-year-old f 1I 40:1 5

1O:2

2008trrl -10:7,34:23,
112:13,112:20, 1'13'.2, 117:15,
117:'18, '117:21,

Accurso

t1l

- 164:15

I+1

- 1:5, 8:3, 140:13,

182:8 100 trl - 2:5 'l01ltl - 2:20 l0:31 lr I - 71 :1 6 'lO:.47 lt - 7'l:21


'117 ttl - 2:16 12:15trt- 136:6 13th rgl - 25'.2, 143:20, 143:22 15 t1l - 169:5
'17

129'.5,173:4, 173:12 2009 Itsl - 1'14:6, 114:18,115:5, 115:8,116:14,


116:'15, 117:5,

accusation t+l - 51:8, 51 :13,73:13, 161:4

accusations n-72:1
accused
so

13:21,

117:9, 117:16, 117:19,121:8, '125:16,125:23,


127:'17, 180:6 2010tzt- 135:4, 139:24 2011 trl - 59:25 2012tot - 92:1, 98:5, 98:16, 139:2,

I -72:9,72:13,

16:2, '16:17 , 17:14, 17'.22,'18:13, 19:22,

72:19,127:9
366 t1t - 2:4

99tst - 188:15,

20:24,22:2,25:5, 26:16,28:21 ,29:8,


31:16, 31'.17 , 32:1
,

ltl - 45:11 , 147:16,

170:24, 191:6, 191 :8, 191 :9 38....................1 70 t1l - 3:7

38vl-

188:18,191:l
99.,..................188 ttl - 3:9 9:05 tzl - 1 :1 9, 8:1

43'.7,43:20, 46:5,

58:8,59:17,72:18,
82:6,103'.25, 110:1
126:7,'126:8, 127:12,'127:22, 128:4, 129:21 ,
,

9:42tt-

160:2

18o -115:11,
'115'.17

4
43tzl -

151'.5, 155:17,
1

56:1

151:10,153:24, 171'.3, 177:10,


'177:11,177:'13

A
a.mt4l- 1:20,8:1
, ,

31'j3, 42:16

131'.24,141:23, 189:15,192:10,
193:5 acttl - 110:19, 145:3,

18-year-oldtrl- 180:4
18....................1 51 - 3:6 18th ts: - I 51 :1 0, 15'l:22, 156j19
r1l

2013tzzt- 26:5,34:23, 101:19,102:5,


102:18, 120:20, 126:'13, 127:7,

445tt187:3

2:12 45121- 184'.23, 187:1

71:16,71:21 abiding trt - 68:18

19ttl-115:17
19-year-olds Itl 115"11

127:18,127:19,
128:6, 129:5, 129:15, 132:23, '132:24,143:5,

45....................1 86 ttl - 3:8 48 lzl - 173:8, 191 :1 3 4thttl - 202:18

ability trl - 74:13


able ttol - 53:8, 60:11, 62:19, 88:6, 113:1, 141:'13,164:5, 173:19, 19'l:17
,

152:24,166:4 acted t4l - 48:10, 153:13,165:15,


165:20

acting Irt - 138:18 action trsl - 54:20,


55:1

19th tzl - 156:2'1, 158:9 1:04ttt- 136:10

143:10,143:23, 143:24,'1641
,

5
52ttl-'170:12
55101
l+l

'193:21

,78:2,79:4,

'li44l1l - '167:10

165:13, 187:4

2014ttl- 1:18,7:25,
71'.20,136:10,
201'.25,202:4, 202:19 20th tol - 153:21 '153:24,154:9, 156:22, 158:6,
1

-2:5,2:9,

2
2ttl - 71:18
2.......................7 1 tii 3:3 20tzl- 49:'l , 168:25 2000 trl - 89:24 2001 t1t - 134i17

2:13,2:21 55113t1t-1:25
55904117 - 2:17
,

abnormal t1l - 28:18 absence lol - 12:16, 84:3,99'.24, 111 12, 176:25,177:3 absolutely t - 40:1 9 abuse ze - 37:19,
39:1, 46:23, 48:19, 51'.13, 54:22, 55:4,

80:1,80'.24,81:2,
144:13,180:'17, 182'.13, 183:12, 184:1,186:'16,

202:14,202:15 actions tsl - 46:'1,


46'.3,46:24, 47:6, 168:12 active tal - 27:18,

5:45 trl - 4:16 5th t1t - 2:20

58:1 0

2lsttrl - 159:18
- 2112 22ndn- 142:'10, 2200
t1t

6
60 rrl - 185:15

55:13,72:2,76:15, 77:23,77:24,78:4, 79:25,82:8,88:2, 88:5, 89:2, 108:17,


110:18, 114:'15, 128:5, 134:21 ,

27:20, 51'.7, 51:21, 52'.3,52:14, 52:15,


173:23

2002F1- 16:24, 48:16, 55:25, 98:14 2004 tsot - 17:17, 17:20,83'.6,86:17,


89:20, 90:1, 90:5,

activity ttt- 123:'14 actual I31 - 4:5,24:18,


170:8

90'.9,94:12,94:24,
95:1 , 95:1 6, 95: 1 8,

144:9,147:14, 149:16,152:6, 154:8,156:18 23rdpt- 177:18, 17822


28th trl - 61:1 293511- 1i24 29th tl - 1O:2, 101:19,

2)338-4348 ttl 1:25 62-CV-13-4075 trl 8:7


61

148:20,148:24,
155:'14, 185:3,
1

89:1 6

acutelytll - 199:1 adamanttrl - 93:22


ADAMSON
r1t

abused Ilsl - 14:9, 18:17,26'.20,28:14,

1:9

28:20,28'22,32:15,
49:3,73:4,73:5, 106'.8, 13022,

97:6, 98:18, 115:10, 1'15:14,120:24,

Adamson tgl - 41:15, 41:20,43:25 added tzl - 127:15,


127:21

2
'162:25

addict Iit - 123:16

alarm
,

- 122:20,
122122,

addictionttl- 118:10
additionz -26:21
201:6

182:21

alarmed pl-

additional

- 5:9, 5:10, 6:8, 169:4, 170:1, 197:19 address z - 100:25, 182:20 addressed l1l- 101:2 adequate ll - 50:1 8
tol

182:23,183:4 alarming ltl- 182:22

75'.13,76:19,79:12, 79:'19,80:23,82:2, 82:23,83:18,87:17, 90'.17,95'21 ,95:24,


96:2, 96:8, 96:'19,

6:9, 7:6, 10:6, 10:8,

anger

I2l

123:11

1O:'15,14:1 ,'19:20,

'124:20

23:19, 29:13, 30:16,

animated t1l - 93:21 Anne ttl - 65:20

31:14,32:'17,39:12,
40:25, 41:9, 43:5, 54'.14,54'.22, 57:20, 64:14, 69:14, 71:23,

alcohol ttt- 151:14


alert I4l - 7:14, 183:3, 183:13,184:19

98:11,100:4, 100:12,101:6,
101'.16,101:22, 101'.25,102:3,

announcementIi] 13:19

aleted1l-74:21 alivefl] - 72:17


allegation tl - 76:15, 78:21,79:2,82:12, 106:12,132:12, 142:18,144:12, 157:13,159:6

adhere tr1- 165:10 adhered tt- 49:17 administered Itl 66:9

102:15,104:9, 104:13,104:19, 104:24,105:10,


105'.12, 105:20, 107 4, 107:13, 107:'14, '109:19, 109:24,1'10:22, 111:1, 112:2, 112:8, 112:17, '115'.21, 116:6, 116:13, 118:4, 119'.1, 120'1, 121:6, 126:5,

answer [37] - 20:17, 23:25,24'.6,26:17, 29:22,31:19, 53:23,


57:15, 68:2, 68:3, 69:15,76'.14,79:11
,

83'19,83:22,83:24, 85:10, 110:5,


110:21, 111:20, 113:3, 113:4, 't14'.17 , 128:14, 129:2, 130:16, 132'.4, 134'.11,

7914,79:18,7920,
88:25,90:14,93:13,
105:3, 105:8, 105:11, 106:21,
109'.8, 111:21
,

136:13,139:5,
'l4O:21, 155:18,

administration ttl 124:18

allegations

administrator+1 '112:15, 1'12:24, '117'.12, 118:18

Io1 - 55:4, 55i16,73120,74i1 105'.6,134:21


,

allowltl - 103:2
allowed trot - 50:16, 51 :5, 58:6, 68:12, 7O:14,111:16, 137:15,184:9, 190:21 ,191:3

admitted ttl -'102:19 adolescents s 67:20,86:7, 87:20 adopted Itt - 48:16

128:10,130:15,

112:7,'116:'10, 116:12, 131:5, 131:'19,131:20, 132:8, 140:24, 168'.12, 194:15,


.198:9

167:17,168:7, 169:18,171:8,
172'.2, 177:16,

178:13,193:11,
194:4,'198:8,

199:11,199:16,
1

131'.4,1325, 132:7,
133:4,133:20,
135:24,'136:2, 136:12, 140:23,

99:1 8
t:
,

adulttrl - 73:7
adults ttl - 87:20 advance z - 113:14,
197:5

allows ttl - 96:12 alluded Ir1 - 125:21


alone ttt - 93:24 ALSO 11t - 2:23 altered ttl - 199:3 America trl - l9:20 analysis tl - 175:3, , 182:12, 184:6 anchorr1 - 112:10
175'.7

answered g- 115:24 answering ltl- 112:5 answers pl-97:16,


1

ARGHBISHOP 202:4

1'.13,9'.7 , 201:1

141:15,142:5, 142!13,144:4,
145:'15, 146:7, 147'.9,147:'19, 148:4, 148:9, 152:13,'153:16, 155:8, 155:20,

68:1 9

Archbishop

tgl -

advice tll - 37:1 2 advise t1l - 68:4 advised tol - 6:5, 29:17,38:4, 157:12, 157:14,159:4 advisors Itl - 85:13 affairs r - 34:10, 34:11,59:24, 127:4 Affairs trl - 2:20

anyhow - 72:l 5 apologize lzl 138:15,138:24 Apostle lzt - 60:24,


111:25

4:14,7:'16,7:24, 9:12, 15'.2,'18:10, 20:3,20:16,28:5, 29'.12,31:20,35:19,


49:6, 54:6, 59:11,
66:21

appearttt - 5:15
APPEARANCES trl 2:1

,67:6,68:1,
, ,

AND

121

- 1'.8,202:18
21

162:11,162:16,
163:7, 163:11, 165:2, 167:6, 167'.12, 168:18, 169:2, 169:14,

71:19,79'15, 83:7
87:1 1 , 95:25, 96:1

Anderson

- 8:14,

39:8 ANDERSON ttgol -

affecttrt -202:15

affects -20215
Affiliated Irt - 8:10
AFFILIATED ttl - 1:24 affirmed H- 14i7 affording ttl - 169:19 afternoon Itl - 145:8 agencies z - 129:22,
1

2:2,4:3, 4:19,6:22, 7:'18,7:21 ,8:13,


9:11, 11:23,20:19, 21:14,21:16,23:24, 25:16,27:2,27:7, 27'.8,28:4,29:25, 30:12,3019,31'.21 ,
32:16, 33:6, 34:17, 35:11, 36:3, 37:11, 39:17, 40:10, 40:15,

170:4,170:16, 171'.10,171:13,
171'.16,17'l:21 173:1, 174:'lO, 176'.17,176:22, 178:3,'178:5,
,

172:18,172:22,

appeared s1 - 2:6, 2:9,2:13,2'.17,2:21 applies ttt - 146:20 apply t1 - 40:4 appoint Itl - 152:23 appointed Isl - 9:21,
10'.5,14:25, 15:1 1941 appointment tll 15:4
,

96:5,102:16,105:7,
109:13,
1

12:6,

115:18,116:4, 124', 130:14,


'131:3, 136:9, 142:3,

147:21, 151:6,

170:17,172:25,
173'.21, 178:21, 179:17, 180:6,

188:19,191:10,
193:2, 195:17,
1

93:1 5

agency lst-94:20, 138:17,138:18 ago t71 - 13:23,36:12, 45:3,57 11, 107:1, 107:5,107:16 agree fl - 6:l 8, 6:23,
53:5, 135:11, 165:1, 169:3, 192:1 1 agreed ll - 144:15

40:22,40:24,41:8,
44:12, 46:22, 47:5,

47:15,47'.23,49:13,
50:25, 53:6, 53:24,

54:1,54:5,54:8,
55:10, 55:15, 56:18, 57:7, 58:19, 59:9,

'178:18,183:25, 187:23,188:8, 190:1,190:9, 'l9O:24,191:7, 193:13,194:13, 195:5,195:10, 195:16,195:23,


196:4, 196:8, 196:21, 197:12, 198:17, 198:20,

appreciate Isl - 25:18, 30:23,54:16 approach tel - 25:11, 77:22,78:4 approached 1 113:12

99:1 5

Archbishop's ttl 107:1'l

archbishop's ttl 199:2

appropriate

agreement lzl - 2l:18 ahead Io1 - 2922,

59:'10,59:20,61 :15, 61:22,62:5,62:7,


63:25, 64:8, 67:10, 68:9, 69:1, 69:5, 69:20, 7O:11 , 71:12,

199:12,200:5 ANDERSON..............

s 40'.21,66:21 '104:14, 141:4, 198:6 approve n- 114:20


,

ARCHDIOCESEItt 1:8

archdiocese

za

4:12,5:18,11:8,
'12:3, 12:17, '12:22, '1320, '14:14, 16:1,

..9ft -3:2
Andy
tt

33'.4,47:13,534,
141:12, 155:'19 al lrl - 8:4

- 15:15,

71:14,71:22,751

98'.24, 149:14,

April tel - 1'.17 ,7:25, 7'l'.20,116:14, 117:9,136:10, 202:4,202:19

16:6, 18'.3, 19:22,

160:4,162:20,

archbishop

Issl - 4:6,

22'.23,24:16,32:2, 35:24,43:8, 45:5,

3
authority l4t- 146i23,
147:3, 157'.6,157:8 110:7, 110:21 43:19, 56:20, 80:9

46:11, 48'.17, 50:17, :5, 55:3, 55:12, 56:6, 56:25, 57:9, 63:14, 64:16, 65:2,
51

aside Isl - 73:14, 73:18,73:25 assert lzl - 75:6, 152:3 asserting pl - 154:2,
154:5

authorized |zl 161:11, 199:23

65:8,65:25,66:1,
68:20,75:'15,77:14, 77:25,78:5, 8O:7,
91

assertion tzl - 90:19,


121:2

:13,94:8,94:25,

assertions t 166:23

auxiliary tl - 34:11, 43:19, 56:20, 80:8 avoiding Itl - 187:9 awaree+1 - 12:8,
16:19, 16'.20,22:6, 32'.17,32:21 ,32:22, 32:23, 43:9, 43:10, 49:24, 50:2, 50:12, 50:13, 50:14, 50:16, 51'.4,51'.20,55i21 55:25, 56:2, 56:3,
,

113:4,114:17, 129:2, 143:4,173:4 become tlol - 10:4, 43:10,64:23, 113:3,


115:8,
.136:14,

bite tzl - 69:17,115:25 bites tst - 69:8, Blessed


104:11,195:1 1o - 60:23, 111'.24, '112:15,

136:19,136:23,
137:19, 143:6 becomes lrl - 73:15

112'.24,142:19,
148:8

101:18,102:19,
103:15, 104:2, 104:17, 105:4, '105:15, 105:23, 107:25,108:1 ,

assessed n- 179:13 assessment [1] 187:15

becoming ttl- 93:21 beforehand ttl 199:21

assigned tsl - 50:8, 50:11,174:5 assignment t 142:21

beg trl - 42:3

110:16,111:16, 116:24,128:'16,
'131:18, 138:11, 139:15, 147:11, 148:3, 148:4,

began tsl -

'19:1 I

blew ttl - 47:9 board tsl - 80: 14, 92:12, 193:25 boards trl - 80:12 Bonse tll - 65:20 booktsl -113:13,
115'.14,1'17:25

56:8,56:11,56:23,
58:25, 59:11, 59:21 59'.22, 59:23,6O:4,
,

167:17,'167:19 begin tst - 4'.5,7:21


1O:14

assist ttl - 105:24 associated lzl 181:15

beginning 1 -

181 :7

borderline lzl - 83:9, 86:3,87:2, 175:8, 175'.11,179:15,


185:12

148:10,'151:13,
156:16,'167:23, 174'.24, 175:1 , 176'.7, 176:14, 186:23, 189:8, 195:2

6O'14,64:20,64:23,
64:25, 65:4, 65:5,

Archdiocese ttgl 2:9,2'.14,2:22,8:3, 8:22,8'.24,9:3,9:22,


'lO:20, 11:17, 17:25, 18:12,151:11

Associatesttl- 75:19 assume [3] - 39:13, 117:20, 169:18 assumes [3] - 39:10, 53'.21,61:10 assuming + - 95:9,
95:17,111:19,
187:20

BEGINNING lzl - 3:3, 3:4

bottom
'151

65:9,65:10,65:14,
65:18, 65:23, 65:24, 66:5, 66:14, 66:18, 67:2, 67:9, 83:6, 83:8, 87:25, 88:4, 102:7, 110'.6, 115:8,
'122:2, 122:5,122:8,

begun
1

tzt

- 100:5,

36:1 3

behalf tsl - 8:25, 9:3,


143:18

tol - 123:6, :8, 153:'14, 164:21, 171:5, 177:17

boundary

H-

102i21

archival zl- 107:6,


107:15

assure

- 20:l

165:23

122:10,125:19, 125'.20,136:15,
'136:19, 136:23, 137:7, '137:19, 138'.11, 140:2, 140:12, 143:4, 143:6, 145:5, 145:9,

behaviortsl - 73:7, 108:18,182:17 behavioral tll - 28:15 behaviors Irl - 28:19 behind 21 - 190:7,
190:12

archive
186:12

21

- 173:22,

archived lzl- 173:9,


191:13

assured ttl - 20:6 assures 11l - 78:7 attached tsl - 173:17


191 :6, 191:8,

103:3, 103:9, 108:3, 108:5 Braun Irl - 8:25 BRAUN tst-2:15, 8:25, 198:15 break rz - 7:'16,28:9,

belief

tst - 4:11 , 82:7

archives 21 - 106:23, 173:18,173:20,


188:25, 189:4, 191:17, 192:6 area trl - 188:9 areas Irl - 80:16 argue tr1 - 200:4 argument t2l - 185:4, 185:5

191:10,191:15 attaches t1t - 190:17 attaching pl - 177:17,


't78'.21, 187:13

145:16,156:24,
157:22, 157:24, 159:20, 160:6, 160:1 1 , 166:23 awful l1 - 76:3

82:17, 95:1, 99:19, 138:25, 161:5, 168:14, 199:9 belonged tll - 134:16 benefitttl - 53:1

35:9,71:8,71:9, 71:11, 135:23, 136:13,158:17,


167:7, 167:8,

167:14,172:6,
172:8, 196:10,

besttl3l - 6:12, 6:16,


15:18, 45:22,60:7, 60'.21,69:15,74:13, 89:9, 100:1, 154:24, 169:22, 198:10

attachment
190:11, 192:22

l9l:19,
- 5:1
1 ,

196:12,199:5 BremeryT- 2:12 bring I+1 - 102:14,


111:'13,'112:3,
1

attempt
33:'14

tzt

B
background
78:8, 129:9
bad
t+l
21

65:1 0

betterttl -172:19
151 :15

argumentative tlol 23:23, 30:1 1 , 30:1 5,


47:'13, 53:4, 53:20, 58:15, 140:20, 155:6, 164:25 arguments - 6:24 arose I2l - 51:9, 141:23

attemptedtll attention
1ro1

attended ltl - 17:1


- 58:20, 60:9, 60:'15, 111:14,

between 1s1 - 25:l, 99:20, 119:15,


130:23, 131 :6,

bringing ttj- 117:22 broadertrl - 76:20 brought trsl - 32:24,


52:1, 60:9, 60:14, 65:19, 86:1, 90:20, 97:5, 1 07:9, 1 1 3:1 0,

- 30:8, 30:13,

63:1

,73:7

152:8,159:19,
184'.24,190:19

11'l21 ,1'12:4, 113:11, 16'l:16,


173:3,'187:3

badly tzl - 63:4,


I 53:1 3

beyondtzt -25:25,
199:23 bias trl - 119:13 big lrl - 33:16

Baptist
base
tgl

t1

- '180:5

attorney
202:12

t2l

- 202:11,
2:7
,

95:'1 1,

1'17:24,139:16, 140:6,157:19,158:3 brush 21 - 62:16,


62:23

arrest

- 121:15,

125:20,'142:9, 162:12, 162]13, 162:19 arrested tol - 28:16, 46:15, 122:2, 141'.25, 144:8, 144:9

Attorney s2:11,2:15

97:16,97:18 based 01 - 17:13,


53:11,'108:13,

Bishop tsl - 43:12, 51'.15, 51:17 , 52:17


53:1

bulletins ttl - 11:3


,

business
I 1 8:18

117:12,

attorneystll -202:14 Attorneys trl - 2:4 attracteds - 113:20,


113:24,1181

108:14,115:2,199:8 basement z 173:10,189:5 basis tsl - 125:7,


154:6, 154:7

arrival

16:21

attraction l1l- 113t12


audio trl - 63:6 authorities ttl - 82:10

't34"11

became r - 43:4,
54:13, 65:20, 83:7,

bishop s - 16:22, 43:13,51 :'11,51 :16, 51:17,51:18, 52:18, 53:10,54:9 bishops tzt - 17:7,
17'.1'l,
'17:21

Bussman

pJ

- 134:2,

'134'.4,134:10 BY trzol - 3:2,9:11, 1 1'.23, 20'.1 9, 2'l :'l 6,

,34'11

23:24,25'.16,27:8, 28:4,29:25,30:12,

30:19,3'l:21 ,32:16,
33:6, 34:17, 35:11,

66:1 9

135:17,146:16

canonical

n-

14:20,

36:3,37:11,39:17,
40'.24, 41:8, 44:12,

34'10,59:24,84:23,
92:17, 126:16,
127:4, 135:17,

Chancellortrl - 2:19 chancellors s 14'.2',t,15"9, 15:13, 25'.20, 43:18, 56:20, 80:7,80:8, 116:25

129:4,129:14, 130'21, 143:8,


149:2, 165:9,

17:12

165:18,183:16,
183:21

common [3] - 190:6, 191:25,192:4 communicated tll 59:12

46:22,47:5, 47:15, 47:23,49:13, 5O:25,

53:6,54:1,54:5,
54:8, 55:10, 55:15, 56:18, 57:7, 58:19, 59:10, 59:20, 61:15,

136:15,153:12 capacities tzl - 27:21


27:25

Children

tt

16:17,

communication
1

1 -

Chancery n- 15:21 , 15'.22,656, 113:17,


156:4, 156:5, 158:5

62:7,63:25,64:8,
67:10, 68:9, 69:20,

Gardinal |tl- 85:12 care tl - 139:7, 139:18,140:18,


153:4

changetal - 12:1, 40:19,45:'13,


1'17:11

,168:10,

71:22,75:13, 76:19,79:19,80:23, 82:2,82:23, 83:18, 87'.17,90:17,95:24,


7O:11 , 96:
'l

carefully ttl - 178:16 carried fi - 22:25


case
[32]

168:19, 199:2, 201 :6 changed pl - 118:17,

- 5:8, 8:7,

9, 98:1 1 , 1 00:4,

17'.20,25:24,32:20, 41:15, 41:16, 41:20,


49:19, 52:1, 53:19,

168:16,168:17 changes -'167:25

16:23, 41:14, 48:16 children's ttt - 128:15 Chisago lrt - 132:14 choice tgl - 30:13, 33:8, 33:13, 34:23, 38:2, 38:23, 58:10, 130'.7,130:17 choose Isl - 7:13, 7:15, 81:6 chose z - 37:17,
1

50:1 8
16l

communications
34'.9,164:12,
1

164:17,164:20, 65:3, 165:1 I


I4l

community
48:4

13'.14,27'.22,29:16, company
tol - 44:10, 44:16, 65:25, 66:6, 176:6, 176:7 compilation Irl -

characterization

86:1

101:16,102:15, 104:19,104:24,

77:7 ,77:'16,77:19

105:12,10520,
107:4, 107:14, 109:24, 1'11:1 , 112:2, 112:'17,

74:3,74:6,74:14, 81 :5,82:15,98:7,
101'.11, 107:19, 110:8, ll0:10,
110:11

,110:23,

charge t+l - 45:17, 82'.1 6, 84:'l 2,'l 28:21 charged I4l - 82:9, 134'.9,202:8,202:10 charges tzl - 42:25,
50:23

116:13,118:4, 119:1, 120'.1 , 121:6,


126:5, 128:10, 130:15, 131 :4,

1'lO:24,139:17, '139:20, 140:13, 141'.13, 141:21,

Chartertl - 16:16, 16:23,41:13, 48:15

circle z - 25:'19, 25:25,43:18,56:15, 56:17,56:19 circumstances [2] 36:24, 150:6 citation trl - 122:1 cited Itl - 29:3 civil trol -'14:20, 34:10, 52:10,92:17,
109:2, 109:3, 111:4,

129:15

comple

111

128:11

compiled

- 16:16, 17:21,32:2, 126:7,


ot

'127:5,'127:16

complainttrl - 151:12
complete n1 - 5:16, 44:9,50:18,92:20 completed fzl - 51:2,
178:12

132:7, 133:4, 133:20,136:12, 140:23,141:'15, 142:5,142:13, 144:4,145:15,


146:7, 147:9,

158:10,185:19 cases [4] - 74:2, 74:8,


132:19,160:11 categories t - 21:22

chartertlt - 80:13
check ttl - 60:13 checks tzl - 78:8,
129:9

126:16,146:15

Civilttt - 2:20
claim tzl - 11 16,75:4, 92:7,'140:5, 158:11, 160:21,184:10 claimed ltl- 185:21 claims f l- 86:1

completely Itl 1'15:25

147:19,148:9, 152:13,153:16,
155:8, 155:20, 162'.11, '162:16,

category lrl - 39:21 Catholic Irl - 19:21 Gatholics trl - 33:15

child

tsel - 49:3,

51:.13, 55:3, 74:18,

compliance tsl - 4:25, 5:16,6:17

75:3,75:12,76:15,
79:24,81:24,82:9,
83:9, 83:17, 85:15, 86:2, 86:3, 86:15, 86:23, 88:2, 88:5, 88:7, 89:2, 89:16, 109:4, 148:20,

caughtttl - 185:18
caused pl - 61:'17
62:10
,

complied |tl - 6:12 compound p1- 448,


53:20

clarified Irl - 150:17 clarity trl - 150:5


Claver ttl - 50:7 Clayton Ul - 9114 clear s - 7:2,75:5, clearly clergy
164:7, 170:2, 173:4 z - 23:15, 119:12
1s

compulsion
118:10

111

163:11,165:2, 170:16,173:'l 174:10,176:22, 178:5,178:18, '183:25,187:23,


,

causes
12:'14

t2l

- 12:1,

compulsive

t3l

celebrate Irl - '12:7


Gentertat - 2:16, 158:21 , 158:22

156:24,157:19, 157:23,158:3,
158:4, 165:24, 175:8, 175:12,

188:8, 190:9, 19'l:7,

193:13,194:13, 195:16,195:23

certain lsj - 26:7 , 37:14,37:17, 119j16, 123:23

66'.24,67'.19, 182:17 computerzo1 - 83:15, 84:24,89:21 ,91:1, '138:2, 145:'lO,

19:21,

145:18,145:20,
'145'.22,146:1
'174'.11
,

certainly H- 45:22,
'122'.24, 128:'17,

c
C,D.F tsl - 85:10, '133:22, 134:18, 135:7, 135:15 calculating ll - 7:12 calculation ttl - 169:9 campground Ill 122:'14

183:16,185:2, 185:8,186:19, 188:5,188:10

22:1,22:2,78:10,
129:10,180:14,
.190:4,

, 174:17

193:25

174:21 ,175:2,

133:25

childhood
- 201:2,
55:1 3

tzt

- 54:22,

clerical

n - 136:21
113:18

certify
202:3

tzl

clinictrllqol

178:12,179:14, 181:14,184:5,
't85"1, '.t85:22

children

- 1l:18,

certitude tel - 95:'10, 95:11,96:22,96:25,


97'.4,97'.8,97:10,
97:17

12:3, 12:'16, 12:22, 14:6, '14:9,23:17,

26:20,26:23,28:'14,

28:20,28:22,32:15,
46'.11, 47:2, 47:10,

clips Irl - '195:9 close tll - 86:8 closely ltl-'107:21 coadjutor lol - 9:22,
10'.4, '14:14,25:23,

computers tsl 174:15,174:'19, 174:20,174:25,


'182:10

chairing Irl - 19:11


chance Irl - 195:'18 chancellorra - 34:9, 34:10,52:1'l ,59:24, 84'.23,92'.17,92:18,
1'11:4, 111:5, 126'.16, 127:3,

110:7,129:2

concern
1t1

48:3, 53:14, 56:6,


68:19, 73:4, 73:5, 88:5, 89:3, 109:6,

collecting
1:19

tj- 182:10
[z]

camping pl - 121:21

commencing comment
'141:16

143:3, 143:8 cannot tl - 93:25, 96:23, 189:2, 198:5

rr4l - 52t15, 57:22, 58:4, 58:9, 67:24, 68:10, 68:13, 69:4, 69:7, 85:13,

'111:15,113:25, 119:19,119:22,
128:18,'128:24,

141:'14,

canon

[2]

- 1 61 :1 3,

commissioned trl -

117:16,117:22, 117:24,125:13 concerned ol - 35:19,

5
176:8,176:13,
177'20,177:21
+
,

38'.3,52'.18, 52:24, 125:2, 125:7 concerning zz1 10:10, 11:9, 13:11, 16:1, 16:5, 18:2,

139:17,198:20 considered Itl - 63:3

36:6,38:1,38:9,
39:24

course
164:4

132'.'14,132:15 z - 31:6,

considering
1

ti1 -

conversion

99:1 3

37'.18,39:20, 44:5,

consstent t2l 139:18,140:17

46:4,46:11,46:23,
52:1,59:13,80:25, 90:8,94:17, 100:16, 101:19,105:5, 109:10,131:7,
165:21
1

constitutes
109:6, 94:8
1

t2l -

51 :1 9
z

33:20, 34:5, 34:18 convcted n- 64:20 conviction trl - 60:3 cooperated ttl - 195:3 cooperative t1 106:3

178:24,178:25,

1791, 179:8,
179:'lO, 179:11, 182:2, 182:3,182:4,

COURTtzI -1'.1,1:24

court

so1

- 4:10,5:1

5:17,5:19,6:3,6:17,
6'.20,6:25,7:5,9:5, 11:22,28:3,31:25, 32'.9,36:2,37:10, 41:7,46'.21,47:22,
55:9, 57:6, 63:24, 69:19, 70:10, 71:6,

consultant

- 65:11,

182:15,184:8, 184'.11, 186i24, 188:23,188:24,


188:25, 189:6,

copes

t21

-202:9,

consuming ttl - 6:7


contact a - 53:10, 54:9,54:14, 123:8 contacted lzl - 6:10,
54:13

202:10

192:13,192]14,
193'.24,194:1 , 194:2, 194:4,'194:5, 201:4

,167:18,

170:18,170:20,
83:1 5

copy t4t -'177:17, '178:21, 186:3, 202:17

concerns lel - 53:11,


54:15, 59:25, 60:9, 99:12, 117:10, 118:5, 125:6, 183:6

Corporation trl - 91:6

corrected lzl- 12:18,


167:21

76:18,82:22,87:16, 90:16,98:10, 100:25,102:10,


102:13,105:19, 118:3, 118:25, 119:25,121:5, 126:4, 128:9, 133:3, 133:19,142:12, 144:3, 146i6,147i8, 147:18,'162:10, 162:15,163:10,

contained

g-

4:20,

correct

184:2, 184:20 contenttll - 161:18

r+21 - 9:20, 1O:9, 13:23, 15:7, 16:18, 16:25,17:3,

correction

t13l

13'.12, 137:24,

concluded
151:18

111-

contents tsl - 16:8,


38:8, 38:13, 38:22,
39:'19

conclusion

e1

29:22,31:19,67:4, 67:5, 147'.6,152:11, 187:16,193:10

context

t15l - 36:1 0, '149:7

17 5, 17'.6, 17:9, 17:10, 17:'18,195, 19:6,23'.19,24:24, 27:11, 27i13, 27.17

139:2, 139:4,

167:18,167:19, 167:25,168:4,
,

149:6, , 149'.19,149:20, 149:22, 150'17, 152'.16,152:17, '158:15,171:12, 171:15,'172:3, 175:10

'149:9,

conduct tel - 55:22,


64:21, 102:25,
103:5, 108:3,
.108:6,

3O:25,32'.21,33:2, 38:17, 38:18, 40:5, 42:14, 42:19, 48:19, 50:10, 56:15, 57:3,

168:23, 169:5, 169:20, 170:17,


170'.21

167:5,172:19,
188:16, 198:4,

correctly lzl- 14625,


181:17

123:25,200:'l

conducted Vl 1

18:7

8:8, 1 36:1 5, 1 57:23


t2l

continue

t11l

1'l :16,

57:4,57i20, 5918, 77:21,78:20,79:7, 79:13, 82:3,82:4, 83:10,84:2,84:21

correspond r 167:2

199:23,200:2 Court tsl - 8:5, covered


139.22, 140:3 11l - 28:6 c*a4t1l- 196:24 create Isl - 62:1, 69:16, 96:7, 195:9, 198:7

cost 11l - 202:8 costst2l - 139:13,


140:1 0

conducting

61 :25, 96:11,

152'.22, 153:3 confession z 149:19,149:21

111:16,113:8,
116'.16,124:23, '125'.8, 137:15,

85:17, 85:23, 86:5, 86:25, 87:1, 87:6, 88:2, 88:3, 88:6,

counsel tqel - 8:11, 23:23,31'.15, 4O:8,


40:21 , 53:19, 61 :20,

confessional 158:23

confidence r - 97:19 confidentiality t 1

195:8,199:15 continued tol - 12:6, 48:14,83:23, 120:5,


177'.8, 182:19

88:11,89:4,89:8, 93:19,95:18,95:22,
95:25, 98:25,

58:1 7

contnues zl- 5:15,


84:1

confirmed ttl - 113:19 conflict ttt - 119:14 confused l-79:22,


124116,137:25,

continuously
31:24

t1l

101:17,102:19, 102:22, 1066, 115'.4, 1'17:1 ,117:7, 117:8,118:7, 't27'.14,130:8, 130:18,130:25,


131'.8,'131:22, 138'.21, 138:22,

61'.25,67:8,68:22, 69:3,69'.8,74:24, 95:19,96:5, 101:3,


101:7, 101:23,

createdtrl-185:16 creating 11l - '196:23 crediblez - 106:13,


132:12

credibly ttt - 13:21,


14:9, 16:2, 16:17 , 17:14, 17'.22,31:'17
,

1026, 104:7,
'lO4'.12, 104:22,

.106:20,109:16, 109:20,'112:6,

32:1,72:18, 126:8,
127'.12, 127:22,

contract

tsl - 21:6,

115:17,130:9,
135'.22, 137:25,

13'l:24,193:4
crmet6l -82:6,82:8, 108:24,108:25, 109:6, 134:9

138:15,154:17,
177:24

68'.3,202:14

contradictttl - 166:23
contradicted Itl 137:21

confusing t1l - 155:2 confusion pl - 164:3,


164:6

142:10,'143:18, 144:5,145:10,
147:3, 'l5O'.3, 151:4,
151 :8, 151 :9,

140'.19,145:12, 155:6, 168:3, 168:6,

169'.16,171:14,
174:8, 183:20,

contributions tll tt1

Congregation
85:11

63:14

151:16,151:17,
151:20,151:21 152:25,153:1 , 153:7, 153:8,'154:1, 154:4, 157:7,
,

control fq - 66:12,
t1l

congregaton
134:3

71:3, 118:'11, 194:20

controversy t z

195:1,195:8, 195:12,196:3, 196:25,198:3, 199:12,202:11,


202:12

crimes - 129:25 criminal lgl- 55:22, 60'.3,64:21 , 102:25,


103:4, 103:9, 108:6,
109'.5,',122:4

crisis

21

- 19:20,
1 ,

connection

137:20

'164:20

107:23,190:19 conscious a - 33:8,


38:2, 38:23, 39:6,

conversation [tt] 38:16, 39:19, 52:4,

157'.15,157:20,
158'.12, 158:25, 161:12,'161 14,

counttgl - 7:10,
'116:7, 197:6 country t3l - 43:1,

Cristo s - 65:1 68:11,69:24

52:8,92:6,128:25,
156:1,156:10,
156:13,158:.18,

58:10,130:7, 130:17,130:19

162:17,162:22,
162'.24,163:2,

43'.8,50:24
COUNTY tzl - 1:2, 202:2 County 01 - 1:16, 8:5

critical Itl - 166:5 criticism tll - 45:9 criticized tt1- 46:2


cumbersome t1 - 6:7 Curia ttl - 143:16

considertsl - 63:1,
70'.12, 100:19,

165:l I

166:18,166:25,
-

conversations

171'.1, 171:2, 171:4,

+1

6 l:15
DEPOSITION 3:7, 3:8, 3:9
,

curia t3l - 34:12, 84:25,92:13 currenttql - 64:15,


80'.7, 124:18, 189:22

117:21

,130:19,

difficulties
t+t

|zl - 6:13,

'198:24

132:18, 139:12,

- 3:6,

28:15

discoverlzl - 12:4,
39:9

144:15,199:5 decisions 01 - 35:21


44'.5, 45:'19, 46:9,

Curtis tzl - 1'lO:24,


'120:22,121:7, 123:5,141:21 , 144'25, 15'l:12

D
Dan
s

46:23, 139:1 declared Irl - 193:3 declaring Irl - 196:8 decree tal - 15'l:7, 153:9,153:11, 153'.17,154:11, 155:13,155:17,
161 :5

deposition p4l- 4t4, 4'.5,4:15,5:21 ,7:5, 7'.22,7:24,8:2,8:7,


41'.10,42:2,42:7, 42:13, 42:22, 42:23, 52:22,71:19, 136:9,
140'.14,169:17,

dilemma - 167:15 Diocese tzl - 2:'17,9:1 diocese tol - 51:6, 51:10,51:12,51:18, 51:19,134:16
DIOCESE ttt - 1:8

discoverable
38:25

1t

discovered

32:12,36:7,38:25,
81:23, 148'.25,149:3

directtrl - 187:3 direction trol - 2l:5,


22:22,24:16,
110'.17, '113:22,

discovery tsl - 14:3,


35:23, 38:5

170:10,171:20, 172:9,172:15,
196:6, 198:21 198:22, 199:13,
,

discrepancy r 90:22

- 8:21 ,45:4,

123:19,149:6,
149:22, 184:18, 202:7 directly Isl - 53:10,

discuss

tsl

- 92:16,

108:10,108:23,
'126:20

dangers - 183:15,
183:2'l ,'194:19 DANIEL tlt - 2:7

decreed ttl - 157:5 Defendants ltl - 1:10

100'.21, '.t43:9

defensettl -187:10 deficient ttl - 47:1


defined Itl - 67:18

199:24,201:3, 202:4,202:9,202:16

discussed

fl

- 60:6,

61'.12, 68:17
I 65:1 4

,7811

depositions

Isl - 6:9,

9:16,'172:12

166:13,17620 director ts1 - 34:9,


164'.12,'164:17

98:17,110:13,

date tzsl - 9:25, 10:6, 30:21, 31:10, 36:11, 47:25, 48:1, 57 12,

definitely t1 - 181 :2 definitively Isl 78:23, 141:22,


143:21

described trzl - 1 8:1 5, 25:1 ,29'.14, 34:19,


35:2, 43:25, 63:8, 77'.12, 103:3, 103:5,

discussing
,

tol -

disability

Ist - 65:21

65:22, 66:4, 66:15,

36:15, 36:17, 37:4, 39:6, 173:'13, 173:15

59'.18,83:2,87:12, 92'.2,94:23,99:16,
112:10,112:'12, 142:1, 142:14, 142:23, 144:6, 144:8,'150:21 '154:2, 155:23,
,

66:22,67:8,67:17,
67:23

Discussion

degree
109:2

Iz1

- 109:1 ,

120:4,127:13

descriptorttl - 108:5
- 58:20 desirettl - 80:19 deskttt - 186:4 destroy ttl - 160:5 destruction t1l -

disagree tzl - 93:1,


93:3

11'.21,28:2,36:1 , 37 9, 4'l:6,46:20,

delay

s - 171:23,

deserves

t1l

47:21,558, 57:5,
63:23, 69:18, 70:9,

172:'12, 172:15 delays ttt - 196:24

disagreed tzl - 46:18,


60:22

7'l:5,76'.17,82:21,
t1

'177:15

delegate ttl - 14:19,

disagreement
93:7

87:'15, 90:15, 98:9,

dated trl - 187:4 dates Irsl - 6:8,24:11, 57'.21 , 144:5,


153:22,'154:17,

14'.22,25:20,45:'l,
45'.16, 46:10, 47:7,

100:3,.105:18,
'118:2, 118:24,

160:8

77:'10,92:18,
108:11, 11'l:7, 126:17,180:'14, 180:24

155:3,155:9,
155:'11, 161:17, 164'.2, 164:6, 177:10 days tlt - 78:1 0

detailed Itl detailsttl - 110:10 detection ltl - 109:5 determination trgl 14:11, 86'.12, 87:3,

.173:6

dscern t1l - 94:15 discerned ttl - 183:15

119'.24,'.t21:4,

disciplinary trt - 55:1 discipline ttl - 64:1 disclose tgl - 22:16,


26:7,35'.1, 117:3,
130'.20, 134:21,

126:3,128:8, 133:2,
133:18,142:1'1, 144:2, 146:5,147:7,

dept-4i11,32i25
Deacon Vl - 58:24, 111:9,'142:19,
144:17, 144:24, 145:6, 148:7

delegated tst - 44:13, 44:24,77:6 delegates lrl -'180:21 delegation Itl 146.'21

147:17,162:9,
'162:14,163:9, 167:4, 188:7 discussion I4l - 34:8, 101:14, 163:2'1, 168:3

87:5,87:18,88:10, 88:16, 102:24,


103:8, 108:4,

134:25,140:15,
198:23

108:15,132:11,
tzl - 4:24,

disclosed Iral - 24:4,


24'.8, 24:9, 24:12,

deletions
7:1

187:8

determine

tol

- 14:15,

deacon Ir1 - 59:l deacons 27-92:15,


127:8 dead Itl - 173:24 deal t+l - 33:17, 124:17, '164'.3,200:1 deals 11l - 80:13 Deant2l -2:24,8:9 decade trl - 13:23

demand trl - 43:16 demonstrate 11l 1

17:'13, 38:15, 88:6,

56:1 9

108'.24,191:25 determined t] -

demonstrated tll 11:7

26:10,88:12, 'l4O:3,
179:14

24:13,28:22,32:7, 32:'19,73:20,73:24, 74'.10,77:3, 10'l:4, 102j12,127:23, 127'.24,129:19,


189:23

discussions

lel -

38'.14, 163:12,

163:17,163:18,
163:22,'163:25,
164:'19, 165:6 disk tzl - 4:17,5:8

demonstrates I3l 78:3,97:21 ,98:7 demoted lzl - 54:20,


55:1

diagnosedtrl- 118:9
diagnosis
tol

- 66:1 6,

December

1z

- 3l :8,

denominatore1 '190:7, 191:25, 192:4

44'.9,101'.18, 102:5, 102:18, 132:20, 132:22 decentr - 135:23 decision Itsl - 30:9,

denyn-22:4
depamenttzl 86:14,86:22 Department tgl 75:11 , 86:22, 91:16, 94'.22,97:13,97:14, 99:5,106:25,133:10 Deposition - 1:'13,

66:23,67:1,67'.21, 67:23,69:23 Diagnostic Itl - 67:15 diary trl - 38:13 difference s; 130:23, 13'l:6, 131 :9 different tsl - 37:16, 75'.6,89:11, 123:23,
168:22

disclosing ttl - 131 :6 disclosure Itzl - 4:8, 4i9,5:7,5'.15,24:18,


29:8, 30:5, 31:2, 31 :7, 31:9, 31 :1 1, 31:25, 53:15, 81:10, 101:'18,102:4,
126:11

disks trl - 89:22 dispute tzl - 184:24,


1

85:1 3

disputed ttl - 185:25 disputing Irl - 179:6

dissemination
31 :'16

ll

disclosures ttol - 5:9,


5:20,22:25,23:1 , 23:3,24:23,25:4, 25:12,25:'13,25:14, 25:17,26:2, 45:7, 102:17,1099,

distinction n- 152:8 distributed ttl - 11:8 DISTRICT tzl - 1:1 , 1:2


Distrctt2l - 8:5, 8:6 Doctrine ttl - 85:11 document Irzl 39:24,153:12,

39:7,43:21, 44:21, 45:6,46'.19,98:21


108:8, 117:'18,

differential Itl - 99:20 differing tt: - 94:13

difficultttl - 26:17

155:12,155:13,
'155:22, 155:24,

64'.24, 123:9,174:13 duties Itt - 152:21 DVDs


tr1

107:6,108:19,
108'.21, 1'lO:17,

156:20,162:4,
171'.9,172:1 , 183:19 documentation r 159:24

- 181:13

129:22,130:18,
130:25, 131:8,

DWttl-28:17
DWI trl

159:6, 165:14, 199:24 eventually Irl - 9:21 evidence tzl - 32:5, 33:4, 39:1 1 , 50:21 , 53:22, 58:16, 61 :11,
62:1

43:'14

- 123:5

131:18,13'l:25,
132:13, 133:6,

experts I1l - 175:7 expired ttl - 140:4 explain n- 114:1'l explained tl - 6:13,
18:17, 18'.18,99:2

documents

tal - 4:13, 116:8, 171:22, '173'.14, 174:16,

E
early
East
I2l

133:16,138:17, 138:18,147:23,
167'.21, 167:24,

,62'2, 68:21

, ,

68'.24,75:3,82:1 106:20,111:19,
131:2, 145:'12, 156:21 , 160:5,

explaining t1l - 43:13 explicit - 151 14


express
93:7
[2] -

177:14,177:23,

80:18,

164:1,

183:13,185:17,
186:22, 187:8,

19'l24
Doe
t4l

173:'12
I4l

- 8:3,32:20,

- 1:18,2:8,

expressed

139:21,140:13
DOE trl - 1:5

2:16,2:20 Ecuador trzl - 50:5,


50:17,51 :6,51:.19, 51'.22, 52:2, 52:15, 52:21, 52:25, 53:10,

192:17,192:25, 193:7,193:15, 194:10,194:24,


195:3,195:.18 engaged s - 18:20,

160:9,183:19,
187:21, 189:25,
195:2

ol - 80:5, 89:13, 89:'14, 99:12, 125:3, 125:5 expression z -

Dominica tzl -'15:14,


15:15

evident Ir1 - 33:l exact tsl - 24:11,

donatedr - 174:12

donation

fl-

174:23

done aa - 1 0:l 3, 24:15,35:14, 44:22,


46:6, 52:25, 65:5,

53:14,54:9 effect ltl - 21:6

'lO2:20,189:10 engaging ttt-'123:7

30:21,3l:10,51:19,
57:12,63:15,87:12, 87:14,92:2 exactly ltol - 10:22,
17:15, 20:11 , 23:3, 23:11, 24:2, 25:'13,

62:15,62:22 extensive t - 42:1.1 extent z - 31 :20,


119:16

enlightening

effectively
82:18

Izl - 66:9,

66'.13,75:19,75:22, 81'.14,84:18,84:21
91

effort
,

- 14'.2,94:14, 140:13,189:20,
ts1

entered entire ttl - 171 :9 entirety pl- 44:20,


103:22, 104:1

- 70:7 - 139:15

fl

extern ttl - 50:4 extremely t - 6:6

36:11,155:13,
193:21

eyetrl - 50:12 eyes I1l - 127:6

:8,95:14,99:3,

'192:16

'lO3'.14, 107:12,

eight trl - 99:25


Eisenzimmerttal 5:16, 95:2, 98:3, 98:24, 107:20,
1

entitled ttl - 151 :7 enumerated trl 182:8

108:1, 117:23, 120:17, 129:6, 129:7, 129:8, 129:9,

environment

re

(AMINATION tzl 3:2,9:10 examined 1zl - 9:9,


94:7
,

F
facttzzl - 10:10, 13'.24, 14:8,46:'13, 46'.14, 56'22, 59:16, 71:4,81:1'1,81:22,
89:3, 90:7, 93:18, 94:6, 98:20, 98:23, 113:20, '119:'17,
'167:16,'176:1
,

'11'.16, 14:1'1, 14:16,

134:14,134:23,
137:2, 137:4, 146:25, 150:9,

142:'17,144:16,
146:8, 147:10,

155,18'.2,18:'l'l 2'l:8,45:16, 47:7, environments

150:10,150:14,
158:20, 158:21,

149:14,150:24, 156:1,159:20,
160:4, 160:20, 162:20,163:1 , 163:14 eitherlr+1 -24!16,

158:24,175:3, 176'.11,185:10, 189:15,194:17,


196:3, 196:5,

48:4, '111:7, 126117 a1 11:'13,11:14, 14:19, 14:22, 16:6,2O:2,

Examining Isl 173'.14,174:16, 177'.14,177:23,


191:24

21'.2,23'.15,35:18, 451, 45:24,92:19,


'108:12

example r - 28:16 except I3l - 43:24, 124:4,2O'l:4

180:3, 192:24

excludingtrt- 169:15
excuse [io] - 45:13, 56:1 , 56:10,77:23, 98:15,125:11, '143:24,149:13,
170'.25,177:1

facts

tcl

- 32:5,33:4,

198:17,198:18,
200:5

down tzl - I 9:16, 28:9, 35:10,35:13,73:25,


156:7, 187:5

36:18, 46:25,61:20, 65:1, 95:2, 109:10, 110:16,121:20, 157:14,162:2, 163:15,169:13,


197:1

Erickson trel 148:14,'148:22,

39:11, 40:13, 40:18, 49:'12,50:21 ,50:22, 53:22, 58:15,61:11,

148:23,149:5, 149:11,149:23,
150:4, 157:14,

62'.2,67:2,67:9,
68:7, 68:8, 69:9, 69:'16, 69:25, 70:1, 75:6,75:7 , 82:1 , 83:12, 96:6, 96:7,

downstairsttl- 189:1 dozenr.l- 37:22


dozens trl - 53:21 drafted r1 - 85:20 drnking t11 - 73:6 drive tzl - 4:18, 4:19

ELIN Irl - 2:3 Elin trt - 8:20 emphasis trl - 192:14 employ tzt - 80:19, 164:5 employed ttt - 156:23

157:16,157:20, 158:16,159:4,
159:14

2:2,2:3,2:4, 2:7,2:'l'1,2:15,2:19 establish lzt - 1 55:1 I,


ESQISI -

Exhibittrst - 146:4, 147:16,151:5, 155:17,156:18, 170:24,'184:23, 187:1,188:15, 188:18,190:18, 191 :1,191:6, 191:8,
191 :9

96:17,96:18, 104'.15,111:19,
115:20, 116:1, 116:2, 1'16:5, 130:10,'145:12,

driving

s7- 28:17,

employeez -202:'11,
202:12

155:23

46:15,'121:25

dropped p)- 43:1,


50:24

empowered

143:17,'157:2

established lzl 16:24,66:24 establishes tzl 155:12,'156:17

exhibittil -

190:21

drunk tgl - 28:17, 28:18,46:15 due trl - 144:1 8


DUI tsl

encounters
115:11

[1] -

EXHIBIT t4l - 3:6, 3:7, 3:8, 3:9 existtzl - 62:3, 69:10

164:25,178:14, 183:19,183:23, 187:21 ,'189:25,


198:7

establishing ttt 67:17

encrypted ltl - 91:2

121 :8,

endtrt-150:10
enforcement aa1 82:10,86:11,93:5, 94:20, 105:5, 105:16, 105:24,

121:15,121:18, 121:19,122:3 duly tzl - 9:8,202:5

during

- 10:8,

estimate ltl - 10:17 et lrl - 8:4 evaluate lrl - 67:6 evaluated ttl - 178:12 event I4l - 63:12,

existed tzl - 6:1 , 160:l exonerated fi - 82:18 expectt2l -6:22,7:7 expected t2l - 5:5,
21:21

factual trl - 198:3

faculties

tal

- 12:10,

48:7,51:8,51 :9, 51:12, 52]13,72:23,


128:2

experience 1r - 22:'l experienced t -

failing Irt - 48:2 failure ttl - 198:23

failures

Il

- 61 :6,

61:11 , 61:12, 61:13 lai l - 77:7 , 77:16,

183:11,185:8, 187:14,'187:15,
187:16

191:16,191:18,
191:21

,192:23,

77:18,98j12, 132:8,
198:6

fathertol - 49:7,
55:18, 135:21,
149:1'l ,'176:23,

193:5,193:15, 193:17,194:9,
195:20,199:21 tr1 - 188:22 final trt - 184:6 Finally trl - 187:13 finance ttl - 66:13 financially ttl - 202:13 findings t+l - 70:6,

fondle ttt - I 51 :15 fondled r - 151 :15 force trl - 141 :5

generally tzl - 23:4,


162:7

generals

s1

- 43:1 9,
1

fioefi-

184:17

56:21, 80:9

faith
Faith

tzl

- 13:14,29:17
- 85:11

Files

t1t

176:24

foregoing trl - 201 :2 forensic 01 - 75:22, 91 :8,99:4, 138:7,


175:23,194:6

genitals trl -

51 :16

falls trt - 39:20 familiar tsl - 137:11


137:12, 139:20

fault
,

let - 45:1

9, 46:8,

Giltl - 66:3, 66:14, 68:15, 69:22 Gilberttrl - 64:15

46:25

forensics Irl - 138:6


forms -34:'15,44:7, 47:3,47'.12, 56:16, 73:7,185:2, 197:3,
1

family tt - 141:9, 148'18, 149:1,


I 53:1 0

faulted ttl - 46:3 feasible tzl - 5:13,


'169:24

1 1

8:6, 1 36:1 6,

February

- 114:5,

lar t - 4'.21, 68:1 7, '101:6, 13216 Father tttel - 12'12, 18:8, '18:9,22:11,

171:3, 187:4

fellfi-

164:2

137:20 fne lel - 7:16, 96:18, 105:9,1'11:22,

98:1 0

grls t1t - 13:22 given trgl - 9:16, 17'.13,2O:5,22:19, 52:25,78:9,83:4, 86'.21, 91'.17 , 157:6,
157:8, 160:4, 162:6, 169:20, '170:21, 170:23, 173:3, 197:6 Given ttt - 153:24 goal lel - 128:14,

formatted n - 4'.17 former+ - 59:24, foundation


132:2

fellowil

- 63:10

22:24,23:6,25:10,
25'.20,26:6,35:'16, 36:9,41:1,41 :16,
44:18, 45:3, 45:4,

felt tat - 6:9, 30:3, 45:12,60:25,61:2, 63:4, 129:3 few +1 - 4:6, 107:1 107:5,107:16
,

'112:6,116:11, 1 36:l , 1 36:2, 1 98:l 6

80:8, 194:3, 194:4 lzl - 67:4,


a1

finish

tl - 79:15, 79'.17, 128:23, 136:1 FINNEGAN tgt - 2:3,

four

- 7:6,7:11,

45:21,46:14,46:24,
48:7, 48:'13, 49:7, 49:10, 49:25, 5O:2, 50:8,51:20,5.1 :25, 52:12, 56:5, 56:8, 56'.11, 56:23, 57:17, 58:1'1, 58'.17,58:21,

fifth tr: - 187:5 fighttrl - 102:8


figure trl - 164:13 file l+ol - 13:4,41:22,
44:18, 44:19, 49:22,

4:'18,8:15,71:7 79:16,172:5,
172:1'l ,'190:22,
191 :5

59:13, 115:5, 123:9, 123'.22, 1848,


1

128:17,139:7 goals trl - 139:9 granted r - '184:15

96:1 8

greattrl - 53:9, 164:3,


181'.14,181:15

fourth trl - 153:2


frame tsl - 6: 14, 112:19,176:16 Francis Ir1 - 49:7 Freddie tzl - 53: 14,
54:11

green ttl - 173:6


Greta lel - 156:23,

Finnegan

tr

8:1 6

first

t+l

- 4:8,5:25,

52:6,52:10,65:17, 75:21,75:24,76:2,
90:11, 90:21 , 90:23,

9:8, 10:14, 14:10,


15:8, 18:1 ,24:23,

157:12,158:6, 158:19,158:20,

59:11,59:25,60:5,
60:16, 63:13, 65:10, 8'1 :15, 60:23, 63:8, 63:17, 64:15, 65:18, 74:4, 84:25, 85:8,
,

24:25,29:7,32:7,
35:2, 39:10, 64:23,

93:15,93:18,94:15, 94:18,97 22, 103:20,103:24,


104:17, 10420,

88:'17,91:20,91:2'l 92:3,92:11,92:23, 95:3, 97:1, 108:10,


109:10, 110:4, 111:6, 111:8, 'l'11:10, 113:11,

104:22,104:25,
'105:5, 105:15,

100:15,105:3, 111:13,115:13, 122:17,126:6, 126:9,127:5,


'128'.14, 128:15,

Freddy trl - 49:10 Fiday l- 142:7

Griffith

158:24, 159:5, 159:8 t4t - 45i4,

108:10,108:23,
126:20

friendly trt - 122:6 front lzl - 6'.3, 172:1 full tt - 9:12, 31 :6,
31 :'l

1,53:15

group t4l - 44:15, 70'.3,85:7,92:'11 guess tel - 20:16,


39:13, 64:11 , 64:12,

107:6, 107:'16, 118:7, 120:22, 130:14, 131:22,

129jl,

138:7,

140:25,141:22,
'143:4,144:7,
144:11 ,'145:19,

lully t1l- 44i20 function lzl-72:24,


128:3

64:13,95:7, 100:'1 ,
142:3, 199:12

132:11,173:6,
'186:24,190:4,

functioning Itl 137:'18

guessing tzl - 38:10,


39:1 6

113:17,119:2,
119:11, 119:12, 120:8, 12Q:1'l
,

190:17,'194:16,
1

146:2, 147:11, 148:'10,148:23,

guidance

96:1
ss - 4:1

152:16,155:16,
'155'.21

G
Gallatintrrl -78:15,
100:5, 100:23,

guilt

1s

tr1 - 36:19 - 79:6, 80:2,

81 :9

121:13,126:20, 129:1 , 132:21 ,


142:17, 142:20,

files

3, 5:1 0, 5:25, 6:6, 13:23, 43:20,43:22, 43:24,

,160:20,

guilty

1+1

- 55:22,

143:13,'143:14, 144:17,144:24,
'145:5, 148:7,

44:3,44:10,68:14, 70:4,75:15,75:25,
76:4, 83:4, 9'l:3,

161:19,165:14, 179:25,202:5 litl - 29:13, '114:3,


116'.16,123:21 fitness tzl - 113:8, 119:6 five lal - 5:6, 5:1 2,

82:7,129:25, 185:18 gun tzt - 145:9,


145:17

101:15,101:19,
101:24, 102:4,

Gustafson

148:13,148:22,
148:23, 149:3, 149:4, 150:4,

92:22,99:2,99:3,
105:22, 106:16,

102:'18,103:20, 108:21 ,132:21 games t1l - 106:20

21 - 64:15, 65:10, 65:18, 66:4,

66:14,6815,69:22
Gustafson's ttl - 65:7 guy t2t - 15:6, 58:12 guys r - '104:5

106:23,129:20,
130117,130:24, 131:7, 131:16,

150:11,153:4, 153:6,157:16, 157'.20,158:16, 158:25,159:4,


16'l :3, 162:5, 173:5,

59'14, 96j14, 1 12:'l, 113'.15,123:18,


1

garagetil -174:13 Gary tzl - 1:15,202:21

96:1 9

133:5,133:15,
134:3, 160:5, 160:8,

floortrlFlynn
tzt

189:5

gearstrl- 100:9 General l - 152:24


general
121

- 15:2,83:7

- 25:22, half
tst

H
- 136:4,

174:5, 179:13,

180:4,180:15, 181:16,182:11, 182:16,182:19,

173:9,173:11, 173:17 , '173:'19, 173:20,173:23,


189:4, 189:17, 190:5, 19'l :13,

folks trl - 77:7 follow lzl - 70:7, 168:9 follow-up Irl - 168:9 followed H-37:12 follows tzl - 9:9, 201:5

46:10, 47:8, 60:'16, 117 1, 126:25, 143:15

general's pl - 188:22,
189:3

197:10,197:12, 197'.16,197:20

HANDtrl -202:18

9
handle t - 143:17 handled t6t - 45:8, 45:15, 110:2,
135:'17, 166:6,
176:'12 162:'14, 163'.9, 167:4

handling trl - 15:6


hands
I+l

116:9, 130:9, 131:1, 132:2, 135:22, 135:25, 136:3, 140:19, '141:'11, 142:2, 145:11, 147:5,'148:2,

identifying ttl 130:23

including \at-32:20,
173:8, 179:21,

held

tzt

- 16:1, 84:9
42:7

helpn-

Hennepin Irl - 132:15 hereby tzl - 201:1,


202:3 Hermes
202:21

illegal tsl - 88:13, 179:15,185:2 images ptl - 85:24,


85:25, 86:1 , 86:6, 86:24, 87:11 , 87:19, 88:4, 88:13, 88:19, 89:3, 89:8, 90:8, 91 : 1 5, 92:3, 99:1 1 , 99:'14,99:22,

180:3,181:13,
186:24

ncomplete
198:25

t21

- 4:23,

- 77:9,

77:18,77:22,78:4 hands-on I4l-77:9,


77:'18,77:22,78:4 hardly Irl - 172:14
harm
21

152:10,153:14, 155:5,155:16,
163:5, 164:24, 168:7, 168:25,

?l-

1:15,

incorrect

- 151:24,

Hibben \zj - 2:24, 8:9


HIBBEN I'tzt-7:23,

152:3, 154:3, 154:5 independenttrl 43:21

- 26:23, 56:6,

169:12,'169:25, 170:8,170:13,
171:8, 171:11, 17'l:14, 171:18,

9:5,7'l:15,71:18,
136:5, 136:8, 167:9, 170:6, 170:'11,

151:14,175:6,
179:'15, 184:4,

111:15,118:19, 128:24,153:5,
1

170]14,196:14,
1

185:1,185:7,
185:14,'185:16,

indicate Itl - 52:12 indicated Ist - 54:10, 54:12,91:1,92:24, 94:24, 123:20,


'128:25, 129:8, 195:25 indicates tr1- 162:4

89:1 0

171:25,172:7,
172:14,172:21 176:15,'178:1 178:13,'183:18, '187:20,189:24,
, ,

96:1 8

Haselberber t1l 15:10

High lrl - 65:11 high lr: - 22:3


HIGHWAYtTI - 1:24 himself tzt - 61 :2,
1

185:22,186:4,
186:6, 186:8, 186:22

Haselberger z+ 59:23, 60:8, 80:20,

85'285:21,86:24,
89:1, 92:8, 93:3,

190:2, 190:20,
191

50:1 6
tzt

immediately lel 49:18,51:2'l ,82:14, 88:1, 110:25, 145:3,


165:15,165:21

indicating p) - 21:21
1

85:1

lndicating) 1

:1,193:9,

hindsight
150:'15

- 145:2,

53:1 5 tzl - 58:23,

107:7,111:'13,
117:10, 117:21, 120:9,152:1 ,

194:12, 194:25,

159:19,161:8,
'163:14, 166:5, 17'l:1, 177:16,
'l

195:7,195:14, 196:3,196:10, 196:16,196:20, 197:24,198:14, 198:18,199:10,


1

hiretrl - 194:20 hired tol - 44:15,


138:10,176:7,
193:23, 194:3, 194:7

imminentlrl - 33:1 imparted tzt - 148:22,


191:22

indication
119:21

113:24,114:5,

,119:23,
Isl - 25:15,

impartiality Irt 202:'15

159:18,160:2

individual

184:25,185:25, 90:l I
,

99:1

haws Izl - 172:'18,


'174:7

history tsl - 42:24, 46:8,120:7 hold Isl - 61 :6, 61 :7,


160:3
,

implied lzl - 40:8,


68:22

73:14, 189:9

individuals

HAWS trgzl - 2:7,

imply ts1 - 36:24, 69:11,69:16

5:24,7:20,8:21 2O:15,21:12,23:22, 25:8,26:24,27:5, 29:21,30:10,30:14,


31

Haws Irl - 8:21

lgl 19:12, 19:14,21:3 influence tt1 - 33:24

Hayden

27

- 158:21

:18,32:4,33:3,

34:15,35:9,39:10,
40:6, 40:12, 40:18,

41:5,44:7,47:3,

47:12,49:11,50:20,
53:3, 53:18, 53:25, 54:3, 547, 55:14, 56:16, 58:'14, 59:18, 61'.10, 61'.19, 61:24,

158:22 head ttl - 135:2 head) Isl - 7:20, 17:19, 118:23 health ttl - 67:16 heaV)- 57:22, 62:20, 63:19, 105:13 hearby Irt - 152:23 heard Irsl - 63:20,

holding trl - 22:14 home t41 - 51 :6, 51 :10,5'l :11 honestly Irl - 183:7

important
147:1

Isl

- 19:19,

inform

-'116:23,

35:13, 35:15, 54:17,

120:12, 161:2, 161 :3, 165:1 5,


165:21

impression
77:4

l2l

- 77:1

hopestrl- 187:9

information
1r

tzl -

hourtrl-

136:4
tr1

improper
,

- 96:12,

hour-and-a-half

198:1,'198:2
lN lrl

136:4 hourss1 -7:6,7:1'l '1519, 170:11,


1

1:1

inaccurate lzl - 62:3,


166:17

6:14,11:25, 12:20, 13:3,13:10,17:13, 25:19,51:1,53:13, 95: 1 6, 96:1 7, 1 0l :8,


104:5, 107:2, 111:3,

646,67:3,67:25,
68:21, 69:3, 69:7,

68:10, 121:1 122:17,122:18, 140:25,145:17, 145:19,146:3,


,

96:1 8

inappropriaterr 69:13,102:20,
103:3, 103:8,

housekeeping irl 7:19

113'.10,117:10, 120:3,124:7,
'128:20, '138:16, 142:22, 143:1 ,
'145:4, '148:'11,

71:10, 71:13,74:24, 75:2,79:'10,79:14, 79'.17, 80:21,81:25, 83:11,95:19,95:23,


96:1, 96:4, 96:10, 100:6, 100:22, 101:24, 102:1 ,

158:3, 166:12, 185:5

hearing tgzl - 11:21 28:2,36:1 ,37:9, 41:6,46:20, 47:21,


,

Huberty n - 74:4 Hugo til - 181:22 hustled ttl - 5:2

104:12,'104:23, 108:2,108:18, 115:25,123:7,


-

hypotheticals
198:2

t1

140:22 incest21 - 148:18,


149:1

151:19,151:23, 152:5,160:23,
161:20,162:1 , '162:18, '162:19, '173:7, '179:16,

55:8, 57:5, 63:23,

69:18,70:9,71:5,
76'.'17,82:21,87:15,

incident ttol - 31:3,


83:.1

,83'.21, 115:2,

180:10,181:12,
182'.1, 182'.4, 183:5,

115:12,11513,
idea Isl - 35:17, 53:17,

102:6,'lO47, 104:10,104:15, 104:21 ,105:7,


106:19, 107:'l I, 'lO9:15,109:22,

90:15,98:9, 100:15,
1

05:1 8,

1 1

8:2,

97:15,160:19,
1

117:25,1246, 125:21,148:18

118:24, 1'19:24,

89:1 9

incidents

lsl

- 49:2,

183:10,184:2, 184:17,187:7, 189:21 ,191:22,


192:'17

110:20,111:18, 112:5,112:11, 115:16,11523,

121:4,126:3, 128:8, 133:2,133:18, 142:11,144:2,


146:5, 147:7, '147:17,'162:9,

identified

o - 26:3, 27'.9,110:13, 188:21,193:4, 199:8 identify Iq - 6:20,

49:3, 108:2 included tl - 11:6, 28'.13,77:13, 186:23 includes Izl - 73:3,


73:4

informed Irsl - 26:6,


:5, 35:3, 44:20, 56:4, 59: 1 6, 67:2'l
31
,

8:11,25:3, 113:1

76:22, 107'.17,

10
'111:8, 116:21
,

103:14,.108:7,
154:11 154:21 194:21

'120:14, 122:11,

,15420,
,
162:2,

142:18,148:16

57:14, 58:7, 59:15, 60:2, 60:11 itself tsl - 7:2, 49:22,

June

- '10:2, 1 13:6,

knows tzl - 69:14,


1

142:9, 149:16,
151'.10, '151:22,

95:1 9

informing U- 1'16:'17 informs ttl - 90:7


inherit trl - 58:l inherited Irt - 58:3

176:3,176:4, 176:5,

94:15, 110:10, 147:6

initiative
133:14

tzt

- 133:12,

internally ltl- 132:11 lnternetlll - 182:17 interpret Itt - 4:10 interruptlzl - 18:22,
'100:7

J
Jackson tll - 2:4 Jay tst - 17:12,32:8, 32:11,32:14,33:'17 Jeff tzt - 8:14, 100:5
JEFFREY t1l - 2:2 Jenniferzs1 - l5:10, 59:23, 60:8, 60:14, 80:20, 85:2, 85:20, 86:24, 89:1 , 90:23,

153:24,159:.18, 177:13 justify rrl - 175:19

Kueppers tsl - 9:2, 41'.25,42:12,52:21 53:12, 122:3,122:6,

K
k-i-n-s-a-l-ettl - 13:9 Keating tsl - 109:10,
109:17,109:25,
110:2, 110:4 Keenan1 - 139:14 keep lel - 34:1 3,

126'.21, 164:10 KUEPPERS tgl - 2:19, 9:2, 59:8

innerz -25!19,
25:25, 43:1 8, 56:1 5,

L
lack lzt - 4:9, 18:11 Laird tl - 59:25, 60:5, 60:16, 63:1,

intervention
interview
t+t

tr1

- 75:9

56:17,56:19

- 156:23,

innocently
185:22

tr1

157:9, 157:22, 158:20

inquire Ir1 - 99:8 inserttzl - 116:1,


198:6

interviewed tgl 108:14,158:4,


180:20

63:9,63:13,63:17,
84:25, 85:8, 91:20,

inserted trl - 115:19

investigate

tel - 64:1

inserting
183:23

tzl - 69:9,

137:8, 195:21

91:15,91:18,92:24, 93:3, 107:7, 111:13,


111:23, 113:10, 120:8, 152:1, '161:8,

34:24,35:2'l ,38:19, 50:12,106:15, 189:20,19722

91'.21,91:24,92:3,

92:5,92:8,92:11,
92:23,93:1, 119:2, 119:11,119:15, 119:18,120:8,
125:11, 152:23, 153'.4, 157:3, 157:5,

insights trl - 30:17 installation lel - 1 0:1 ,


10:3, 11:24,14:3,

investigated tsl 78:22,78:24,79:3, 79:24, 136:25

keeperttl - 166:20
,

investigation

aa

164'.4,166:5, 171:1 175:15,184:25,


185:7, 185:25,
I 90:1
1

keeping o - 67:20, 169:15,192:4,


'194:19,'194:21
,

25:1,55:16,65:2,
65:6

50: 1 9, 51 :2, 75:1 6,

80:12, 80:17, 81:1,

installed 'rj-9:2'l
instance tzl - 73:17, 10317 instances trl - 73:23 instead tel - 35:'10,
194:11, 194:22 lnstitute I2l - '177:20, 178:4

81:14,82:19,85:22, 90:25, 103:7, 103:11,103:14,


105:25, 109:5,
138:1 , 152:22, '153:4, 153:5,

Jesuit trl - 65:11 Jimtzl - 139:13,


'164:15

job tol - 1 5:3, 45:l 1 , 45'.16,47:16,47:19,


48:5

197:15 Ken 21 - 29:5, 29:8 kept o - 34:25, '106:24,189:1 189:2, 189:4, 192:24 Kevin lol - 14:23, 24:17, 47:6, 49:25, 89:7, 137:'1, 184:25,
,

157:15,158:25, 159:11,159:20,
162:6, 163:14,

instruct

t6l -

39:23,

154:'11,154:20, 154:21 ,157:2, 157:5,162:2, 175:2,


175:22, 175:25, 176:1, 176:4, '176:5,
176111

61:23,91:18,93:24, 105:10,137:2 instructed lol - 84:20, 85:1,85:9,91:25,


153:3, 160:25

Joe tzl - 122:3, 126:21 John tlsl - 7:25,9:14, 17'.12,21:9,32:8, 32:11,32:'13,32:20,


33:17, 59:3, 71:19, 136:9, 139:2'1 ,

85:1 5

183:11,187:16 Laird's Irl - 62:8 laptops ltl - 182:11 last lgol - 5:12,6:4, 9:'13, 12:4, 12:13,
13:2, '15:14,25:2,

,185:10,

194:24

14013,148:13,
149:5, 149:11 , 180:5 JOHN tt - 1:13,9:7,

kids tol - 19:21,26:22, 52:20,195:11, 195:12,196:2 kind n - 25:'12,42:9, 121:22,123:8, 158:23,184:7,


189:17

25:3,30:22,30:24, 31:6,42:5,49:1 , 64'24,74:21 100:16,105:8,


,

'120'.18, 167:17,

investigators 138:10,'152:24, 194:6

170:18,178:20,
179:12, 179:'19, 179:25,'183:9,

instructing ttl - 61 :25 instruction 01 '136:20,136:24, 137'.1, 137:8, 160:4,


I 60:1 5

investigator's trl 173:8

,202:4 Johnson ll-75:22


201:1

kinds trl - 28:18 Kinsale It tl - l3:7,

1311, 14:4, 44:11,


65:17, 70:3, 193:18, 193'.23,194:16 knowing tgl - 19:20, 58:7, 169:23 knowledgetrgl 21:25,41:4, 103:20,

183:ll,191:14,
191 :15

Jon ttl - 81:15


JOSEPH

invited trl - 106:24

tt-2:19

insurance

- 65:24,

67:7, 68:3

involved l\ - 37:7 , 74:9,92:5, 110:8,


'141:24,143:21
,

Joseph ltl - 9:2, 78:'15,101:14,


'101'.19, 135:21
,

Lavan trzl - 12:12, 12'.25, 13:'l, 13:11,


13:21 , 14:3,29:5, 29:8,48:8,48:13, 68:'16,70:14 law tqal - 82:'10,85:14,

insures r - 65:25 integrity tzt- 62:18, 62i24 intended n- 171:23 intentt2l - 103:'10,
107:2

144:7, 148:'12, 164:16, 165:4, 165:5 involvement I2l -

136:14, 137:'14 journal tzl - 38:13,


38:1 9

142:24, 149:3

intentions
46:1

A-

45:22,

involves trl - 100:23 involving g - 43:25,


108:3, 109:6

9:14 jude tll - 174:5 Judge tzt - 4:11, 32:25

Jrtrl-

103'24, 123:'13, 129:23,140:9, 150:19,150:21,


181:4, 184:22, 189:7, 193:1

86:11, 93:4, 93:9, 94:20, 95:18, 96:12,

105:5,105:16,
'105:23,107:5,

interestt4l - 67:19,
113'.25, '119:22, 202:14 interested tzl - 165:8, 202:13 internal U\ - 94i7,

issue ttl - 29:20 issued r -'134:17 issues s] - 78j12, 80:13,101:1, 124:24,125:3 lT Ltt- 56:24,57:8,

judge trl -'172:23 judgment tzl - 94:1


1

known ttol - 13:.20, 36:8,42:23,71:3,


,

108:19,108:21, 109:1,'109:2, 109:3,


110:17, 129:22,

73'.11, 73:15, 76:12,

39:1 5

JUDICIAL ttl - 1:2

Judicial Ir1 - 8:6 July ttl - 183:1 1

76:16,77:2, 101:9, 118:21,126:1, 129:16,143:2,


174:2, 192:12

130:18,130:24, 131:8,131:18,
'131:24,131:25,

132:13,133:5, 133:16,138:17,

11-

138:18, 147:23, 161:2, 165:10,


167:21 ,167:24, 183:13,185:16,

67:5,69:2, 104:14,
147:5, 152:11,

64:18,72:8,72:9,
180:4, 180:19 locate 1z - '173:19,
191 :18

5:'12, 11:7, 16:1 16:13, 41 :9, 83:8,


,

161:2,193:10,
195:5, 195:7, 195:12, 196:25 legally Irt - 199:7 legitimate tzt - 197
198:22

186:21, 187:8, '192:17, '192:25,

locations
'1,

21

- 106:17

91:17, 107:8 matterlrol - 8:3, 8'l:22, 82:14,84:24,


90:20, 97:5, 98:5,

15:24,16:4, 16:8, 16:12, 18:1 , 18:7, 18:8,19:10,19:11, 19:24,2O:9,21:13, 22:11,22:'16,23:14,

193:7,193:15,
194:9, 194:23,

Look lrt - 132:10 look trzl - 46:7, 47:1,


47:8, 68:7, 69:25, 70'.2,78]10, 85:24,

24:5,24:8,24:25,
25:10,34:19,35:2,
35:6, 35:16, 35:20, 36:21, 36:23, 63:6, 63:11,'156:22, 159:8, 159:'19

195:3,195:18,199:8
Law+1 - 2:4,2:8,

2:12,2:16

lawsuittrl- 65:19
lawyer t+l - 91 :9, 122:4, 161:13,
1

length Irl - 186:3 less tzl - 5:4, 5:16, 20:'14,37:22,37:24, 119:6,197:15 letterllll - 5:7, 43'12,
52:18, 85:10, 85:19, 85:20, 85:23,

1167,141:2, 178:16,178:19, 184]12,188:15,


189:6, 191:20, 192:8

100:13,100:17, 114:20,124:13, 152:25,15410, 159:25,176:2 matters tll - 4:6 McDonough lot 14:23, 15:9, 18:8, 18:9, 19:9,22:11 25:10,25:21
,

meetings tl - 17:1 , 38:22,38:23, 41:3,


92'.2'1,162:8, 163:13 meets Itl - 21:2 members t3l - 72:8,

looked

tel

41:21

66:1 9

86:6, 86:25, 94:2,

22'.24,23'.7,24:17,

lawyers ltl-'141:16 layperson fi- 60:12 learn ra - 42:20, 57:22,65:15, 88:12, 90:4, 113:7, '120:16, 120:21 , 121:7,
121:14, 140:6, '141:22, 142:14,

177:18,177:19,
178:2, 178:22 letters trl - 6:8 letting trt - 195:20 Levada Irl - 85:'12

132:10,145:22,
159:24,'180:12 looking tsl - 87:4, 115:3,'161:17, 182:5, 190:6 lookstrl - 115:4 lost Irl - 73:21 Luke'sro1 - 118:6,

,266,

35:16,36:9,36:21,
37:1 , 38:3, 40:3,
41:1

,45:2,45:3,
,

lien-22:4
lies Irl - 68:8 likely tzt- 20:7,
'182:18

45:7,45:15,45:2'l 47:6,49:25, 50:2,

126:15,141:9 memorz - 16:7, 35:4, 35:7, 111:23, 170:25,174:'l 174:4,177:4,


,

143:'l'l learned pq - 42:25, 46:13,48:9,52:1


,

118:13,120:2,
120:7, 123:15,

limitation Irt - 167:16 limitations Izl - 140:2,


140:4

65:13, 65:16, 70:19,

123:20,124:5, '124:11,177:20,
178:4

50:8, 50:1 1 , 57:1 7, 58:1'1, 58:17, 58:22, 59:12, 88:17, 89:7, 89:1 8, 95:3, 97:2, 111:6, l1l:8,

178:23, 183:6, 184:2, 184:20, 187:14, 187:22,

190:12,190:14,
1

90:1 5

120:11,120:16,
'121:13, 129:1,
137:1

memorandum t 173:2

70:20,70:23,70:24, 70:25, 121:20, 121:21, 142:16, 143:10,143:20, 144:7,'144:11,


144:'14, 146:12, 148:5, 150:25, 152:4, 154:8,

limited trl - 150:23


LINDSTROM tzl - 2:4, 8:19 Lindstrom ttl - 8:20 line trl - 201 :5

, 137:7,

M
machine Ir1 - 175:3 made-up ttl - 116:5 maintain Ij - 4814, 48:20, 48:22,62:17 maintained tsl 48:23, 49:21, 104:1,

142:17, 144:17,

144:24,145:5, 145:20,'145:25,
148:7, 151:2, '153:18, 184:25,

memory t7t - 38:2'l 39:19,167:1, 183:12,184:13,


184:14

listtrl - 16:'15, 16:17, 17:15, '17:24,31:16,

menpl-22:'13,
1 1

3:13

155:14,155:23, 160:21,166:15 learning n-7'l:1 least Irol - 4:14,


13:22, '15:3,66:12,

32:2,32:8,32:11,
32:14,32:24,33:9, 33:17,34:24,35:8, 72:17,73:1 ,78:16,
126:6,'127:5,

185:9,185:15,
186:11, 187:14

McDonough's lgl 46:24,89:23, 137:20


Mealey trt - 164:18 mean [18] - 20:13,

mental ttl - 67:16 mentioned pl-70:4, 125:12,193:16


met
t6l

- 14:7, 14:'19,

106:1,185:7

14:20,32:12, '145:6,
160:20

127:10,127:12,
127'.16, 127:21 189:4, 189:8,
,

maintaining
45i24

r -

68:17,83:9,96:15,
115:8, 124:14, 151:20 leave trzl - 50:17,

173:17,173:19, 189:13,189:14,
190:6, 190:8, 190:10,'191 :'16, 191:18, 191:20,
192:1

male lrl - 180:4 man tll - 180:19

27:24,31:12,37:21 , 74:17,84:16,88:22,
97:13,'109:2, 113:19, 125:11,

Mexico trl - 43:13 Michael Ft - 55:18,


56:5, 56:8, 56:11, 56:23, 57:23, 58:4 MIGHAEL ttl - 2:2

51:5,74:11, 84:3, 84:5,93:24,99:24,


111:11, 176:24, 177:3, 18416 leaving trl - 199:13 lecture |zl - 96:9, 96:10 led lrt - 61 :7 left Ir rl - 43:1 , 43:8, 43:'12, 50:24, 164:4, 169:13,'170:3, 173:24, 181:23, 197:19,197:21 legal tzol - 7:8,29:22, 31'.19,33:22, 40:10, 40:16, 4O:22,67:3,

management t4l 77:15, 123:11,


'164:20,164:2'l

manager[2] -77:14,
77:18

,'192:5, 192:8,

129:7,135:25, 152:9,152:14, 152:15,161:2, 196:4 meaning trl - 173:9


means
s

micoltl -77:14
mid-1980s trl - 55:21 mid-20strt - 113:'13 mighttzl -26:22,
35:22 Mike trl - 8:16 mind t7l - 39:5, 46:12,
67:21

192:12, 192:24

listen tzl - 63:l 6,


63:22

mandatory tol - 87:23, 87:25,110:19, 146'19,149:24,


152:7

71 :1,

179:1,190:13

meantlt - 176:19
mechanics r1 - 7:4 media tgl - 10:25,
24:21

listening rt- 111:22 lists t4t - 17:14, 17:21,


32:19,128:4 litigated ttl - 139:14

manner[1] - 189:18 Manual ttl - 67:15


Mark

,74:6, 74:7 ,

,33:16,34:3,

78:14,94:19

lil - 107:23

litigation

- 35:24, 36:8, 38:5, 38:25, 140:20, 160:3 lived Irt - 50:6


t61

living

- 49:24,

marked ltl- 11:20 mass I1l - 12:7 material H- 14:4, 37:18,181:13 materials lol - 4:20,

34:7, 40:20,62:22, 69:9,69:16 meet


t4l

- '14:10,

14:15,92:13, 159:12 meeting tt - 15:8,


'15:17, 15:20, 15:22,

ministerial trl- 80:14 ministries trl - l1:'10 ministry It - 10:12,


10:20, '12:9, 12:'17, 13:17, '14:8, '14:'17, 18:14, '18:20,26:25,

12
27:12,27:14,27:'15, 27'.20,27:22,29:1, 29:3,29:4, 49:4,
49:19, 51:7, 51:21, 52'.3, 52:14, 52:16,
56:1

mishandled trl 55:13

29:18, 30:2, 35:4,


56:9, 56:12, 56:24, 57:24, 57:25, 58:5,

mishandling lzl 54:21, 55:3

2'l:12, 21:14, 21:16, 23:22,23:24,25:8, 25:16,26:24,27:2,


27:5,27:7 , 27:8,

109:22,109:24,

110:20,110:22,
't't1'.1, 11'.t:18,
'l'12'.2,
1 1

58:8,64:18,71:23,
71:25,72:20,72:25, 73:3, 73:8, 113:21,
114:9, 114:12, 114:19,1'14:24,

2:5,

1 1

2:8,

mismanagementtzl 123:12, 124:20

28'.4,29:21,29:25,
30:10, 30:12, 30:14, 30:19, 31:18, 31:21, 32:4, 32:16, 33:3, 33:6, 34:15, 34:17,

112:11 , 112:'17,

,70:22,72:22,

73:15, 73:19, 76:12,

8l:3,8'l:12,99:13,
99:15,99:16,99:21,
109:11, 1'11:'17,

misspoke ttl - 149:13 misstate tsl - 40:8,


62:'l

115:'16,115:21 115:23, 116:6,

ll6:9,116:13,
118:4, 119:1 , 120:1 121:6, 126:5,
,

,96:7
27 -

115:1,115:5,'l 15:9,
104:8,

misstated
183:22

'116:19, 1'16:22,

113:9,116:17,
119:6, 120:5,
123:21 , 124:24,

'122:9,122:25,
123:2, 129:3

misstatement t 1

35:9,35:11,36:3, 37:'l 1,39:10,39:17, 4O:6,40:10,40:12,


,

128:10,130:9, 130:15,131:1,
131:4, 132:2, '132:5,

30:1 0

monitors
'117:'l

21- 56:21

40:15, 4O:18, 40:22,

125:9, 127:25, '128:2,'129:24,

misstatements til 104:22

40:24,41:5,4'l:8,
44:7,44j12, 46:22, 47:3,47:5, 47:12, 47:15, 47:23, 49:11 , 49:13, 50:20, 50:25,
53:3, 53:6, 53:18, 53:24, 53:25, 54:1,

137:10,137:'15, 137:18,150:13,
176:23, 176:24,

177:5, 177i8, 177i12


MINNEAPOLIS trl 1:8

misstates Irzl - 25:8, 32:4,33:3, 49:12, 50:20,58:15,82:1, 106:19,131:2, 164:25,183:18,


189:24

Montero tzol - 41:16, 42:'10,42:21 ,42:24, 43:6,44:1 ,49:7,


49:10, 49:17, 49:22, 49:24, 5O:4, 50:'14, 50:16, 5l:4, 51:20, 51:25, 52:6, 52:9,

132:7,133:4, 133:20,135:22,
135:24, 135:25, 136:2, 136:3, 136:5, 136:8, 136:12,

140:19,140:23,
141:11, 141:15, 142:2, 142:5,

Minneapolis Irgl 2:10, 2:14,2:22, 8:4,

misstating

tgl -

40:18,

52:12,52:25, 53:14,
54:11, 133:25,

54:3,54:5,54:7, 54:8,55:10,55:14,
55:15, 56:16, 56:18, 57:7, 58:14, 58:19, 59:8, 59:9, 59:10, 59:18, 59:20, 61:10, 61:15, 61:19, 61:22,

142:13,144:4,
145:11, 145:15, 146:7, 147:5, 147:9,

8:22,8:24,9:4,9:23,
10:21, 11:'17, 17:25,
18:'12, 151:'11

83:12,95:20 mistake 21 - 145:2,


187:18

mistaken
138:25

pl-

1'17:15,

MINNESOTA tzl - 1:1,


202:1

134:5,134:12 month trrl- 12:4, 12:14, '13:2,66:16, 88:22,92:13,


112:12, 113:1, 113:5,'113:22, 113:23 months o - 64:24, 99:23, 100:1, 173:'12, '18'l:23, 184:8

Minnesotalrrl - 1:17, 1:19,2:5,2:9,2:12, 2:13,2:17 ,2:21,8:5,


8:8,202:5 minor s - 55:23, 151:15,155:15

mistakenly Irl 174:12

61:24,62:5,62:7,
63:25, 64:6, 64:8,

147:19,148:2, 148:4,'1489, 152:10,152:13, 153:14,153:16,


155:5, 155:8,

mistakes |zl - 48:2,


48:6

67:3,67:10,67:25,
68:9, 68:21 , 69:1 69:3, 69:5, 69:7, 69:20, 70:11 , 71:7
,

155:16,155:20, 162:11,162:16,
,

mixed trl - 138:7


MN lrt

1:25

163:5,'163:7, 163:'l'l ,164:24,

minor'strl-

151 :16

minors Irsl - 37:19, 39:1 ,46:24,72:2,


77:24,78:19, 102:2'l ,'lO8:3,
128'.5, 141:23,

moderators -34:'11 , 84:25,92j12,92118,


I 43:1 5

71'.10, 71'.12, 71:13,

morning 1o - 145:6,
145:8,'147:13, 147:14,152:6,
I 59:1 9

71:14,71:15, 71:18, 71'.22,74:24,75:1 ,

165:2,'167:6, 167:9, 167:12,168:7, 168:18,168:25,


169:2, 169:12, 169:14, 169:25, 170:4, 170:6, 170:8,
170:11

molestation
59:17

r1

75:2,75:13,76:19,
79:10, 79:12,79:14,
79:'16, 79:'17 , 79:19 , 80:21 ,80:23,81:25,

mom

t1l

- 156:24

mornings

Ir1

- 162:8

142:24,143:2, 143:21 ,144:7,


148:11

momentltel - 5:23,
48:14,66:8,71:24,

mosttzl - 19:19,74:7 mother z - 140:15,


141:1, 141:6, '143:7, 148'.25, 157:11, 158:2

,170:13,

82:2,82:23,83:'11,
83:18, 87:17 , 90:17 , 95:19, 95:21 , 95:23, 95:24, 96:1 , 96:2, 96:4, 96:8, 96:10, 96:1 9, 98:1 1 , 1 00:4,

79:8,84:4, 100:2,
103:13,104:9, 148:19,170:7, 173'14,177:24 Monday n - 4:16 monitors - 30:3, 58:24, 59:3, 59:12,
114:6

170:14,'17O:16, 171:8, 171:10,

minutels -61:22,
73:21 ,'128:23,

171:11,171:13, 171:14,171:16,
'171:18,171:21 '171:25,172:5, '172:7, 172:'11, '172:14,'172:18, 173:1, 174:7
,

motiontzl -32:25,
102:14

169:2,'197:16

minutes rz - 168:25,
169:6, 169:8,

169:13,169:21, 'l7O:12,196:19,
'197:11 , '197:13,

moved s] - 173:10, 173:17,173:20, 188:25,191:16


MPR t8t - 60:25,

100:6,100:12, 10022, 10'l:6,


1O'l:16,101:22,

172:21 , 172:22,
,

monitored trol - 19:8,


19'.23,20:7,20:21,

101:24,101:25,
102:1, 102:3, 102:6,

197:19,197:2'l

misbehavior
92:14

r1

20:24,21:7,22:13,
22:20,23:21 ,24:3,

misconductltzl 73:9,73:13,73:20, 74:1 , 74:9,78:19,


103:25,115:'lO, 124:1, 173:5, 173:7,
1

25:5,26:16,26:20,
27:3,27:10, '114:'14

6, 61 :1 7, 62:8, 62:1 0, 63:7, 63:1 6, 166:10 MRtssgl -3:2,4:3,


61
: 1

102:15,104:7, 104:9,104:10,
104:13, 104:15, 104:19, 104:21,

monitoring

+s -

4:18,4:19,5:24, 6:22,7:18,7:20,
7:21 ,7:23,8:'13,

174:10,176:15, 176:17,176:22, 178:1 , 178:3,178:5, 178:13,178:18, 183:18,183:25,


'187:20,187:23,
'188:8, 189:24, 90:1 , 1 90:2, 'l 90:9, 190:20,'190:22, 190:24,191:1 , 191:5, 19'1 :7, 193:9,
1

104:24,105:7, 105:10,105:12,
105:20,'106:19, 1O7:4, 107:11, 107:13,107:14,

18:16, 19:4,22:9,

23:9,24:4,26:4, 28:6,28:11,28:13,
28:23,29:'10,29:14,

8:'15,8:21 ,8:23, 8:25,9:2,9:5, 9:11,

89:1

11:23,20:15,20:19,

109:15,109:19,

13
193:13,194:12,
194'.13,194:25, 195:5, 195:7,
1

50:1 0

129:13,136:8,
139:6, 140:25, 165:20, 182:8,

needsr- 130:11
never[1sl - 51:9, 60:5,

143:22, 143:23, 143:24,164:1 ,


1

146:12,150:16,
195:25 onet44l -6:10, l3:16,

65:1 3

195:10,195:14,
195:16,'195:22, 195:23, 196:3, 196:4, 196:7, 196:8,

60:9,74:20,82:5,
85:.19,85:23, 125:5,
125:'12, 132:17,

201:5,201:6

o
z - 1'20,5:12 O'Rourke tzl - 59:'l ,

145:22, 182:20,

ODEGAARD lt-2:3, 8'.17, 197:'10, 197:20 Odegaard t1- 8:18 OF tel - 1:1, 1:2, 1:8,

196:10,196:14, 196:16,196:18,
196:20,'196:21
,

189:14,189:15 New 21 - 16:22,77:13


new lgl - 30:17, 108:11,'127:17 news t4l - 157:25, 158'.1, 158:7, 159:22 newspaper 11l 163:20

'l:8,3:3,3'.4,202:1

o'clock
59:4

202:2

14:8,'15'2Z 17:7, 19:18,29'.2,46:19, 51 :15,54:3,69:21, 74:6,80:12,92:21 97:24,105:9, 107'.21,109:16,


1'10'.23, 128:'11,

197:12,197:14,
197:22, 197:24,

198:11,198:14,
198:'15, 198:16,

oath trl - 33:7 object lot - 34:1 5,


44:7, 47'.3, 47:12,

offend tol - 20:8, 20'25,21:19,21:24,


22:4

128'12, 129:13,
134:7, '135:18, 139:9, 139:21
,

198:17,198:18, 198:20,199:10, 199:12,199:16, 199:18,200:5


MS tl - 8: 1 7, 8:1 9,

56:16, 132:2,

nexttol - 160:22, 161:1 , 161:25,


'179:19,179:23,
'181 :6

155:16,194:25 Objection tol - 25:8,


31:18, 32:4, 53:18, 6'l :10, 67:3

offended tot - 12:5, 14'.18,22'.2,22:20, 23:10,46:5 offender+ -24:14,


29:9, 39:20, 66:25

140:25,143:6,
143:7, 146:14,

148:23,155:2,
'155'.22, 158:5,
,

offenders
22:1

fil

12:17

170:7, 173:23,

'197:'10,197:20

Mulheron ttl - 164:'l'l

multiple
45:1 0

tzl - 34:2,

Nienstedt Il - 7:25, 9:14,71 :20, 136:9 NIENSTEDT r+l- 1:14,


9:7 ,201:1 , 202:4

objection gzt-20:15, 23:22,29:21,30:10,


30:14, 33:3, 35:9, 406,40:11, 40:12, 40'.16, 40:17, 40:23, 49:1'l ,50:20,53:3, 58:'14,61 :19,69:2, 8'l :25, 83:1 1 , 96:3, 101:2, 104:14,

16:18, 17:'14, 17:22,

174:11,17416,
'174'.17,174:21 199:2
,

,24:3,

24:7

25'.5,26:3,31:16, 31:17,32:1, 129:22,


131:17, 133:21,

191:12,196:25, one's Irl - 6l:12 ones [7] - 56: 14, 95:6,


102:3, 102:7,

must

tgl

- 37:4, 137:6,

Nienstedt's trl - 4:14

189:22,192:9

137:22 MY trl - 202:18

nighttrl - 5:12
nine Isl - 64:'10,
'127:20,128:1

offending

tst

10:12,

10:19,22:'10, 43:7, 46:5

102:11,130:5,
198:25

N
N-i-e-n-s-t-e-d-t Itl 9:1 5

nobody ttl - 176:13 non [2] - 7'.1,22:1

non-productions 7:1

106:19,130:9, 131:1,140:19,
'145"'l'l , 147:5,

offering ttl - 1 87:1 0 office ttt - 15:21,


32:1 8, 32:1 9, 66:1 0,

ongoing
184:4

21

- 182:16,
,

open
1

I2l

198:21

name [13] - 8:9, 9:13, 15:15, 21:11 , 21:15, 24:14, 57:23, 59:2, 66'.6, 110:14, 134:2, 151:8, 153:6 names zr - l9:7, l9:15, 20:5, 20:10,

noncompliance
5:19

1r

none

[2]

152:10,155:5, 164'.24,183:18, 187:20,189:24,


193:9, 195:6, 195:8, 195:12, 196:25

66:13,136:25,
156:6, 156:7,

99:1 4
z

opinion
93:25

- 93:14,
I21

165:19,176:13,
188:23, 189:3,
1

88:1 3,

opportunity
169:25

- 53:9,

't99:7

95:1 9
s - 138:4,

normally
146:15

lzl

- '120:13,

objections ttgl - 7:8,


7:10,7:13, 7:14,
41'.5, 53:24,67:25, 141:11, 169:16, 194:12, 196:22,

Office trt - 188:22

officer

22'.18,32:1,32:7, 32:9,32:13,39:4, 42:16,76:8, 127:17, 130:24,131:6,


.131:8, 131:11
,

131:16, 189:21, 190:7 nation ttl - 17:4

4:12,32:25 Notarytrl - 1:16 note trl - 101 :2 noted s1 - 100:10, 100:20,100:22 notes tsl - 35:5, 39:21, 156:10 North
tzt -

138:14,168:16, 172:19,198:4 offices I+l - 65:3,


135:14, 158:6, 158:2'l

opposed ltl - 96:.18 orderrs - 4:10,4:25, 5:17 , 6:17 ,7:2, 15:25,84:12,


102'.10, 114:'18, 154:20, 154:21, 157:4, 184:6, 188:16,'198:7 ordered al - 4:12, 7:5, 31'.24, 157:1,

196:24,197:4,
197:8, 197:17, 197:25,'199:7, 199:25 objective ttl - 23:18 obligation t1l- 147:2 obviously gl - 6:19,

official

tet

54:21

55:2,'116:24,

nothing

fl

- 53:1 9,

138:17,152:8,
'152:9, 152:14, '152:15

100:18,101:11,
124:3, 153:5, 162:21, 168:17

186:11,202:9

ordering
175:2

lzl

'133:1 5,

nature [s] - '124:4, 125:13,184:4,


185:13,'192:21 necessary I1l - 93:15 necessitated ll 199:25

113:23,185:13

Notice Irl - 1:'14 noticed tzl - 121:23,

occasions

Isl - 83:3,

officially 11t - 152:5 officials s - 55:12,


56:21 , 80:6, 94:8,

necessity ltl - 199:3 needrs] -4:7,6:20, 62'.17,62124,64:13,


123:6, 167'.6, 168:1 168:5, 168:21,
,

2029 notified r - 'l 11:5 notifying tit - 182:1 noting trl - 201:5 notoriety Ir l - 32:1 0
numberzo - 8:7, 1O:9,23:7 ,23:8,

83:15,83:16 occupy 11l - 80:6

occur

t4l

- 18:6,

105'22,122:12, 143:7,163:13,195:4

orders Irl - 5:19 original s - 127:10, 127:11,202:8

originally ttl- 127:16


otherwise
ts1

19:'17,35:25,36:4 Octobertzol -24:22,

otenfl-22i4
old trl - 141 :1

- 11:4,

16:3,'199:4

25:2,25:3,26:4,
31:6,74'.21 , I 00:16, 126:'10,126:12, 127:7, 128:5, 129:16,'143:5,

OLDttl- 1:24
oldertrl - 86:7 omissions Irl - 4:24 once [e] - 13:10,
30:24, 36:9, 48:9,

ourselves l1l - 24121 outsideto - 36:10,


44:10, 44:15, 149:8,
'175'.22, 176:'l '176:5, 176:7,
,

170:2,'170:6, 170:21 needed tsl - 6:10, 13'.16, 19:19,45:12,

27'.9,28:24,28:25, 30'.2,38:7,71:18,

72:19,76:11,

143:10,143:20,

113:22,113:23,

176:13,176:19

1,4

overseeng own
[16]

t2l

33'.20, 48'.15,75:21,

23:20,26:8,30:1

159:2, 159:3

75:24,84:23,92:14,
121'.14,121:18, 121:19,136:22,
152:18,'157:1
,

30:5, 49:9, 64:10,


64:11 ,70'.13,71:1
,

pews trl - 81 :7 ph trl - 138:9

148:6, 149:9,

150:12,150:16,
150:22,'154:22,

- 51:10,62:2, 62:24,63:17 ,64:19,


1'15'.20, 130:1'l
,

pickttl-'122:13
picture tll - 92:20 place tal - 8:8, 1 I 4:1 6,
114:23, 121:22,
'140:21

80:10,80:11,82:19,
133'.12, 133:14, 183:23, 195:9, 198:6, 199:25

71:2,7'l:3, 77:12, 78:7 ,78:8, 81:7


,

188'j4,188:17,
190:20,191:2 particular Isl - 25:14, 40'.4,41:22, 103:17,
136:22

81:13, 84:6, 95:13, 97:20, 102:18,

158:11,161:3, 165:16,165:21, 168:16,175:19,


180:25, 183:4,
1

,150:18,

'121:16,129:18,
139:9, 157:9, ',l65:23, 166:4,

P
P-O-M-S

particularly
'153:12

ll

172:11,'176:20, 192:1,195:18
People Irl - 41:14 pertzl - 10:3, 161:17 percentlil- 185:16

163:25,165:15 placed lel - 35:4, 51:6, 52:13,65:21 ,86:24, 160:3, 173:l 1,177:2 Plaintiff tzl - 1:6,2:6

84:1 9

Policetrl -75:11,
86'.21, 91:16, 94:22,

97:13,97:14,99:5, 106:25,133:9,
168:14

lrl-

19:3

p.m

Ist -

4:16, 5:6,

136'.11

,167:10,

'170:15

page

I4t

174:1,

179:19,179:23,
201:5

parties Ist - 202:9, 202:11,202:14 party 16l - 24'.19, 41:2, 84'.9,121:16, 122:15,202:9 past Fl - 23:10,24:22, 57:1,180:18,
189:22, 193:6,
1

plaintiff It - 8:13, 8:15,8:17,8:19 plan It - 57:24,57:25,


58:5,
'l

policeman

perform l'tl- 57:2 performs Irl - 56:24 period z - 123:9,


1

14:9

175:24, 18511 policies ttl - 67:7

55:1

painted trl - 62:16

painting fi-62123
paragraph to 152:2'l , 153:2, 153:14,161:19,
'171:6, 177:17,

98:1 8
t16l

periodically ttt- 12:6 permission z 81'.19, 184:11

plans 1s1 - 114:12, 126'.1'l,137:13 play r - 160:16 pled trl - 55:21

policy

- 17:5,

48:18, 49:8, 49:16,

49'.21,68'.3,70:14, 166:1,166:3
POMES lrl- 19:1 POMStrst - 18:15, 18:22, 18:24, 19:3, 1 9:8, 1 9:1 3, 28:1 3,

point Irol - 6:21,


13:18, 15:5, 55:14,

pastor

- 26: I 3,

26:2'1, 50:9,60:23,

permittrt - 139:13
permits ttl - 146:20 persisted Ir1 - 32:18 person trzl - 59:l,

64:25,73:17,
136:23, 137:13, 140:7, 141:7, 164:5, '177:4, 181:21
,

178:20,179:12, 179:25,181:6,
181'.7,'182:8, 183:9,

111:24,112:14, 117:13,118:16, 118:17,118:18, 118:21 ,119:3, 119:7,119:20,


120:4, 121:'12

56:13,59:1,72:3,

77:10,90:25,9'l:4,
97:3, 110:8, 111:5,
'148:17,156:2, 156:3,'165:3, 165:11, 167:23,

'193'.12, 197:18,

198:12

187'.5,191:14,
191 :15

pointed ttl -'143:15

72:19,768,76:23, 782,78:17 poorly - 61:1 pop trl - 185:21


pop-up t1l - 185:21 porn Irl - 185:2

pastors
59:1 5

el-

59:14,

paraphrase ttl - 63:8 pardon |tl - 42:3 parish Irsl - 23:5,

pointing ttt-'11'l:25 police tgrl - 49:20,


50:18, 51:1, 75:15,

Pates

I1

- 43:13,

174:23,175:23,
195:4

pornographic
88:4, 89:3

26j13,31:4,70:15,
7O:18, 112:23, 120:6, 120:15,
'123:1'l ,145:7,

:'17,52:17 Paul zz - 8:4, 8:8,


51 :'15,51

8:22,8:24,9:3,9:22,
10'.20, 11'.17, 17:25,

18:12,75:11,86:21

person's t1l - 91:7 personal H- 21:25, 174:11,182:10 personality 1s 119:11, 119:14, 125:15 personally fal - 22:21

75:20,78:25,79:3, 79:24,80:'lO,8O:25, 82:14,82:'16,82:25,


83:5, 83:'16, 83:20, 84:13, 84:20, 85:1, 85:4, 85:9, 86:4,
,

pornography t241 74:18,75:4,75:5, 75:12,81:24,82:5,


82:9, 83:9, 83:17, 85:16, 86:3, 86:16, 86:23, 88:7, 89:17, 175:9, 175:'12, 182:18,'183:17, 185:8, 186:20,

91:15,94:22,97:13,
97:14, 99:5, 106:25, 112:25,'133:9,

151:3,153:18, 174:13, 181:24,


184:9

86'.14,86:22,87:6, 87:21,88:9,88:15,
89:1 9, 89:22, 90:1
,

143:14,148:13,
149:5, 149:11, 151'.11, 168:14, 202:4 PAUL tzt - 1:8, 1:25

parishes trzl - 23:'16, 26:8,26:11,28:7,


28'.1'l

44:3,44:17, 44:22,

76'276:3,84:11,
'152:22

90:5,90:7,91:10,
92:25, 93:13, 93:16, 93:19, 94:2, 94:4, 94:6, 94:11 , 94:17 ,

188:6,188:10

,45:24,56:25,

57:9, 58:7, 58:13,

personnel fzl - '173:6,


173:1'l

portion lrl - 172:24 poset3l -26:23,


'128:24,189:9

59:14,60:2,60:10, 60:24,70:16,81:7,
't14:4

paul

et

- 1:18,2:5,

2:8, 2:'lO, 2:1 3, 2:'l 4,


2:21

parishionerlrl 174:13

,2:22

parishioners

rz1

paying r1 - 161:16 payments lsl - 6522,

66:16,66:22,67:23,
69:23

1'l:3, 11:8,22:18, 26:14,29:16, 56:4, 73'.12,74:10,74:'17, 76:7 ,76:22, 77:6,


'l

persons [3] - 31:13, 99:4,202:14 pertained trt - 39:1 pertaining rs1 - 5:9, 46'.25,68:15,72:'l 73:9,78:19,123:24, 129:20,137:14,
,

98:21,103:18,
103:21 ,104:1
,

posed lol - 56:5,


111:15, 1 13:9, 167 '15,197:1 ,198:2
t1l - 1 94:1 9 position Irol - 5:17,

104:6, 104:18,

104:20,104:25,
105:1, 106:2, 106:8,

poses

106:9,106:10, 106:14,106:15,
107:3, 107:15, 107:22,'121:24, '125:'17, '125:25,

pedophile

r1

- 114:1

pedophilia
69:23

16:18, 139:7,

tst - 66117, 66:'19,67:11,67:18,

159:25,162:1 '163:7,171:3,

45:5, 100:20, 106:4, 109:11,116:24, 1686, 172:4,185:15

183:3,183:14,
I 84:1 0

parochial l2l- 112:14,


'112:24

penal trl- 136:16 penalized ll - 45:14 people s+ - '10:1 8,


17:8, 19:'12,23:4,

189:21,193:5 pertains tl - 4:8, 5:20,49'.10, 153:12 Peterl2l - 50:7,


152:23

, 130:4, 132:20,133:6, 1 38:3, 1 38:5, 1 38:8, 144:21 , 145:1 ,


126:1

positions trl - 80:6 positively r1 - 63:13


possessed tzl 85:16,95:16 possession r74:18, 75:14, 81:23,

part Il sl - 17:7 , 26:6,

pewtrl - 33:16

146:18,'148:2,

15
82:5, 82:8, 83:8, 85:15, 105:23,

previousttl- 115:2
previously I1 - 1 5:1 , 85:16, 112:1, 113:16 priest lzt - 5:25, 12:5,
29:18, 39:6, 43:7,

'182:16

protocol pl - 9:17 ,
114:2O

29:18, 3l:13, 35:7,

problematic trl 1

145:25,183:16,
188:2

99:1
,

protocols

ll

- 189:7

36:6,37:17,38:2, 39:7,40'.13,61:24,
98:13, 99:24, 1 00:1 0, 1 04:1 I
110'.14, 113:21,
,

problems lzl - 179:21


180:3

possble Ist - 81:24, 85:15, 124:1 , 128:20,183:16

proved r - 118:22 provide t+l - 48:3,


104:'17,116:4 provided lol - 5:12, 6:8, 104:20, 104:25,

possibly ttt - 6:12 potential zt - 1 19:1 9,


189:9

44:2,44:5,45:4, 5O:4,54:20, 55:2, 57:3,57:10, 57:23, 58:6,58:12,59:15,


60:1 , 65:7 ,72:17
,
,

procedures t1l - 26:7 proceed tzl - 7:19,


30:1

pounding ltl - 62:20


practice trl - 40:4,

73:14,73'.18, 74:11 79:4,79:23,80:1


,

proceeding ttl - 6:15 process tsl - 6:6, 13:4, 70:5, 171:24,


1

105:1,202:17 provides Itl - 147:2

116:15,184:16, 1 86:4, 1 86:1 1 , 192:14,194:7

putting

6-

34:4,

providing
'112:1'l

tzl - 6:16,

37:14,62:2, '129:4

93:1 9
[1] -

4O:7,41:2,792,
79:23,80:18,80:19, 80:22,82:11,82:17,
106'.4, 114:20,

80:3, 80:25,

81 :9,

processes
194:21

publicloll- l0:10,
10:18, l1:9,13:13,

a
qualifications
|zl 108:23, 109:4 qualified tr1- 67:6 qualifies I+1 - 66:3,

81:11 , 82:17 , 83:23, 84:1 ,92:11, 103:24,

105:6, 106:8,

produce lll - 4:12 produced s; - 5:25,


44:19, 101:11

160:16,160:19

108:25,109:1,
113:8, 128:3, 131:24,134:1 134:6, 134:16, ,

practitioners t 67 16 pre trl - 168:23

producing ttl - 6:6 productions ttl - 7:1 professionals tsl 88:9,'194:10, 194:23 program t33l - I 8:1 5,
18:23, 19:4, 19:9,

'145, 17:2,22:17, 23:13,23:20,24:5, 24'.9,25'.6,25:18, 26'.4,26:14,29:7,

2916,31:2,3'l:22, 31:25,32:12,33:18,
34:6,34:20,34:21
36:8, 39:9, 56:4,
,

66:25,677,68:2
questionable Irl 175:8

pre-correction
168:23

I1l

precisely lzl - 19:24,


80:1 3

151:13,153:13 priest's ttl - 79:6 priests oa - 1O:12, 10:19,11:9,11:11,


14:17, 162, 18:13,

65:20,73:11,73:'12,

questioning Irl 100:9

predecessor

58:1, 58:3, 83:6, 137:5 premises pl- 111:11, 165:17 preparation 1e - 5:3,
a

19]13,22:14,28:6, 28'.'l 3, 29jl 5, 29:1 9,


56:13, 64:18, 66:5,

73:16,74:10,74:20, 74:22,76:7,76:13,
76:16,76:22,77:6, 79:25,81'.8,81:12, 100:13,100:17, 101:9,101:10, 101 17,102:4,
102:16,'lO7:24,

questions

leo

53:21

18:17,18:'19, 19:7,

20:20,20:23,22:19, 23:7,268,26:25,
27:3,27:9,27:12, 27'.16,27:18,27:20, 28'.6,28'.10,28:14,
28:15, 30:2, 35:3,

67:22,71'24,72:1, 72:4,72:20,73:3, 76'.9,76:21,76:23, 78:2,78', 78:17


,

61'.21,69:14,75:8, 100:18,101:12,
106:22, 116:4,

1195,167:25,
168:5, 168:8, 168:9,

15'.24, 41:10, 42:13,

42:22,52:22 prepare t3l - 128:12,


161:7,161:'11

392,39:4,42:'17,
46:4,49:4,49:5,
55:1 1, 63:7, 63:1 1,
,

113]18, 113:21, '114:16,114:24, 115:'1,116:19,

168:19,168:20,
168:21, 169:1,

prepared nsl - 11:7 41:24,42:1 ,42:4, 42:9,42:'12,42:21 44'.1 ,90:13,'111:23,


,

116:22,129:8 programs t2l - 45:25,


129:10

109:9,109:19, 110:3,116:18, 130:2'l ,131:7,


131:12, '131:17, 139:6, 165:7, 183:4,

170:1,172:10,
'172:15, 175:'13,

175:15,175:16,
175:18, 182:9,

66'.1,69:22,7'l:25,
72:11,72:24,76:8,

151'.25, 161:5,

76:23,77:13,77:23, 77:24,78:4,92:15,
106:16,110:12, 110'.15,114:14,
127:8, 128'.4,139:8, '173:23, 173:24, 189:9, 189:14, 194:9 priests'111 - 85:6 primarily Irl - 125:14 primary s - 20:8, 23:18, 128:'15,

161:8,194:15,
1 99:1 4

prepubescentr 67:20

presence

I2l

- 12:8,

65:7 PRESENT trl - 2:23 present s - 36:21 , 37:2, 84:3, 156:8, 178:9

promise s - 68:18, 139:18,140:18 promised trl - 48:5 promises tsl - 1 7:1 70:12, 139:8 promoterls - 21:1, 21:8,57:19 prompted ttl - 57:13 proper Isl - 75:7, 96:16, '106:21 183:24,198:10
, ,

183:14,184:19 Public ttl - 1:16

195:14,198:1,
198:9, 199:4

publicly Wt- 12:9,


31 :1

5, 45:8, 48:1 4, 55:25, 102:12, 127:23,'127:24, 129:16,129:'19,

quick trl - 5: 14 quickertrl - 172:17 quickly Irl - '100:7

quietttl - 34:13
quinquennial
n

166:14,189:23,
192:9, 193:3

134:20,134:23, 135:1,135:3

publics lzl - 20:2,


33:15

quittrl - 104:10
quite
tzl

- 65:20,

128:17,139:7

properly ttl - 172:16


prosecuted ttl - 188:3

punished tzl - 54:19,


54:25

93:21

quote tsl - 107:25,


161:21, 166:3

presented
18:1

16:12,

priority
'129:13

tzl

- 45:23,

prosecution t 187:9

purpose
94:19

t2l

- 20:8,

quoted

fi-

166:12

preserved Itl - 200:2 pressure [4] - 33:.18,

privacy r1 - '153:7 privately I2l - 194:8,


195:20

protect Isl - 26:22, 48:3, 153:7, 195:11

purposes

1o - 4:4,

4:'14, 5:21

,7:4,

R
radar Irl - 43:6 raise Irl - 101:1 raised tsl - 59:25,

33:22,34:4,34:6

presumelrl- 57:17
presumption
146:14
r1

privileged

t6t - 149:7, 152'17,152:18, 152:19,158:14,

protecting protection
47i9

tzl 153:'10, 165:9


t21

67:17,130:11, 165:7,'167:14,
169:20 pursuant21 - 1:14,
I 00:1
1

- 47:2,

pretty

I2l

- 76:25,

197:2

'154:'lO

prevent t - '152:21

privy trl- 110:9 problem tgl - 73:6,

Protection Il - 16:16, 16:23, 4'l:13, 48:16


protest
t1l

- 65:5

put tzol - 4'.7 , 6:1 , 16:7,28:19,29:13,

117:16,118:5,
'l2O:7, 120:8 RAMSEY tzl - 1:2,

16
202:2 Ramsey Isl - 1:'16, rate re
181:.16

170:5, 170:15,

receipt Irl - 97:23


receive
82:11
t2l - 4:'l 5,

171:16,171:19,
'171:23,183:22, 184:'12,188:7,

relations Irl - 165:7 relationship f I 143:9

135:1,135:3, 135:7, 135:19,138:19,


146:12, 146:17,
147:11 ,147:22,

8:6,132:'14 t2l - 22:3,202:10


tet

rathertll - 155:1
- 20:8, 20:25,

received tzol - 5:6, 1O:4,1'l:25, 12:20,

188:15,188:17, 196:15,196:17,
197 14, 197:25,

relative tgl - 1'10:7, 202:11,202:12 release t2l - 33:9,


1

148:1,149:8, 149:18,150:2,
150:22, 154:22,

21:'19,22:4,22:10, 136:24,137:7,
181:20

l3:10, 90:8, 93:13,


120:3, 124:14,

08:1

138:19,142:22,
'143:1, 148:11, '151'.12, 151:23,

re-offend l - 2O:8,

'199:20,200:2,202:7 recorded s - 35:14, 38:6, 38:12, 158:7,


'180:25

20:25,21:19,22:4 re-offending r1 22:10

156:18,160:24,

recording Irol - 16:8,


35:5, 35:1 2, 35:20,

16'l:20,16125,
-

reaction trl - 184:7


read
za

5:l,

76:3,

85:21, 118:13,
120:2, 161:15,

161:16,161:23, 171:8,171:19,
172:3, 172:6, 172:24, 175'.10,

174:23,179:1 , '179:2, 179:6, 180:7, 182:2, 182:20 receiving ll - 65:22, 66:15, 78:8, 117:9, 180:8, 183:5 recentll - 74'.7

:2,63:6,63:16, 63:22,64:2,64:9 records 21 - 39:21 115:3, 142:9,144:9,


41
,

released fi - 32124 reliance ttl - 101 :8 relied trt - 101:12 ely j- 22:5 relying s - 89:23, 90:19,138:25 remaining tzl - 169:8,
169:22

156:17,158:11, 162:5,166:15,
167:20,167:22,

168:14,168:15, 173:8,175:19,
177:22, 178:2, 178:3,'178:4, 178'.11, 178:23, 180:16, 182:'15,

remarkstrl- 124:5
remember tztl - 20:3,
23:8, 37:25, 39:5, 59:2, 63:12, 63:15, 117:17,1'18:12,

158:5, 166:22, 178:10

reported

'183:'12, 186:21 t+ol - 63:7,

177:5,'181:10, 181:16,182:9, 183:20,187:19, 187'24, 190:21, 190:22,190:24,


'191'.3, 191:12,

recently ls| - 44:24, 65:13,70:20, 173:4,


181:12

recovered [t] - 181:12 rectory ?t - 507 ,


180:5

132:17,142:2,
142:4, 142:8,

72:18, 86:4, 89:18, 89:22, 89:25, 90:5, 92:7, 93:4, 93:19,


94:21 ,98:17,

redactions
6:1

121

- 4:24,

157:10,173:12,
182:21 ,183:1
,

n - 14:13 Recess lgl - 71:17 , 136:7,167:11


reception

101:10,108:19, 108:21,110:16,
'110:25,113:15, 113:'16,120:7, 121:11,121:12, 124:3, 124:4, 133:21, 135:14, '144:20,144:22, 145:1, 146:18, 147:25,150:'12,
163:'15, 163:16,

refer Il - 1 51 :5, 152:18,184:23,


191:2

184:24,185:4,
'185:23,185:24

201'.2,202:16 reading t- 171:22,


174:7, 174:9, real

recidivism fi-22:3 recitation fi- 174:2 recitations Irl - 199:9


recited Irl - 19:9 reciting trl - 161 :19 recollect e - 26:12, 88:24, 136:18

reference

- 173:5,

'173:10,'175:1

referral f4- 177:19,


178:22

179:22,189:12 21 - 75:7, 100:7

realistic Irl - 5:13


realize t+l - 30:8, 30:13,30:20,194:18 realized H - '12:'lO, 30:24,45:'10, 85:22 realizing trl - 5:4 really o - 20:'18, 23:19,141:5,155:4, 164:19,164:22 reason [22] - 29:'17,
33:'13, 35:1, 46:'17,

referred tsl - 6'l :16, 174'22, 186:7

remove t3l - 45:6, 60:16,'136:20 removed 'tol- 12:10, 49: 1 9, 5l :8, 51 :1 2, 56'.'l ,72'.23, 76:11 , 81 :12, 109:11,
142:2'l

recollection

15:18, 17 16,26'.12,
zs

29:2,36:14,60:7,

60:21,62:14,72:14,
83:14, 84:17, 89:9, 94:5, 99:10, 108:22,

referring llil - 21113, 49:5, 59:19, 85:2, 91 :4, 1 76:1 5, 176'.17,178:1 , '190:14, 190:15,
197:'17

removing
81:2

t2l -

48:7,

163:19,166:14,
166:25, 180:25,

rendition ttl - 6:18


repeat
IBI - 31:23, 43:23, 54:23,62:21 73:22,79:21
,

181:3,202:3 reporterttl - 9:6,

'l'l:22,28:3,36:2,
,

37:'lO, 41:7, 46:21,

114:7,127:9, 132:9, 133:17,135:5,


135'.13,145:21 148:6, 154:24,161:7 recommendaton t3l 47:10, 137:9, 182j13
,

refers r1 - 177:16 reflect Il - 46:7, 47'.24,93:18, 178:10 reflected tzl -'13:22,


61 :1

105:14,147:24 rephrase s1 - 29:23, 47:4,62:6 report ITel - 75:19,

47:22, 55:9,57:6,
63:24, 69:19, 70:10,

73:19,73:24,76:24,
82:12, 85:15, 93:10,

75:22,75:23,83:20,
84:12,84:20,85:4, 87:21,88:1,90:8,
91

95'.4,97:24, 114:1
123:22, 124:10,
124:11 ,'169:4,

recommendations

- 45:20
record

reflects s - 125:17, '15'l22, 171:6 regarding tll - 168:2

71:6,76:'18,82:22, 87:16,87:23,87:25, 90:16,98:10, 105:19,118:3,


'l'18:25, 1'19:25,

:7, 91:8, 91:19,

12'l:5, 126:4,128:9,
133:3,'133:19, 135:18,142:'12, 144:3, 146:6, 147:8, 147:18,149:24,

173:3,'198:23,

4:4,4:7, 5:18,6:19,7:23,
so

registering

r -

91:22,91:25,92:9,
93:8, 94:16, 94:25,

199:1,200:4,201:7 reasonable t t 29:12,29:'15,94:3, 95:10, 95:11, 96:22, 96:24,97:4,97:8, 97:10,97:17 reasons I+l - 40:1,
67'.18, 116:2,198:21

8:12,9:'13, 16:7 35:7,38:24, 40:9, 40:13, 40:20, 48:25,


,

60:13,7'l:16,75:2,
90:10, 90:11, 90:18, 91 :7, 95:20, 96:6, 97:21,'100:3, 100:24, 136:6,

reassign
181:21

Iz1

- 1 8l

:1

9,

156:12,156:15, 166:19,167:10,
167:13, 168:24,

139:25 regular27 - 21:4, 162:5 regulaly ltl - 21:2 rehabilitation trl 113:18 reinstated It1 - 137:16 reiterate ttl - 187:6 rejected ttl - 6:25 related It1 - 78: l1

95:17,96:20,96:24, 97:3,97:8,97:17, 97'.22,98:14, 106:7, 118:13,120:2, 122:11,122:13, 123:15,123:20,


124:5,'124:'11,

162'.10,162:15, 163:10,167:5
REPORTERS
1:24
t11-

124j15, 125:17, 125:23,125:25,


126:2, 134:18,

reporting lol - 88:8, 110:19,146:15,


146:19,'152:7, 165:25 reports I2l - 123:10,

relating lzl-'121:15,
173:7

reassigning r1-

134:20,134:23,

I1
1

66:1 0
a

representation representations

120:23, 173:9, 189:17, 190:4,

136:24,'137:8,
137:21

143:14

178:8, 178:22 65:12

School - 64:11,
,

t1l -

sequence

[4] -

10'.11, 17:8, 89:24


tl -

190:5,190:17,
191:13, 191:2'l, 192:5, 192:7, 192:24

room

[s]

schools
45:25

lzl

- 23:16,

10:24, 11:2, 1'l:6, 102:17

Restricted

n-

188:21

106:24,107:1 107:6, 173:25 rooms [2] - 15:23,


173:22

scrutiny trl - 45:9


se
Iz1

'158:13,163:24, '164:2, 164:13 serious r - 154:10


served21

- 10:3, 161 :17

-23:5,26:9

representatives
140:14

t1l -

restrictions

tr I - 52:1 3

represented 10:18,49:9
8:10

121

representing
reprimanded

r -

+ 45'.15, 46:2, 54:19, 54:25 request ro - 15:25,

result + - 22:16, 24:5,65:'17, 150:'10 results - 193:20 retained r,l- 176'12 retired Ist - 12:6,29:4, 64'.17,70:17 , 138:3, 138:14,168:15,
175:23, 185:11 retrieve trl - 43:19

Rourke
114:6

s - 58:24, 59:4, 59:7, 59:12,

SEALtrl -202:'18 seal rr - 100:10,


100:11,100:19, 101:23,102:5, 102:7, 102:8,102:9,
102:12, 109:17, 109:23

service t - 57:2 serving pl - 27i1 , 27:6,119:'19 settzt - 80:12, 80:15


SETTERI,tI - 138:10 Settert6t - 75:19, 91 :6, 138:3, 138:9, 194:3 seven[i] - 196:19 several lol - 20:5,

S
sabbatical trl 74:12, 81:15, 8'l:16, 81:21,84:2, 84:6,
99.2'1,99'.23, 177:1
,

sealed lgl - I 88:1 4,


'188:17, 188:18 SECOND trl - 1:2 Second Irl - 8:6 second a - 5:7,

18:10,43:16, 104:16,109:22, 132:16,133:16, 157:20,158:24,


194:8

retrieved lzl - 107:7


145:9

20:10,20:12,20:13,
54:24, 108:2 sextl - 113:12,

return t2l - 50:'17, 51:5 returned Iz1 - 51 :10,


51:21

177:2,'177:13,
184:11, 184:15, 184:16 Sacrament o - 60:23,

93:'16,94:4, 115:12,
171:5,174:1 , 181:7,
181 :10

113:20,113:24,
't18:1

requested tsl - 4:13,


4:21
1

,6:15, 104:21
1

reveal z 159:6 152:16

- 157:12,
,

33:1

revealed lzl - 48:'l

11'l'.25,112:15, 112:25,142:20,
148:8 safesr - 11:10, 11:'11, 1'l:13, 11:14, 11:18, 14:12, 14:19, 14:22, 15:5, 16:6,
'18:2, 18:11,20:2, 21'.2,2'l:8,23:17,

seconds pl-'170:12,
1

sexual sr - 37:18,
39:'l , 46:23, 48:18,

96:1 9

secret tsl - 34:24,


34:25,35:21
,

51:13, 54:22,55:4,
55'.13, 55'.22, 59:17
,

requests Ir1 - 6:11 require s - 114:19, 150:1,198:3

Reverend p)- 151:12,


'152:23

106:17,106:18, 106:23,158:23,
189:20

64:21,66:24,67:19, 72:1,73:9,73:13,
73.20,74:1,74:8, 76:'15,77:23,77:24,

required al - 4:22, 5:20,33:2,88:1,


95'17,134.,17, 134:20, 135:16

review

z+ - 5:2, 5:14, 13:5, 13:6, 15:25,

secietary

fi-

126:25

41'.9, 42:2,42:'16, 42'.18, 42:20, 43:22,

secretly trl - 63:21

78:4,78:19,79:25,
82:8,102:25, 103:4,
103:25, 105:5,

requirement 1

44:10, 44:18, 49:22,

35:1 5

52:9,65:17,92:14,
94:15, 120:22, 193:17,193:25, 194:10,194:16,
,

35:18, 45:1 , 45:'16, 45:24, 47:7, 48:3,

section ttl - 170:18


see [21] - 13:17, 14:4, 33:20, 35:1 , 52:6, 68:8, 90:10, 90:18, 97'.23, 113:23,

resign 21 - 60:18, 61'.2,61:4,62:'17, 62:24,63:5, 184:9 resignation Iq - 61:7


61 :18, 62:8, 99:20

92:19,108:11, 111:7,126:17, 128:'16,128:18,


129:14

108:6,108:17,
'110:18, 114:15,

115:11,118:10,
123:8, 123:14,

202:17

resigned tzl - 73:18,


109:'l
1

resigning 11-74:12
resisted
31:25
21

- 31:'14,

reviewed zl- 41:13, 41'.'14, 41:15, 41:19, 42:10, 42:15, 43:2, 43:24,44:2, 52:7, 52:21, 52:23,76:2, 94:9, 94:18, 98:6,
99:11

saiety ltzl - 12:2,

122:11,128:4, 157:12,158:'18,
159:5, 169:3, 172:3,

1216, 12:22, 14:6,


1

123:16,123:25, 124:3,124:24,
125:3, 125:5, 125:9,

4:1 6, 46:1

, 53: 1 3,

68:19,77:5,119:18, 130:21 ,165:24

salelrl - 174:13
same-sex lsl - 113:20, 113:24,118:'l
Sarah lzl - 8:18, 164:18 SARAH lrl - 2:3 satisfied n - 44:4 saw I2l - 29:13,99:14

resolve r - 102:13 resolved Irl - 10'l :5

174:16,175:4, 191 11,192:8 seeing trl - 91:14 seeking ttl - 115:10 seem lsl - I 9:1 8, 35:13,94:2, 14'l:3,
178:'10

125:13,128:5,
134'.21, 182117, 185:3 sexuality tzl - 118:11,
'123:24

respecttrl - 100:7
respond
130:14

revocation trl - 57:13 revolves trl - 158:14


Rey tst - 65:11, 68:12, 69:24 rights tr1 - 153:7

sexually

- 113:25,

el-

5124,
Isl -

segment tll - 167:17 Selvig tzl - 21:9, 59:3 seminars ltl - 129:10

1'19:22, 151:14

Shakes Irl - 7:20 share z - 54:1 5,


192:16

responsibilities
45'.11

, 50'.3,77:11
tsl -

responsibility

risk ra - 26:23,56:5, 58:11, 102:10,


111:15, 112:4, 113:9, 118:.19,

44:25,77:5,95:7,
120'.11,146:21

Sawyer tzl - 156:23, 158:6,158:19, 158:20,158:25,


159:5, 159:8

sending \ - 182:12 sensitive Izl - 37:5,


41:3

sent

tl

- 43:12,85:23,

'111:9, 113:17,

shared tgl - 45:23, 46:16,183:10 Shelley f41t-74:15, 76:2,81:15, 82:24,


83:20, 84:'12, 85:16,

responsible trt - 61 :6
responsive
z

18'.10, 144:14,

160:23,179:16,
184'.1, 185:6, 191:21

restate

11

2:1 9

128:24,129:4, 181'.14,181:15, 189:9, 196:2 risks Irl -'183:14 risky trl - 194:18 Rochester ltl - 2:16
Rome
t4t

scandalous t 37:18

177:4, 178:1'l

scenarios - 198:3 Scerbo tol - 124:23,


125:2, 125:5,

restricted tr rl -

- 136:15,

125:'10,143:13,

sentence 1s1 - 178:19, 179:19,179:25, 18'l:7, 191:14 separate r - 106:16 September tsl - 61:1, '120:18,177:18,

92:22,94117,98:16, 98:17,99:13, 100:8,


'lQ0:15, 107:7,
107:'19, 135:7,

138:1,139:1, 167:19,168:2,

18
169:7, 169:20, '170:2, 170:19, 171:3, 171:6, 174:3, 174:5, 177:5, SLI
l:

- 177:19,

SSTt2t - 134:17,
1

167:20

sued

s;

109'.12,

178:23,179:14,
182:15

35:1 5

ST tzl

solicit ttl - 121:16


someone
121:24
[2]

St

179:13,180:4,
180:20, 181 :16,

- 96:13,

- 1:8, 1:25 lol - 1:18, 2:5,2:8, 2:10,2:13,2:14,


2'.21,2'.22,8:4, 8:8,
8'.22, 8'24, 9:3, 9:22,

Statistcal trt - 67:15 status tsl - 60:1 , 64:16, 117:11, 118:18,162:3 statute tsl - 140:2,
140:4, 146,20,
147'.2, 147:6

109:21 ,110:2 suggest t2l - 79:5,

80:2

suggested
1

t1l -

58:1 6

182:11,182:16, 183:13,184:9, 184:21 ,199:20 Shelley's tsl - 100:13, 174:6, 174:11,


176:23, 182:20 Shelly's lgl - 173:6,

something's ttl 81

suggesting r193:22

:13

sometime tsl - 88:20, 88:22, 112:20 sometimes ttl - 124:7

10:20, 11:17 , 17:25, 18'.12, 5O:7,60:24,

75:10,86:21,91:15,

94:22,97:13,97:14,
99:5, 106:25, 111:25,'112:25,
118:6, 118:13,
'120:2, 120:7,

somewhatltl- 119:8
somewherer'l 1 5:15

statutes ttl - 88:8 stay ttl - 196:16 step 111 - 73:14 stepped tlt - 73:18 stepping pj - 73:24,
73:25

suggestion Itl - 81:8 suit tzt - 52:1 , 110:2


Suite tsl - 2:5,2:8,
2:20

summary

183:15,186:23

t6l - 41:15, 41'.20,41:22,42:21

shorttrl-

167:7 shortly tol - 14:13,

16:20,24:25, 51:25,
113:3, 134:9 show a1 - 11:20, 142:9, 144:9, 145:13, 146:4,

147:16,170:24,
187:1

soon [4] - 12:9,51:4, 70:22,88:18 sooner [1] - 1 63:1 6 sorry t14l - 18:21 , 29:11,31:23,37:8, 38:7 , 62:19,7O:25, 80:21 , 100:6, 109:16,131:19, 133:17 , 140:1 , 148:2

123:15,'123:20,
124:5, 124:11, 133:9, 151 :11, 168:14,'174:5,

steps ttl - 161 :1 Stevens e - 55:18,


56:5, 56:8, 56:11, 56:23, 57:24, 58:5, 58:24, 59:13, 59:16,

43'.3,52:10 supervson zl - 50:3,


171:7

supplement ttl - 6:19

supplied
187:16

l- 151:14
I1l -

showed

a - 85:25, 86:2,'186:10

showing pt- 88:14,


1

sotrl - 113:14 souls ttt -'128:16 sound tzl - 69:8,


69'.17,104:11,
115:6, 115:25, 144:'10,195:1 sounds lzl- 17:18, 115:7 source [3] -'11:25, 162jl, 162:18 sources t1l - 34:2 speaking liel - 7i7 ,

177:20,178:3, 180:5,202:4 stable ttl - 125:'15 staff t12l - 14:7, 14:10, 14'.15, 24:25, 111:6, '124:20,126:15, 129'.11 , 164:9,
17621 ,180:13, 187:10

60:10,68:16

supported

Stevens'trl - 60:1 still trol - 26:25, 27:15,27:18,28:25,


30:6, 56:24, 57:3,

suppose t1l - 1 50:1 5 Supreme z - 139:22,


140:3

88:1 8

58'.6,70:5,72:1'l 72:16, 72:17 , 99:13, 122:9, 17623,


,

swprisey|63:21

122:7

surreptitiously ttl surrounding


1 -

shows Irl - 48:25

I 93:1 9

sicpl - 2O:2, 37:19


sign
Isl - 21:6,21:17 114'.12, 153:17,
,

153'.20,154:15,
154:'16, 161:10, 202:16 signal tr1 - 8'1 :12 signature r - 154:14 signed zl - 21:20, 114:9, 114:11, 153:2'l, 153:25, 154:9, 161:9 signs tzl - 78:10,
1

standard l+l - 48:21 , 48'.23, 48:24,82:1'l standards Itl - 80:14 stands trl - 27:7 startlTl - 4:3,58:2,
152:11, 169:17, 170'.18, 196:22, 198:22 started tt1 - 92:l 1 startng trl - 100:8

stop

tel

18:21

,57:8,

110:4

62:5

stopped fi - 121:25 stores - 113:13,


115'.14,1',18:1

survivors tl- 140:18 Susan tsl - 126:21,


suspect
126'.23,164:11 I31 - 70:5, 93:11, 97:1
t1

story tsl - 60:25,


61 : I

6, 61 :1 7, 62:8,

suspected
142:24

7'.9,7:12,7:13,23:4, 26'.24,27:2,40:'11, 53:24,119:18, 162:7, 16916, 196:22, 19624, 197:4,197:8,


197:17, 197:24, 199:6

62:11

Street lol - 1:18,2:5,

suspended
'137:10

t1

2:8,2:'12,2:16,2:20
study tzl -'17:12,
78:1 0

starts trl -

181 :8

suspicions

I+l

- 88:2,

35:1 8
Iz1

similar

182:12,

187'.15

speaks

ltl-

simply tll - 22:9 simultaneous ttl 144:23

specifically

147:6 21 -

state s - 7:9,8:4, 9:12, 9:20, 10:9, 69:2, 104:16, 136:21,151:18, 168'.24,173:16, 181 :6, 183:9
STATE tzl - 1:1,202:1

stuffttl - 186:24
style
11l

110:18, 141:23, 175:18

- 77:15

subjecttst -35:22,
38:4, 163:8

submitted \zl-75:10,
93:12

34:16, 52'.9,62:13, 85:12, 126:18,


147:21 ,'168:10

Statetrl-l:17
statements -21:20, 62:4,111:20,
161:18, 190:2

subordinates

sincerely ltl - 175:21

sisterltl - 15:14
Sistertrl - 15:15 site Irl - 178:9 situation lal - l8:18,
19'.25,25:11,30:4,
43:14, 110:4, 124'.17, 166:2 situations Isl - 20:6,

speculating

43:17,83'.7, 105:21 Subscribed ll 201:23

SUTTERtIl - 138:9 swear r - 9:6 switched ttl - 100:9 sworn t3l - 9:8, 201:23,202:5 system tgl - 18:'16, 28:13, 129:3

38:1 1 , 5l :23, 95:4,

95:8,135:12 speech lgl - 53:20, 69:6, 1 16:6 spell s - 9:13, 13:8,


18:25

statements 111l 10:10,12'.2, 12:15,


12:21, 13:13, 14:5, 68:25, 107:25, 139:6, 165:20, 165:22

subsequenttsl 46'.1 3, 46'j 4, 91


165:12, 185:24

T
:'l

4,

subsequently

90:24, 120:12,
127:20,'149:2,

tabletrl - 124:22 taint t1l - 40:19 talks trl - 153:9


TAPE
tzt

spenttll - 197:16
spiritual
tsl - 21 :5,

30:18,120:13 six tzl - 35:10, 64:24,

states tsl -

51 :1 0,

154:7,163:19,
163:23

tapefttaxation
14O:9

- 3:3, 3:4 158:6


z

113:22,123:19,
149:6, 149:22 ss Ir1 - 202:l

173:2, 182:9,

139:1 3,

72:12,72:13,72:14,
99:23, 181 :23

182:15,187:13

stating

tzl

- 85:12,

substantial ttl 202:15

team

- 22:19,

t9
29'.13,34:8,34:14,
34:19, 39:8 132:25, 170:'11, '174:12, 174:14,

trips

t2t

- 143:3, 143:9

teenagers t2l 122:14,125:18 telephone Irl - 156:2 ten tl - 20:14, 64:10,


137:10

174:17,174:18, 174:20,'186:9, 199:9 Tiffany trl - 180:15 time's trl - 195:22

true 116l - 12:23, 14:6, 24'.1,70:2,74:19,


81

15:19,30:22,30:24, 42'.5,49:'l ,49:2,


49:3, 49:5, 80:12,

upt24t - 713,34i14,
7O:7

,70:8, 80:12, 80:15, 85:7, 90:20,


92:22,97:5,9815, 100:15,109:23,
116:5, 122:13, 138:7, 168:9, 170:2, 172:22, '185'.21,

:21, 83:25, 89:6,

91:11,101:20,
114:8, 114:22,

time-consuming Irl 6:7

tendency j- 202:15 tenure tsl - 10:8, 30:16, 110:23 term trl - 97:17

timekeeper tzl 197:7, 197:8 title ttl - 14:25

termination

t2l

57 '13,'131:23

termstlll -22:12, 31:2,35'j7,37:13,


42:18, 63:10, 77:15, 78:9, 107:19, 164:9,
199:22 testtrl - 38:15

today za - 6:23,7:5, 9:17,20:4,23:9, 25:4,33:7,37:6, 37:23,38:15,38:21


39:5, 39:20, 41 :10, 46:7, 52:20,66:15,

151:20,188:4, 201:4,202:7 trusttl - 95:13, 95:15,97:19, 165:23 trustees tel - 26:1 3, 26:21,31:4, 46'.16,
116:21 ,1'17:4,

83:3,83:15,83:16, 92:1, 113:12, 114:3, 131:10,133:1, 173:22,174:25,


'190:19, 197:10, '197:12, 197:19, 197:20, 199:1,199:6

two-and-a-half

tgl -

197'.10,197:12, 197:20

195:22,196:9, 197'3,198:12 upset I1t - '186:14 urged tsl - 34]13, 34:20,86:10,87:2,


186:21

truth

120:13,120:14 t41 - 68:8, 1 16:3, 1'165,202:5 try s1 - 5:2, 61 :20,


62:1, 75:6, 116:5, 164:7, 165:23,

typewritten ltl- 151:7 typically Itl - 77:9

urging

U
U.S

z - 85:4, 124:23 USB Itl - 4:18

71:24,90:2,96:20,
117:3, 121:2, 139:3, 139:4, 166:22,

testified m - 9:9,
39:12,115:18,
155:6, 168:7, 168:9, 193:3 testify ttl - 155:7 testimony Ii61 - 25:9, 60:5, 60:8, 72:16, 148:2'l , 155:25, '167:18, 168:11,

168:13,169:23,
189:25

170:19,195:9 trying zo - 32:'18,


40:1 9, 69:8, 87:1 3,

Irt- 17:9
Van

V
Iz1 - 4:11,32:25 various o; - 17:14, 27:21 , 56:25 , 77 :12, 77:13, 174:2 verbal 21 - 16:10,

togetherttl - 28:19 tolerance e1 - 17:5,


17:9, 48:18, 49:8,

49:16,68:19,68:24,
70:13

88:24,103:12, 104:10,112:9, 121:15,122:13, 130:20,164:12,


164:21 ,172:'12,

Ulm tzl - 16:22,77:14 ultimate trl - 61 :17 ultimately trl - 174:22

unable ttl - 1'18:11


underrs1 - '16:16, 19:8, 19:'13,22:22,

22:23,23:9,24:3,

16:11

Tom

21

- 8:23, 91:9

172'.14, 194:11,

24:16,26:4,28:10,
28:23,29:9,29:'14, 29:18,3O:2,33:7, 45:17,57:18,58:8,

170:20,170:22, 189:25,193:16,
199:3, 199:22,

took trsl - 45:5, 48:5,


70:22,84:5, 89:'11, 91:15, 145:25, 163:25,167:14,
168:12, 177:1,

195:1,195:10,
, 198:8 Tuesday lrl - 162:8
195:1
1

verbs trl - 54:24 verdict Itl - 86:14 versus 21 - 8:3,


1

56:1

202:6,202:7 THE tzl - 7:17,71:9 themselves tsl - 8:12, 76:4,92:16 therapy 1s - 21:4, 113:22,123:19

turn

- 82:13, 86:10,105:22,
t17l

66:12,67:7,67:15, 68:2,71:3,81:19,
100:10,100:19,
101:22, 102:5,

VG's lrl

- 188:22
,

177:2,'177:13, 185:15,197:9 top I1 - 135:2, 163:13, 174:11,


188:21

106:5, 106:9,

Vicarlrl - 152:23 vicartrzl -25:21


43:18, 46:10,47:7, 56:20, 60:16, 80:9,

thereabouts
'17:20

11l

106:11,106:13, 129:20,130:8, 130:17,'132:13, 133:5, 188:1,188:4,


193:6, 193:14, 194:9 turned tgl - 5:3,

102'.7,102:8, 102:9,
102:1'l , 109:17,

116:25,126:25,
143:15,188:22,
189:2

109:23,110:18,
110:23, 128:21, 129:3, 134:17, '135:'15, 139:22, 182:7, 184:18,

therefore trl - 140:5 therein t1l - 159:7 they've tzt - 72:22,


105:2

topic tzl - 60:6, 85:7 topics trt -'124:2'l total I2l - 30:4, 197:16
Towe L'tl - 2:12 track Izl - 197:15,
197:22

victim trl - 63:2, 63:3,


63:9, 153:10

49:'19,75'.15,75:20,

75:25,82:24,86:13,
86:20, 90:21, 90:24, 91:12, 94:11 , 98:20,

victims trl - 139:'19


video
o - 71:18, 136:8, 170:5,

188:16,188:17, 194:21,202:6

thinking

s - 39:5, 74:4,93:11 third tzl - 24:19,

trained

fi-

194i23

100:14,103:18,
103:21

training

tsl - 78:9,

,103:25,

undergoing trl - 2l:4 understood s1 - 5:1,


15:3,21:23 unfair z - 69:12,
172:2

152:20

188:9,188:12
- 72:12,

thirty

tz:

72:14

thirty-sixt2t -72:12,
72:14

transcribed t1- 202:6 transcript ttl - 201:3 transcription Irl 167:'13

105:4,105:15, 130:3,130:13, 131:11,131:17, 131'.23,132:20, 133:15,134:3,


138:2, 138:5, 138:6,

196:12,196:13, 198:l Video trl - 8:10 videographer tl 2:24,8:10, '170:9,


197:23

unfitness l - 125:8 unfortunately ttl 118:23

videotape tzl - 7:24,


170:10 vew[12] -4:22,6:23, 80:5, 80:18, 80:21 ,
8O:24, 87:11 , 89:'11
,

TH|Strl -202:18 Thomas tsl - 8:25, 60:24, 1'11:25


THOMAS
tst

transparent
33:1 4

t1

I-

145:20,174:22,
187:7, 192:23

unless

- 106:5,

treatment

11t

- 182:20

131:25

- 1:9,

2:11,2:15

trial tzt - 136:16 tribunal tit - 65:3

turning H- 130:24, 1317, 194:22,


1

unofficial

l- 152:8

thorough 111 - 193:17 threattrt - 165:18


three Irgl - 42:5,
75:25, 99:2, 99:3,

- 48:20,48:22 triggertrl - 62:8


tried
t2t

95:1 9
e

twice

- 75:11,
13:22,

triggered

n-

62:11

92:13

unquote t1l - 151:2O unseal trl - 32:9 unstable lgt - 119:8, 'l'19:11,121:23

89:13,92:3,94:14,
106:25
s - 88:19, 89:7,99:21 viewing lrl - 87:19

viewed

tripttl-

121'21

twopal-

untimely

l- 198:24

20
vigorously l2l- 31i14,
185:25 107'.8, 110:24,

worried trl - 188:2


wrap
t1t

111'.10,111:14,
112:22, 113:1'l, 'l'13'.17, 114:23, 116:'16,119:12,

- 198:12

violate tzl - 102:10,


153:6

writetzl - 19:16,51 :17


writes Il -'179:12,
179'.20,'l8O:2, 187:5 tst - 36:6,

violated trl - 49:9 violation n - 68:23,


69:11,70:12, 7O:21
82:13, 85:14, 93:9
,

119:15,120:22,
121'.7,123:5,

writing
39:7

37:14,37:17,38:2,

133'25,134:4,
134'.8,141'.21,

violations

tsl 102:21, '103:3,

written

6:1 3,

142:20,142:23,
14311,144:25, 145:6, 145:10,

187:14

103:9, 108:4, 108:5 VIRTUS lzt - 78:6, 129:8

wrote tsl 187:11

51 : 16,

52:17, 85:10, 85:19,

visit ttl - 151 :3 voluntarily tsl - 32:6,


32:8, 33:8, 132:10, 132:16

145'.19,145:23, 147:23,148:20, 149'.4,150:11, 151:3,151:13,


161:3, 162:19, 165:22, 166:6,

Y
year
tel - 9:23,25:2, 25:3,45:3,74:21 ,

Vomastek

tal

- 11'l :9,

142'.'19, 144i'17,

166:15,187:15,
187:19,199:21

.100:16,120:19, '124'.14,139i23

144:25,145:6, 148:7, 15'l:2, 153:17 vs r - 1:7

Wehmeyer's

W
wait
I4l

't't3'.8, 1'17:11, 153:6, 162:3 welcome trl - 54:18 whatsoever 107:2

yearslill -30:22,
30:24,32:20, 45:12,
49:'1,112'.1,113:16,

115:5,123:18,
137'.10,141:'l

- 96:'1, 96:5,
21- 184:5,

wherewithal
'175:24

ttl -

169'.2, 196:2

waiting
193:20

wholetrot -35112,
63:9, 78:6, 90:20, 90:21 , 90:23, 98:5, 125:13,155:1 ,2025 WIESER lg: - 2:11, 8:23, 195:22, 196:7, 197:14, 197:22, '198:1 1 , 198:16,
1

yesterday t - 5:6 young I4l - 'l 1 3:1 3, 1'13:25,121:16,


1

80:1 8

waived -202:'17 Wajda tst - 135:21 ,


136'.14,137:8, '137:9,'137:14

Young ttl - 41:14

yourself Itl - 41 :1

43'.16, 43:22, 44:2,

Wajde lrt - 135:21 walk ttt - 121:24 wanna Irl - 135:4 warn lrl - 119:2 warned lzl- 45:14,
197 5

47:24,48:2,61:8, 69:9,84:21,87:.19, 99:11, 117:1, 175:4,


194"11

99:1 6
z

Wieser

- 8:23, 91 :9

youth

tr1

- 120:23

Washington trl132:14

Wilhern tr1 -'126:22 wilhern ttl - 126:24 willing Ist - 54.2,54:6,


54:7,54:'14, 58:21 Winonatzl -2:18,9:1
zero

z
[s] - 17:5,17:9, 48:17,49:8,49:16,

waste trl - 197:4 watch t+l - 57:18,


57:'19,139:22 ways ttl - 59:5 website I1 - 3l:13,

W|NONAttl - 1:8 withheld I2t - 91 :9,


1

49:21, 68:18, 68:23,


70:1 3

04:1 6

withhold 4 - 104:5,
107:2 WITNESS rq-7:17,

zip Itt - 4:19

42:17,72:8,72:18 week tsl - 6:3, 6:4, 88:22, 120:18, 143:5 weekends t - 12:7 weekly t1- 162:7 weeks tl - 42:6, Wehmann
107:1, 107'.5, 107:16 [z] -

7'l:9,202:18 witness lol - 9:6, 9:8,


105'.1'l ,202:5, 202:7,202:17 woman ttl - 159:5 word til - '183:20

107:23,'109:16 WEHMANN ttl 1O7:24

words lol - 63:15, 63:17,77:20,


104:11, '115:17, 187:17 works lrl - 69:24

Wehmeyer

46:15, 49:7, 60:23,


re1

DECREE

Innomne Domn, Amen


On June l8,20l2,tho Archdiocoseof Saint Paul and Minneapolis receivod a complaint that Revorond Curtis Wohmeyer, a prlost ofthis chdiooeso, supplied alcohol and soxually oxlioit irnagos to a mnor, and fondled or attompted to fondlo tho m.in )r's genitals. I have concluded thai thi constituts infurmation which r'at lsast seems to bo tne?' (a,l7l7).

Therefore, in acoordanco with,tho forcnontioned canon, I deoroe that an inqu.lry be done into the.facts and ciroumstansos of this aaousation, as well.as its imputability toFaiher Wohmeyor.
Slnco rny othor

Vory Reveriend .P.stei A. Ii14; mttor. In cnr:ry,ingn accodarrce.with co. I


sqggrg,{rcs }ylth

tlr

is invostigation personally,

I he,appoint

ofthe

Curian to astas tho invostgator.in tlris

doctrmontst$o.

[5#g-

i$3.4-

- t57f), to obtain:imyn'ocersary
oxper'ls degmed'necFssary,{ce"

f574.- I 58I),

andi'..t0av,encess to.iplaces

his.investigation.

fn,corldtrcting,hte;,iasrttgt{llfuld'I"ai.r.drs.toh.oars'that,sroh an nvostigian does


nollting,re 1nn Father slron'ld also avoid.taldng rury

\{';Olut) u

viJa'tq.his

ntsrfsre lvi
rna,tco

'

\lith:in'thitfy,days, ofthei.suanue.'of.dib,deoueo,.Father.Ird'is to

a.preliminary written
ss

of

appointrnent.

Given on J.une 20, 2012,atSaint Fau,l, Mnnesota.

U\r^^rWrJ.^The Most JohnC. Nlenstedt Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolii

"f

Do*'/

3J*
(,v tg
ARCH-000236

Reverend DanielBodin

Ecclesiastical Notary

oFFItE br

ru nnr.ctuoR

Fon cANoNIcAL AFFAIRS

AncHorocESE

MEnONeNDUM
Date February q20L2
ii

- ,-S-Al-N'T--PA Li,"L-&M IN N EAPO LIS

To:

The Mostleverend ]ohir' C. Nenstett

Iron:
Re:
,

Jeriilfei,'Hselbeiger
.neverdn
at

onathan Shelley

Archbishop,
.the.question bf'a. future assigrunent Jor Eather

i'Commendtions, botlr Andy and I :feel


e consulted;

ignm ccour rlif

was ma deon

'

$rrgtrgh $ from the,iiice,

Your,deiision to apioinf Eather Shelley in this'matter was b.ased on a psychological report condctid'by )ay-MNamara, This rqport.fous on leadership issues in Father Shelley's prevcius,assig4ments, fhefore, the support an< accountability plan was focused on {eveloing iedrhip skilis in Father

thllt"y.

Whawgs only.riefly {Irded, to in.ths reiiortis Fathe Shelley's misconduc which was discoVred. i Z'OO+,tih" ieson that:ths f,rraS not given more attention n 2008 only becme clear 'there 'misconduct in Father Shelley's green Personnel file, s efrence to .the recertly. For, whil the dtailed inforrhation ielating to the mis,conduct, including the investigator's report, was one
,

ofllS'restricted fles'that wcre archived (ineaning moved to the babement without reference to it beingplacecl in the ersonnel fles) in the early rnonths of 2008. Therefore, when you were making the decisioii to appoint Fa.ther Shelley in 200& neither you nor the staff advising you was aware that additional inJcjrmation existed. We have only recently'discovered' these archived files, I have attached the list of files that were moved to the achives, although we have not been able to locate all of the files on the list'

the

reason tat I reconmend that this matter go before the Clergy Review Board is as follows'

226SummitAvenue

Saint Paul, MN 55102

T: 651.291'4437

I F: 651.290.1

629

www.archsom.orq

haselbergeri@archsprh.org

x 3g

AncHDIocESE

oF-

.___S.A.|.N

T_

_pA.t,J.L. .&

MINNEAPOLIS

'it,

. inq$gattryrpoted: the ,AJ[ complting the computer anais rnd investigation,

..:

'.

','M"nyof'the'homsexulpoiiriigt'Pi''itimages.viewedby:ihiiiltvirHgator
"'i

...

; ,

:and'lhe corlrputr'analyst

'

,ti

be consiclcred.bordellirie.illega!,liecausc c'ltild ''r: : ' ,r

of

'.'i

the youthful took'ing rnale'irtrage"

.,il"r"
;.nna

latter points are'significa! in tlratlath

to Saint wnun tre was'sent for evaluation

I '"usd by another

man wlio vas"livig withFr Shelley that he used interitet pomoglaphy'


of referral to SL! the copy o our Septe nbet23'2004letter attaching I am Archbishop, Flowever' a$ their repor to this mmo' while the report of ihe computer analys dted Octob er 27,2004' In other words'
as

well

examined before the computer itself hacl beerr is not occ leiter of referral that'this assessment since the conrptrter was has not been assessed by sLI relrospect, premature. Father sheliey borderline illegal' cleternrined to have images that were

226SummitAvenue lsaintpaul,MN55102

lhaselbergeri@archspm'org ri651.291.4437 lF:651.290.1629 lwww.archsom'orq

AncnolocESE
-sA-l-N-T--P'A

U.l' & MINNEAPOLIS

oF-

fte
i.o tt

chrch, an civil

law

eixu.l abus.ci a minr. Terefre,

to bc eqtrivalent considers.accessing rornograpltic inrages of ninors chilil rgitrf" o."otions tltat a cleri ha' acccsseicl

,i

.,

hvi:acccss to the l-loivevcr, no.w tha[yotr -.;,' I thi DVDs of [irentate:ia iliat'lvau fo,rrcl on te t:oniutcr)

ilfonnatioir'that

so''I with r,iassigning Father Shlley. In fuct, prior'to'cloing

ationb:

,:.

.
2.

for a econd. ev-aluaqon, Bt SI'I' , Bsed on 'the reul.ts of.the aove; send' athilSf,en"y and without the infor.mation discoveed dring both'*a1yseS
provicling tl\em with

hetment t'aitdess

this.

setting limitation's on their assessment or iepdrt' to the Clergy RevieW Board for its review O.- Send all of the information or Father Shligy

, and ecommeirdation. 4.
Faith.

comprter aelysi.s snd

the.

pec'on{

tT

t!iti:n',Y,9'

.thismsttertotheCongregationfortheDochiriofthe.
whnthe ciustion arose as to whethr shared this information with Father Laird last July parishes in centerville' However' With Father sheltey would be made pastor of the merg'd tew assignnrent for him' I thought itwas your recent request to the CAB that they consider a importnt to bring this to your atterrtion as soon as possible'
Thank you,

lwww'arohsom'orq lhaselbergerj@arohspm'org 226SummltAvenue lsatntPaul,MNSstoz lT:651.291.4437 lF:651'290'1629

OIICE O[ TFft CII/TNCELIOR ]OR CANONICAL I't'AiltS

AncHprocEsE OF --'----SAINT PAUL &


M

MNNonaNDUM
f)nte: To:
Frort; Rel

INNEAPOLIS

February 8,2013 The Moet Reverend fohn C, Nienstedt

Jennifer Haselberger
Father )on Shelley

Archbishop,

I cornpletely

rlirsa5r:ce

with lrather McDorrough's

assessnnt of tho eituation,

tlisagree with hls

characteiznti<r of thc irnages as 'rlot pornographlc' altd, sincc lhese lntnges wete downloadccl (saved) to a ltald drivc by Fnther Slellcy, I clisa$ree tha[ thcse werc pop-up acls meant to c.ntice

l'riln

t<

view pornograpliy rathel than image,s that he perccivecl to be ancl used as poinography.
.same lmages

I woqld also point otrt tlrat in May of 2012 I shared the

with you and with Father

Lail:d, nrrd neitlrer of you cllsputed,-tlrat the lmages were oflrographic,

Tlu tequest from th CDF <f August

2012, and whie'h hns not ye t becn arrswc'rect, is thnt you


4s

inform thein of nll aspects of the case. I interpret that request

inslructioh that the

cnse be

assenblecl ancl sttbmittecl in the sarne format t'lrat was used for,Fathers Welrmeyer and Walsh, including using the tenrp.lates c'entcct by thc CDI for thcse pnrposes ancl irrcluding all of the other cotrcct'trs lhat lrave bcc'n rRised regarclhrg Father Shelley and his nternctions with ninors, My urrclelstancllng wns that I wns to wait for; Ftrther McDonough's report to assenrble the

tecessly clocunoutatiorr

fol strbntission, Furt'her, rny untlorstarrcling s that, until

the CDF has

aclvisel'l you how to proceed irr tlrle rtratter, Father Shellcy ouglrt not to receivc an assignrrrent,

I woulcl

als<l

poirrt out trat thls nratter has nc.vor lreen brouglrt befole the Clergy Rcview

Boar.cl.

Pt'jot' ttl consiclering an assi8nurent

frl' llatlrqr

Shelley I lhinl< the Doarcl shoulcl be infonnecl of

the caso ancl their,arlvictr should be,rou5ht.

f u,oulcl olso lika

t<,

reiterate

thntl think all of this irrfolrnation slrould

be turred over to law

cnfol'come,nt for t'hei'determinntiqn, in the lrope.s of avoicling ptos(crrti()r for you anc yout

staff by offotlng an affinnative clefcnse.

Itinally, I am attaclrring a melno wtiften by .hather McDonough wlrcn he maclc


wa$ ro ncecl or use (fris r,r,orcls) to disclose I"'atlrel Wclrrnt:ycr's hlstory

similar
crf tJre

nsse$slrent of lather Wehmc'yer. IIls corrclusion, whlch Father Lnircl supptx'tccl, wns ihat therc

lo tl$ cnployecs
nJ,l

parlslt, a$ in Father Mcl)otrouglr's asses$rrelrt, Iiatlrer Wehrnc'ycr u,as 'ltet

that lterested ln

226Suntril Avclltle lSelntPaul,MNSSl02 lT:651.291,4437 lF;651.290.1629 l!US4qrcll-Ellt-oj lhasetbergerj@arctrspm,org

qg

AncnprocESE
M

olr ^_ -.SAINT PAUL &

INNEAPOLIS

n crchrrl sexual eroounter' ancl 'thcre hog neve,beun a queatlr' o[ Fthgr Welrmeyer

'rnlcusing his position as a priest to obtn [sexual) favo,. ,fron those to whon he mlnlstrrs'. Iu ndditlon tb beng n fnctunlly innceurntc r?countlng of Fntfrer Wehrreyey's histoty of seoking
sexual encourrlsrs, Iather lvlcDopugh'c assensrnent of Fatber Welrrreyc/ lntereet ln ard

likellhood of engaging ttl exua behavlor hno been pruvan to be hnglcally wrong. lhe facl thnt
Fnthel' MrDrrnorrgh set aslde the trcornmcndatlors of dre Revlcw Boud und othcre ncl did not compleh lhe rccomenped clscloaure at Fnthel lilehnreverb-[Sq$c#t wlfl pmve to bc extreme

cgtly and embanrlastng fo'Fathel McDorough, the Athdlo, and, I om afi'afd, yor should

p'rue n civll c"' I strongty encourcge you to conplcler whether you hnve t obligotlon to noHfy the Universlty of StThorae ol thls llkolihood, and whethcryou con lrust

Father McDorrougKs recornmerdations on these mattero rny

lotrgr.

Thank you.

22 Srrmmlt Avspe

salnt Pul, MN 65102 I Ti 6sl,?s1.4497

Fl 051.290.1s

I ur,ellrru.gq I hbf0ef'@fchspln,ory