Here are several links to news coverage of SNAP's fight to protect the privacy of victims, witnesses, whistleblowers, journalists, politicians, prosecutors, and concerned Catholics,  despite hardball tactics by Missouri Catholic officials:

• SNAP subpoenas harm key ally for victims (1/13/12) - National Catholic Reporter
• SNAP faces subpoenas, KC Star calls for overturning "chilling" court order (1/9/12) - Bilgrimage
• The Star's Editorial | Clergy abuse lawsuit takes a chilling turn (1/8/12) - KC Star
• Editorial: Bishops target victims' advocacy group in St. Louis, Kansas City (1/5/12) - St. Louis Post-Dispatch
• Abuse victims to fight records disclosure (1/3/12) - TIME
• SNAP leader vows to fight records disclosure order (1/3/12) - The Associated Press
• SNAP Leader: Testimony was "fishing expedition" (1/3/12) - National Catholic Reporter
• MO Supreme Court rules SNAP must reveal docs to Church (1/3/12) - KPLR 11

Here are links to statements that SNAP has released about this situation:

• Deposition of a SNAP leader to be made public
• Church seeks 19-year-old victim's records
• Unprecedented attack on victims by KC Catholic officials
• Victims fight gag order

Here are links to legal filings in this ongoing legal battle to protect kids and help victims:

• October 27, 2011 - SNAP Director David Clohessy is served with a subpoena by KC Priest
• November 14, 2011 - SNAP Director tries to block subpoena...
• November 14, 2011 - ...and files more evidence in support of motion.
• November 18, 2011 - KC priest opposes SNAP Director's motion.
• November 23, 2011 - Plaintiff files in support of SNAP Director's motion to quash
• November 29, 2011 - SNAP Director files a reply in response to opposition.
• November 30, 2011 - Judge files an Order that grants in part and denies in part SNAP Director's Motion to Quash.
• December 6, 2011 - SNAP Director asks Judge to reconsider her decision.
• December 20, 2011 - SNAP Director replies to response from the opposition.
• December 28, 2011 - Judge denies SNAP Director's Motion to Reconsider
• December 28, 2011 - SNAP Director appeals to the MO Supreme Court to postpone deposition
• December 28, 2011 - An Amicus Brief is filed by ten organizations on behalf of and in support of SNAP
• December 28, 2011 - A description of the organizations named in the Amicus Brief
• December 30, 2011 - SNAP gets second subpoena, this one in St. Louis.
• January 2, 2012 - MO Supreme Court denies SNAP Director's request to postpone deposition
• January 3, 2012 - Judge orders that the deposition of SNAP Director be sealed
• January 17, 2012 - Judge unseals the deposition of SNAP Director

Here's how to send letters to the editor to KC and STL Newspapers:

• St. Louis Post Dispatch - Please email your letter, signed with your name and home address, to letters@post-dispatch.com
• Kansas City Star - Please fill out the form located here.

How the two cases - KC & St. Louis differ

In Kansas City

The subpoena was issued in late October and the deposition was Monday, Jan. 2

The victim is male & middle aged & repressed his memories

The accused priest, Fr. Michael Tierney, is still a priest (so almost certainly still on the payroll) and lives in KC

The lawyers doing the hardball are the accused priest's lawyers (Brian Madden)

In St. Louis

The subpoena was issued this week (Jan. 3) and the deposition is set for mid-February

The victim is female, barely out of her teens & appraently did NOT repress her memories

The accused priest, Fr. Joseph D. Ross, has been defrocked (so is NOT on the church payroll) and his whereabouts are unknown

The lawyers doing the hardball are the archdiocesan lawyers (Bernie Huger)
 
But of course, in both situations, the impact is the same - more fear and hurt for who have been betrayed and are still suffering because of men who commit and conceal child sex crimes.

Bottom line: it’s a unprecedented, invasive, expensive and “chilling” SLAPP-style attack on the privacy, free speech, and free association rights of victims, witnesses, journalists, whistleblowers, church employees and concerned Catholics.

Never before in our 23 year history has anyone sought, much less won, access to so much private information. (And again, SNAP is not even a party to any litigation.)

And while for now, it looks like we can protect the names of victims, the predators' lawyers can always appeal and a judge coud always change her/his mind on that issue.

To get updates about our struggle via email, please click here.