11STATE OF MINNESOTA2COUNTY OF RAMSEYIN DISTRICT COURTSECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT34- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -5DOE 1,67891011Plaintiff,vs.ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. PAUL ANDMINNEAPOLIS, DIOCESE OF WINONAand THOMAS ADAMSON,Defendants.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1213Deposition of ARCHBISHOP JOHN14NIENSTEDT, taken pursuant to Notice of Taking15Deposition, and taken before Gary W. Hermes, a16Notary Public in and for the County of Ramsey,17State of Minnesota, on the 2nd day of April,182014, at 30 East 7th Street, St. Paul,19Minnesota, commencing at approximately 9:0520o'clock a.m.2122232425AFFILIATED COURT REPORTERS2935 OLD HIGHWAY 8ST. PAUL, MN 55113 (612)338-434821APPEARANCES:2JEFFREY R. ANDERSON, ESQ., MICHAEL G.3FINNEGAN, ESQ., SARAH ODEGAARD, ESQ., and ELIN4LINDSTROM, ESQ., Attorneys at Law, 366 Jackson5Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101,6appeared for Plaintiff.7DANIEL A. HAWS, ESQ., Attorney at8Law, 30 East 7th Street, Suite 3200, St. Paul,9Minnesota 55101, appeared for Archdiocese of10St. Paul and Minneapolis.11THOMAS B. WIESER, ESQ., Attorney at12Law, 2200 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street,13St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, appeared for14Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.15THOMAS R. BRAUN, ESQ., Attorney at16Law, 117 East Center Street, Rochester,17Minnesota 55904, appeared for Diocese of18Winona.19JOSEPH F. KUEPPERS, ESQ., Chancellor20for Civil Affairs, 101 East 5th Street, Suite21800, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, appeared for22Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.23ALSO PRESENT:24Dean Hibben, videographer25***31I N D E X2EXAMINATION BY MR. ANDERSON................93BEGINNING OF TAPE 2.......................714BEGINNING OF TAPE 3......................13656DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 18....................1517DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 38....................1708DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 45....................1869DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 99....................18810111213141516171819202122232425***41P R O C E E D I N G S2**3MR. ANDERSON:*Okay.Let's start4the record for purposes of the deposition, and5before we begin the actual deposition of the6archbishop, there are a few matters that we7need to put on the record.8The first pertains to the disclosure9or, more accurately, the lack of disclosure as10we interpret the order of the court.It was11our understanding and belief that Judge Van de12North ordered the archdiocese to produce the13documents and the files that we requested, at14least for purposes of Archbishop Nienstedt's15deposition, and we did not receive anything16until 5:45 p.m. on Monday.17was formatted, I think, in disk and --When we did, it18MR. FINNEGAN:USB drive.19MR. ANDERSON:-- or a zip drive,20and contained in that were some materials, but21far from what had been requested, far from22what had been required, in our view.23not only thus incomplete, there were24redactions and deletions and omissions that we25believe are not in compliance with the orderIt was51of the court as we read it and understood it2to be.3what was turned over in preparation for this,4and realizing that we had less than what was5expected.6We, then, hustled to try to reviewYesterday at five p.m., we received7a second disclosure with a letter and in it8there was a disk in this case with some9additional disclosures pertaining to some10additional files.11will we use or attempt to use any of the12materials provided at five o'clock last night.13There's no way that is feasible or realistic.14On quick review of that, however, it may15appear that that disclosure continues to be16less than complete and not in compliance with17the court order, so it is our position just18for this record that the archdiocese is in19noncompliance with the orders of the court as20it pertains to the disclosures required to be21made for purposes of this deposition.22think that's all I have to say about that for23the moment.2425MR. HAWS:We have not had time, norAnd IWell, just to respond,first, we produced all the priest files that61existed and we put the redactions in in2accordance with what we had stated we would3when we were in front of the court the week4before, or last week, whenever that was.5We also advised you that this6process of producing these files was extremely7cumbersome and time-consuming and that in our8letters we provided additional dates for9depositions of the archbishop if you felt you10needed it, and no one contacted us to make any11such requests.12complied as best as we possibly can.13explained the difficulties in getting all of14this information to you in the time frame that15you had requested, and so we're proceeding by16providing you with what we could as best we17could and in compliance with the court order.18We don't agree with your rendition and,19obviously, we'll supplement the record and20identify for the court whatever we need to21should we get to that point.22So we believe that we haveMR. ANDERSON:We'veI don't expect you to23agree with our view today.I do believe,24however, that you made those same arguments to25the court, I think they were rejected as to71deletions and non-productions and I think the2order is clear, but it will speak for itself3and we'll take it up another day.4Just for purposes of mechanics of5today, the court has ordered a deposition to6be taken for four hours of the archbishop.7will expect there not to be speaking8objections.9sure you'll state them.IIf you have legal objections, I'mIf there are speaking10objections, I will count that time as not11against the four hours.12somebody calculating the time for speaking13objections.14objections, I just want to alert you to that.1516If you choose to make speakingIf it at any time you choose to takea break, Archbishop, that's fine.17THE WITNESS:18MR. ANDERSON:19MR. HAWS:21MR. ANDERSON:23Okay.Thank you.Anything else by wayof housekeeping before we proceed?2022So I will have(Shakes head).Okay.Let's beginthe deposition.MR. HIBBEN:We are on the record.24This is the videotape deposition of Archbishop25John Nienstedt taken on April 2nd, 2014.The812time now is approximately 9:05 a.m.The deposition is being taken in the3matter of Doe 1 versus the Archdiocese of4Minneapolis and St. Paul, et al., in the state5of Minnesota, District Court, County of6Ramsey, Second Judicial District.7case number 62-CV-13-4075.8taking place in St. Paul, Minnesota.910111213141516171819202122232425This isThe deposition isMy name is Dean Hibben.I'm thevideographer representing Affiliated Video.Will counsel please identifythemselves for the record?MR. ANDERSON:For the plaintiff,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 theArchdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.MR. WIESER:Tom Wieser for theArchdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.MR. BRAUN:Thomas Braun on behalf91of the Diocese of Winona.2MR. KUEPPERS:Joseph Kueppers on3behalf of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and4Minneapolis.5MR. HIBBEN:6And would the courtreporter please swear in the witness?7ARCHBISHOP JOHN NIENSTEDT,8called as a witness, being first duly sworn,9was examined and testified as follows:10EXAMINATION1112BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.1314name for the record and spell your last?A.1516Archbishop, would you please state your fullJohn Clayton Nienstedt, Jr.,N-i-e-n-s-t-e-d-t.Q.You've given depositions before, so you17understand the protocol here today, do you18not?19A.I -- I think so.20Q.Okay.And it's correct to state that you were21appointed and eventually installed as a22coadjutor in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and23Minneapolis in the year 2006?24A.2007.25Q.2007.What would have been the date of the1012installation?A.It would have been June 29th, 2007.It wasn't3an installation per se.4become a coadjutor, you're just received.5Q.6It's just when youAnd then you were appointed to be thearchbishop as of what date?7A.May 2nd, 2008.8Q.During your tenure as archbishop, it is9correct to state that you have made a number10of public statements concerning the fact that11-- the representation that there are no12offending priests in ministry, have you not?13A.I have done that, yes.14Q.When did you first begin doing that as15archbishop?16A.I don't recall.17Q.How many times would you estimate you had18represented to the public and to the people19that there are no offending priests in20ministry here in the Archdiocese of St. Paul21and Minneapolis?22A.232425I can't recall exactly, but I don't think thatthey have been many.Q.You have made such representations to themedia, have you not?111A.I don't believe so.2Q.You've made representations to the3parishioners, have you not, through bulletins4and otherwise?5A.Yes, I have.6Q.You have included such representations in7materials demonstrated -- or prepared by the8archdiocese and distributed to parishioners9and the public concerning priests in10ministries who are safe?11A.The -- the priests are safe --12Q.Yeah.13A.-- or the environments are safe?14Q.The environments are safe.15A.Yeah.16Q.Do you continue to claim that the environment17of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis18is safe for the children?19A.I do.20Q.I'm going to show you what we've marked --21I do.(Discussion out of the hearing of22the court reporter)23BY MR. ANDERSON:2425Q.At any time since your installation, have youreceived any information from any source that121causes you to want to change any of the2statements you have made about the safety of3children in this archdiocese?4A.Just in the last month, I did discover that5there was a priest who had offended who6retired, but continued periodically to7celebrate mass on weekends, and I was not8aware of his presence and I was not aware that9he was publicly in ministry.10And as soon as Irealized it, I had his faculties removed.11Q.And who is that?12A.I believe it's Father LaVan.13Q.And any other time, other than in the last14month, that causes you to believe that the15statements that you had made earlier about the16safety of the children and the absence of17offenders in the archdiocese ministry to be18corrected?19A.Could you restate the question, please?20Q.Have you received any other information that21tells you that the statements you made about22the safety of the children in the archdiocese23were not true?24A.No.25Q.That's it, LaVan?131A.LaVan, yes.2Q.And that was last month.34How did you get thatinformation?A.5It was in the process of doing our filereview.6Q.Okay.Who was doing that review?7A.Kinsale.8Q.Spell that.9A.K-i-n-s-a-l-e.10Q.And once you received the information from11Kinsale or Kinsale concerning LaVan, what12correction, if any, did you make about the13statements you had made to the public and the14community of faith?15A.I don't believe that I did.16Q.Do you think one is needed?17A.He's out of ministry now, so I don't see the18-- the point of -- of making that19announcement, no.20Q.It had been known by the archdiocese that21LaVan had been accused credibly of abusing at22least two girls and that was reflected in the23files back over a decade ago, correct?2425A.I don't know that for -- for a -- for a fact,no.141Q.When you came on as archbishop, did you ever2make any effort, from the time of your3installation and to the discovery of the LaVan4material by Kinsale, to see actually that the5statements you were making to the public about6the safety of the children were true?7A.I met with my staff and they affirmed for me8the fact that there was no one in ministry who9had credibly abused any children.10Q.When did you first meet with your staff to11make such a determination that the environment12was safe?13A.1415Shortly after my reception into thearchdiocese as coadjutor.Q.What staff did you meet with to determine the16safety of the environment and whether or not17there were priests in ministry who had18offended?19A.I met with my delegate for safe environments20and I met with my civil and canonical21chancellors.22Q.23And so the delegate for safe environments was,then, Kevin McDonough?24A.He was.25Q.Appointed by you to be just that title, right?151A.23I did, yes.He had been previously appointedby Archbishop Flynn.Q.And was it his job, at least as you understood4it, his appointment to be -- to make sure that5the environment was safe and he was the point6guy for handling that?7A.That's correct.8Q.And that first meeting, then, was with9McDonough and with the chancellors, both10Jennifer Haselberber -- no.11then?She wasn't there12A.She wasn't there at that time.13Q.Who were the chancellors?14A.Sister Dominica, I can't think of her last15name, but Sister Dominica and Mr. Andy16Eisenzimmer.17Q.And how long was that meeting, sir?18A.I -- to the best of my recollection, it was19approximately two hours, I believe.20long meeting.It was a21Q.And was that at the Chancery in your office?22A.It was at the Chancery in one of our meeting232425rooms, yes, sir.Q.And in preparation for that meeting, did youorder or request that they review any or all161materials held by the archdiocese concerning2priests who may have been accused, credibly or3otherwise?4A.I asked -- at the time of the meeting, I asked5them to give me all that they knew concerning6the safe environments of the archdiocese.7Q.8And did anybody put or record by memo orrecording the contents of that meeting?9A.I don't believe so.10Q.So it was all verbal?11A.It was verbal, yes.12Q.And at that meeting, were you presented with13any written materials?14A.I was not, no.15Q.Did you know -- you knew there had been a list16compiled, under the Charter for the Protection17of Children, a list of credibly accused18offenders, correct?19A.I was aware of that.I'm not sure I was aware20of that at that time, but I was aware shortly21after my arrival.22Q.Well, you were bishop of New Ulm when the23Charter for Protection of Children was24established in 2002?25A.Correct.171Q.2And you attended those meetings where promiseswere made to the public --3A.Correct.4Q.-- across this nation that we're going to have5a zero tolerance policy, correct?6A.Correct.7Q.And you were a part of -- one of the bishops8that made such a representation to the people9in the U.S. about zero tolerance, correct?10A.Correct.11Q.So you knew at that time the bishops then12commissioned John Jay to do a study to13determine, based on information given them,14various lists of credibly accused offenders?15A.I don't recall exactly when that list was16asked for.My recollection was it was in172004, but I'm not -- I'm not sure about that.18Q.That sounds correct?19A.(Nods head).20Q.In any case, you knew in 2004 or thereabouts21that the bishops had compiled lists of22offenders, credibly accused?23A.I did, yes.24Q.Did you ask that such a list for the25Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis be181presented to you at this first meeting2concerning safe environment in this3archdiocese?4A.I did not.5Q.Why not?6A.It didn't occur to me.7Q.So, tell me, then, who conducted the meeting?8A.Father McDonough conducted the meeting.9Q.And tell us what Father McDonough told you,10Archbishop, responsive to your request about11the safe or lack of safe environment in the12Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis and13what priests had been accused and what priests14were or were not in ministry.15A.Well, he described for me the POMS program16that we have, which is our monitoring system17for priests who have abused, and explained to18me how that worked and explained the situation19of what those priests -- that those priests20were not engaged in ministry and --21Q.Okay.I'm going to stop you there.I'm sorry22to interrupt you, but you said the POMS23program?24A.Yes, POMS is --25Q.Spell that for us.191A.P-O-M-E-S, I believe.2Q.Okay.3A.P-O-M-S, I believe, yeah, P-O-M-S.4Q.And you said that was a monitoring program,5correct?6A.Correct.7Q.And did you ask him the names of the priests8that were being monitored under the POMS9program as McDonough recited this to you?10A.I -- I had asked for the meeting and he was11chairing the meeting and he began to tell me12the people -- the -- the individuals who were13under the -- the POMS program.14Q.Who were those individuals?15A.I can't recall all the names right now.16Q.Why didn't you write it down?17A.It didn't occur to me at the time to do so.18Q.At the time, didn't it seem like one of the19most important things you needed to do as20archbishop, knowing the crisis in America of21Catholic clergy abusing kids, to know who in22this archdiocese had been accused and who are23currently being monitored?2425A.Well, I had asked for the meeting precisely sothat I would know what the situation was and201that I could assure myself and assure my2publics (sic) that the environments were safe.3Q.45But, Archbishop, you can't remember who thatwas that you were told today?A.There were several names that were given to me6and I was assured that their situations were7being monitored and that they were not likely8to re-offend and that was the primary purpose9of the meeting.10Q.And you say "several names."11A.I don't recall exactly.1213How many?There were -- therewere several.Q.14Well, what does "several" mean?Is that morethan ten or less than ten?15MR. HAWS:Well, objection.16don't have to guess, Archbishop.17you can answer it, if you don't --18A.1920YouIf you know,I -- I -- I really don't know.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.21How many -- how were you told these priestswere being monitored?22A.I don't understand the question.23Q.What were you told about how these priests who24had been accused were actually being monitored25so that they would not offend or re-offend?211A.Well, I was told that we have a promoter of2these safe environments who meets regularly3with the individuals.4were undergoing regular therapy, that they5were in spiritual direction and that they had6to sign a contract to the effect of how they7would be monitored.I was told that they8Q.Who was the promoter of safe environment?9A.Right now it's John Selvig.10Q.Who was it then?11A.I can't recall the name.12MR. HAWS:13you're referring to the time of the meeting?1415MR. ANDERSON:A.1617When you say "then,"Yes.I can't recall his name.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.And when you say that they were to sign an18agreement, would that be an agreement not to19re-offend?20A.It was a -- it was a signed statement21indicating what we expected of them.22believe that it said in those categories,23although it was understood that they weren't24to offend again.25Q.I don'tAnd did you have any personal knowledge or221experience with offenders, clergy or non-2clergy, who are accused and who have offended,3that there's a high recidivism rate and when4they do re-offend, they often lie and deny5about it so that you can't rely upon them?6Were you aware of that?7A.I believe I was, yes.8Q.Well, then, what made you think, then, if you9did, that simply monitoring them and asking if1011they're re-offending would work?A.I asked Father McDonough at that meeting to12tell me what we were doing in terms of making13sure that these men were being monitored and14that they had a program that we were holding15them to.16Q.Did you, as a result of that meeting, disclose17to anybody in the public or any of the18parishioners any of the names that you were19given by your team about those priests who20were being monitored and who had offended?21A.I did not personally, no.22Q.Did anybody under your direction, working with232425and under or for you in the archdiocese?A.I believe I was told that Father McDonoughcarried out those disclosures.231Q.What disclosures did he make?2A.He -- he did not -- as I recall, he did not3tell me exactly who he made the disclosures4to, but, generally speaking, they were people5in the parish that he served.6Q.Well, didn't you ask?Didn't you say, "Father7McDonough, we have a number of priests who8you" -- and that number you can't remember9today, "who are are under monitoring, who we10know have offended in the past," didn't you go11back and say, "Tell me exactly what you're12going to do and when you're going to do it to13make the public know"?14A.I asked for that meeting so that I would15understand more clearly how the environments16that we have in our parishes and our schools17would be safe for children and that's our18primary objective.19Q.Archbishop, isn't it correct that you really20didn't want the public and the people to know21who was being monitored at that time?22MR. HAWS:Well, that's objection,23that's argumentative, counsel.24BY MR. ANDERSON:25Q.You can answer the question.241A.I don't believe that's true, no.2Q.Well, then, can you tell me exactly what3offenders that had been monitored or under4monitoring were, then, actually disclosed to5the public as a result of that meeting?6A.I can't answer that, no.7Q.Can you tell me when any of those offenders8who were disclosed to you at that meeting were9ever disclosed to the public?10A.I -- I know that they have been.I can't tell11you the exact dates or the times that they12have been disclosed, but they have been13disclosed.14Q.Can you tell me the name of any offender or15the time in which it was done when the16archdiocese, under your direction, either17Kevin McDonough or anybody else, made an18actual disclosure and it wasn't made by19somebody, some third party --20A.Well, yes.21Q.-- such as media or ourselves?22A.This past October, I believe, we made our232425first disclosures.Q.So is it correct to say, then, that from yourfirst meeting, staff meeting shortly after251your installation that you described, between2that and October 13th of this last year --3October of this last year, you can't identify4today any disclosures made of any of these5accused offenders who were being monitored to6the public?7A.Well, in that --8MR. HAWS:910Objection, that misstatestestimony.A.In that meeting that I had, Father McDonough11told me how we approach the situation and what12kind of disclosures he made.13me exactly which disclosures and what day the14disclosures were made on a particular15individual.16BY MR. ANDERSON:17Q.He didn't tellWell, I'm asking you what disclosures were18made to the public.I appreciate you have19this information in your inner circle of the20chancellors and the delegate, Father21McDonough -- who I think was then vicar22general, wasn't he also?23A.Not -- at the time I was coadjutor, yes.24Q.Yeah.25And, in any case, we'll call them yourinner circle, but beyond your inner circle,261I'm asking you to tell me, if you can, if2there were any disclosures made of any of3these offenders identified to you who were4under monitoring to the public until October5of 2013?6A.Father McDonough informed me that as part of7our procedures, we would disclose to certain8people in parishes where -- where priests had9served.10Q.1112those parishes?A.1314And how was it determined who would be told inMy recollection is, as I recollect now, it wasthe pastor and the trustees of the parish.Q.What about the parishioners and the public,15didn't they have a right to know who was being16monitored and who had been accused?17A.1819I -- I find it difficult to answer thatquestion.Q.Don't you think they have a right to know who20has abused children and who's being monitored21in addition to the pastor and the trustees so22they can protect their kids and know who might23pose a risk of harm to their children?2425MR. HAWS:Are you speaking ofpriests that are still in the ministry or271serving?2MR. ANDERSON:3priests that are being monitored.4A.Well --5MR. HAWS:6Other than those who areserving?7MR. ANDERSON:89I'm speaking theThe question stands.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.10You identified a number of priests who arebeing monitored, right?11A.Correct.12Q.They are all priests who are in ministry,13Correct.correct?14A.No.15Q.They're out of ministry, they're still16They were out -- out of ministry.priests?17A.Correct.18Q.They're still active as priests?19A.No.2021They wouldn't be if they were out ofministry, they wouldn't be active as priests.Q.And so they were in various capacities in the22community, right, but not in ministry, is that23what you're saying?2425A.I don't understand what you mean by"capacities."281Q.Well, they were --2(Discussion out of the hearing of3the court reporter)4BY MR. ANDERSON:5Q.Are you saying, then, Archbishop, that the6monitoring program only covered priests that7were not in parishes?8A.No.9Q.Okay.I'm not saying that.Let's break it down then.How many of10those priests that you were told were under11monitoring were actually in parishes then?12A.Well, you have to understand that the13monitoring system, the POMS program, included14priests who had abused children and -- and15priests who had other behavioral difficulties.16For example, if they had been arrested for a17DW -- a drunk while -- driving while -- while18drunk or other kinds of abnormal, I would say,19behaviors, so that was all put together.20wasn't just those who had abused children.21Q.ItHow many, then, that were accused of having22abused children were disclosed to you that23were under monitoring?24A.I don't recall that number.25Q.And how many of that number were still in2912ministry?A.My recollection is that only the one that I3cited before was in ministry and he was4retired.The others were out of ministry.5Q.And is that Ken LaVan?6A.Yes.7Q.And that was -- and when was the first public8disclosure of Ken LaVan having been accused as9an offender and that he had been under10monitoring?11A.I don't recall that.Sorry.12Q.Isn't it reasonable, Archbishop, that if you13as the archbishop and your team saw fit to put14them under monitoring as you've described in15this program, isn't it reasonable that the16public and the parishioners in the community17of faith be advised that there is a reason to18put a priest under monitoring and that you19have this program so that they can know there20is an issue?21MR. HAWS:2223legal conclusion.A.Objection, calls for aGo ahead if you can answer.Could you rephrase the question for me,24please?25BY MR. ANDERSON:301Q.23Why didn't you tell the people that you had anumber of priests under monitoring?A.I believe that we felt that we could monitor4the situation without making a total5disclosure to the people.6Q.You still feel that way?7A.No.8Q.What made you realize that that was a bad9I do not.decision?10MR. HAWS:11argumentative.12BY MR. ANDERSON:13Q.1416What made you realize it was a bad choice?MR. HAWS:15Well, objection, that'sSame objection,argumentative.A.I think over my tenure as being archbishop, I17have had new insights into how we should18proceed with these -- these situations.19BY MR. ANDERSON:20Q.And so when did you realize that?21A.I don't -- I can't give you an exact date, but22it's been probably over the last two years23I've come to appreciate that.2425Q.So in the last two years, once having realizedit, what did you do about it to correct it --311A.Well, we --2Q.-- in terms of public disclosure?3A.We made sure that if there was an incident4that happened, that the trustees of the parish5would be -- be informed of that.6course, last October we made a full7disclosure.8Q.9And then, ofAre you sure it wasn't December that you madethat disclosure?10A.I don't recall an exact date.11Q.When you say "a full disclosure," what do you12mean by that then?13A.Of the 43 persons that we put on our website.14Q.Archbishop, you have resisted very vigorously15through your counsel and publicly the16dissemination of the list of accused offenders17and credibly accused offenders, have you not?18MR. HAWS:Objection, it's again a19legal conclusion.You can answer to the20extent you know, Archbishop.21BY MR. ANDERSON:22Q.That is, to the public.23A.Could you repeat the question?24Q.You have continuously, until ordered by the25I'm sorry.court, resisted making a public disclosure of321the names of the credibly accused offenders on2the list compiled by the archdiocese, have you3not?4MR. HAWS:56Objection, that misstatesthe facts and the evidence.A.My understanding is that we voluntarily7disclosed those names, the first names on the8John Jay list, we voluntarily went to the9court, asking them to unseal those names10because there had been such a notoriety, I11would say, about that list of John Jay, and as12we discovered and as we've met -- made public13since then, that there were names on that John14Jay list that should not have been there, who15had not abused children.16BY MR. ANDERSON:17Q.Archbishop, you're aware that it was our18office that has persisted in trying to get19those lists disclosed by you and your office20for years, including the John Doe 76C case,21correct, you're aware of that?22A.I'm aware of that, yes.23Q.And you're also aware, are you not, that you24released that list only after we brought25another motion before Judge Van de North and331it was very evident and imminent that it was2going to be required, correct?3MR. HAWS:45facts in evidence.A.67Objection, misstatesGo ahead.I don't -- I -- I don't recall that, no.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.So you're saying to us today under oath that8you made the conscious choice to voluntarily9release that list --10A.We did, yes.11Q.-- when you did?12A.Yes.13Q.And you made that choice for what reason?14A.Well, in a -- in an attempt to be transparent15with our publics, with the Catholics in the16pew, because the media had made such a big17deal out of the John Jay list.18Q.It was public pressure, wasn't it?19A.I -- I wouldn't say so.I think it was20conversion on my part to see that this was21something we should do.22Q.Was it legal pressure by us?23A.No, sir.24Q.No influence, huh?25A.I wouldn't say that, no.341Q.Yeah.2A.There were multiple sources.3Q.Okay.If it wasn't us and it wasn't the media4putting on pressure, you say you had5conversion.6then, if it wasn't public pressure by us or7the media?8A.What gave you this conversion,Discussion with my team, who it would be my9communications director, my chancellor for10civil affairs, my chancellor for canonical11affairs, my auxiliary bishops, my moderator of12the curia.13Q.14team up until that time?1516MR. HAWS:A.1718And who urged you to keep it quiet on thatObject to the form.I can't recall anyone specifically doing that.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.Before you actually had this conversion after19meeting with the team that you described, had20any urged you to make it public so that the21public could know who's on it?22A.I don't recall.23Q.From 2008 until 2013, you made the choice to2425keep that list secret, did you not?A.It already had been kept secret and I didn't3512see any reason to disclose.Q.After that first meeting you've described in3which you were informed that priests were4placed on monitoring and no memo was made of5that or notes taken by you and/or recording6made of that meeting, why not?7not record that?8Why not get that list at that time?9Why not?Why not put it in a memo?MR. HAWS:Objection.Can you break10it down and ask a question instead of six?11BY MR. ANDERSON:12Q.WhyWhy not make a recording of the whole thing?13Didn't it seem important enough to get down,14to get recorded, to get done?15A.It was important to me.I asked for the16meeting with Father McDonough so that I could17have an idea of where we were in terms of our18safe environments.19Q.Were you concerned, Archbishop, that we20shouldn't make some recording of this meeting21about these decisions to keep this secret or22not because, if you did, it might be subject23to some discovery by us or others who were in24litigation with you and the archdiocese?25A.No.That didn't occur to me at the time.361(Discussion out of the hearing of2the court reporter)3BY MR. ANDERSON:4Q.Did it ever occur to you at any time or were5you told that some of these things,6conversations shouldn't be put in writing7because they could be discovered by us in8litigation and known to the public?9A.I believe that Father McDonough once said that10to me, but it was outside of that context, I11can't recall exactly the date.12Q.How long ago?13A.I can't -- I can't -- I don't have any14recollection of that.15Q.What were you discussing?16A.I don't recall.17Q.Who were you discussing?18A.That I don't recall, either.19Q.Anybody else give you that guidance?20A.No, sir.21Q.Anybody else present at the McDonough meeting2223when he said that to you?A.It wasn't at that meeting.24imply that.25in which he had said that.I did not want toI don't recall the circumstances371Q.2Yeah.I'm just talking about when McDonoughtold you that, was anybody else present?3A.I don't believe so, no.4Q.Okay.You must have been discussing something5very sensitive at that time, but you just6don't recall today what it was and who may7have been involved?8A.I don't, sir, I'm sorry.9(Discussion out of the hearing of10the court reporter)11BY MR. ANDERSON:12Q.You followed his advice, didn't you?13A.In terms of?14Q.Not putting certain things into writing.15A.Yes.16Q.How many different times do you think you17chose not to put certain things into writing18concerning scandalous material such as sexual19abuse by (sic) minors?20A.It wouldn't have been very many.21Q.Well, "very many."2223dozen or less?A.2425Does that mean more than aMy understanding today is that would -- wouldhave been less.Q.Okay.Tell me the times that you remember381having conversations where you made the2conscious choice not to put it into writing3because you were concerned, as McDonough had4advised you, that it may be subject to5discovery in litigation and you didn't want it6to be recorded.7A.I can't recall the number of times, I'm sorry.8Q.Tell me the contents of any of those910conversations and with whom they were had.A.1112Again, I -- I would just be guessing, I wouldbe speculating.Q.And because it was not recorded on any13journal, any diary or the contents of any of14those discussions, there would be no way to15test or determine today how many times you16actually did have such a conversation,17correct?18A.That is -- that is correct.19Q.Do you keep a journal?20A.I do not.21Q.Do you have any memory today of having any of22those meetings or the contents of any of those23meetings where you made the conscious choice24not to record it because it could be25discovered or discoverable in litigation and391it pertained to sexual abuse of minors by2priests?3A.I do not.4Q.Do you have the names of any of the priests in5mind that you're thinking today, I do remember6discussing X priest and making the conscious7decision that we can't put that in writing8because if we do, Anderson and his team will9discover it, it could be public?10MR. HAWS:Well, first, that assumes11facts not in evidence.12ever testified to that.13guess or don't just assume that that's what14happened just because the question is asked15that way.16A.1718I don't think he'sArchbishop, don'tI would be guessing.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.Okay.So my question to you is, do you have19any memory of the contents of any conversation20concerning any offender today that falls into21that category of no notes or records made?22A.I do not, no.23Q.Okay.2425Did you instruct anyone else to notdocument conversations such as that -A.I don't --401Q.-- for the same reasons at any time?2A.I don't believe I did, no.3Q.Okay.So that would be just you and McDonough4that that particular practice would apply to,5correct?6MR. HAWS:Objection, that's not7what he stated that it was a practice, as8you've implied, counsel.9record.10MR. ANDERSON:11Don't misstate theGive me a legalobjection, not a speaking --12MR. HAWS:The objection is don't13put facts into the record that are not14accurate.15You are doing that.MR. ANDERSON:Take it off the time.16Give me a legal objection.17objection?18MR. HAWS:What's the legalYou're misstating facts19and absolutely trying to change and taint your20record for your media and that's not what is21appropriate, counsel, and you know it.22MR. ANDERSON:23objection.24BY MR. ANDERSON:25Q.That is not a legalArchbishop, the question is, anybody else411besides yourself and Father McDonough made a2party to such a practice of not recording3sensitive meetings such as that?4A.Not to my knowledge.5MR. HAWS:6(Discussion out of the hearing of7the court reporter)8BY MR. ANDERSON:9Q.10Same objections.Archbishop, did you review any materials inpreparation for your deposition today?11A.I did.12Q.What?13A.I reviewed the Charter for the Protection of14Children and Young People.15summary of the Adamson case.16the case of Father Montero.17Q.Anything else?18A.No, sir.19Q.Okay.I reviewed aAnd I reviewedWhen you're saying you reviewed a20summary of the Adamson case, what was that21that you looked at?22A.23It -- it was a summary of his particular filethat we had.24Q.Prepared by whom?25A.By Mr. Kueppers.421Q.2And when was it prepared and was it for yourreview in this deposition?3A.I beg your pardon?4Q.When was it prepared?5A.I believe it was in the last two to three6weeks.7Q.And for this deposition to help you?8A.Yes.9Q.And was the same kind of thing prepared for10Montero, that you reviewed?11A.No.12Q.But was that also prepared by Mr. Kueppers for13It wasn't as extensive.you in preparation for this deposition?14A.Correct.15Q.Anything else that you reviewed?16A.No, sir.17I did review the names of the 43priests that are on our website.18Q.That's it in terms of review?19A.Correct.20Q.Did you learn anything in your review of the21Montero summary prepared for you in this22deposition -- in preparation for this23deposition that you had not known before about24Montero and his history?25A.I did.I learned that the charges against him4312had been dropped before he left the country.Q.34summary?A.56Did you not know that until you reviewed theThat -- that happened before I becamearchbishop.Q.Had Montero ever been on your radar as a7priest who had been accused of offending and8had left the country and the archdiocese?9A.Yes, I was aware of that.10Q.How did you become aware of that?11A.I believe at the time that -- at the time that12he had left and a letter was sent from Bishop13Pates to the bishop in Mexico, explaining to14him the situation that we had experienced15here.16Q.Did you, yourself, ever request or demand that17any of your subordinates and those in the18inner circle, the chancellors or the vicar19generals or auxiliary bishops, ever retrieve20any files of those who had been accused so21that you could make an independent decision to22review those files yourself?23A.Could you repeat the question?24Q.Had you ever reviewed any of the files, except25for what you just described involving Adamson441and Montero prepared for you, have you,2yourself, ever reviewed any of the priest3files personally so that you could be4satisfied that you were making the right5decisions concerning that priest?6A.Well --7MR. HAWS:89Object to the form, it'scompound and -A.We've had in -- since December a complete10review of the files by an outside company11called Kinsale.12BY MR. ANDERSON:13Q.1415That's something you delegated, though,isn't it, to somebody else?A.1617Okay.Something that we hired a group, outsidecompany for, yes.Q.Now, I'm asking you personally.Have you ever18said, "I want to review the file of Father X,"19and have that file produced to you in its20entirety so you could make a fully informed21decision about what to do or not to do?22you personally ever done that?Have23A.I don't recall that I have.24Q.And until recently, you had delegated that25responsibility, then, to whom?451A.To the delegate for safe environments.2Q.And that would have been McDonough?3A.It was Father McDonough until about a year ago4when Father Dan Griffith, another priest of5the archdiocese, took that position over.6Q.And did you make the decision to remove7McDonough because of disclosures about how he8had handled this publicly and there was both9criticism and scrutiny of that?10A.No.I realized that he had multiple11responsibilities, he'd been in the job for 1712years and I felt it was time that we needed a13change.14Q.Excuse me.Have you at any time warned, penalized or15reprimanded McDonough for the way he handled16his job as the delegate for safe environment17under your charge?18A.I don't believe so, sir.19Q.Do you fault him for any of the decisions he2021made or recommendations to you now?A.I've always believed that Father McDonough had22the -- the best intentions.He certainly23shared with me the priority we had of24maintaining safe environments in our parishes,25our schools and our other programs.461Q.My question goes to actions, not intentions.2Have you ever reprimanded or criticized or3faulted him for any of his actions taken4concerning any of these priests who have5offended and have been accused of offending?6A.I don't recall having done so.7Q.As you reflect today and look back at the8history now before you, do you fault him for9any of the decisions that he made as your10delegate and/or as vicar general in this11archdiocese concerning the safety of children?12A.The only thing that comes to my mind is the13fact that I learned subsequent to --14subsequent to the -- the fact that when Father15Wehmeyer was arrested for drunk driving, that16that was not shared with the trustees and I --17there was some reason that he had for not18doing that.19decision.20I disagreed with him in thatThat's the only one I can think of.(Discussion out of the hearing of21the court reporter)22BY MR. ANDERSON:23Q.Any other decisions concerning sexual abuse of24minors and Father McDonough's actions25pertaining to that that you either fault or471now look back upon as deficient in the2protection of children?34MR. HAWS:A.56Object to the form.Could you rephrase that question, please?BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.Any other actions taken by Kevin McDonough as7your delegate for safe environment or as vicar8general that you look back on now and say, "He9blew it when it comes to protection of the10children and the recommendation he made to11me"?12MR. HAWS:1314argumentative.A.1516Object to the form, it'sGo ahead.I don't believe so, no.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.17So you think he did a good job about that,huh?18A.I believe he did.19Q.Do you think you're doing a good job?20A.I believe I am, yes.21(Discussion out of the hearing of22the court reporter)23BY MR. ANDERSON:2425Q.Have you, yourself, when you reflect on whathas happened to date and all that has been481revealed to you to this date and time, have2you, yourself, made any mistakes in failing to3protect children and provide the safe4environment to this community that you5promised when you took the job?6A.The only mistakes that I know for sure I made7was not removing the faculties from Father8Lavan, but I didn't know that that was9happening at the time.10Once I learned it, I-- I acted.11Q.Any others?Is that it?12A.That's it.13Q.Let's talk about Father Lavan, then, for a14moment.15and as a part of the Charter for the16Protection of Children adopted in 2002 to17believe that this archdiocese has a zero18tolerance policy when it comes to sexual19abuse, is that correct?20A.2122You continued to maintain publiclyWe have tried to maintain that as ourstandard, yes.Q.And you say you have tried to maintain that as23your standard.24your standard?25A.Have you maintained that asI believe we have.I think the record shows491that in the last 20 years, we have had two2incidents; now, those are two too many, but3two incidents in which a child had been abused4by priests who were in ministry at the time.5Q.6And what two priests are you referring to,Archbishop?7A.Father Francis Montero and Father Wehmeyer.8Q.And how was, then, the zero tolerance policy9as represented to the people violated as it10pertains to Father Freddy Montero?11MR. HAWS:12misstates facts.13BY MR. ANDERSON:Well, objection, thatHe didn't say that it was.14Q.Didn't you say that it was?15A.Did I say what?16Q.Didn't you say that the zero tolerance policy1718was not adhered to when it came to Montero?A.No.I didn't say that.We -- we immediately19removed him from ministry and turned the case20over to the police, so I believe that we21maintained the zero policy that we had.22Q.Did you ever review the Montero file itself?23A.No.24Q.Were you aware that Montero was living with25Father Kevin McDonough?501A.I believe I did know that.2Q.Were you aware that Father McDonough had some3responsibilities for supervision over him4because Montero was an extern priest from5Ecuador?6A.78Well, my understanding was that he -- he livedin the rectory at St. Peter Claver.Q.9And that's where Father McDonough was assignedas pastor?10A.Correct.11Q.And he was assigned there so McDonough could12keep an eye on him; were you aware of that?13A.I was not aware of that.14Q.Were you aware that Montero --15A.That was before my time.16Q.Were you aware that Montero was allowed to17leave this archdiocese and return to Ecuador18before the police could complete an adequate19investigation?20MR. HAWS:2122Objection, it misstatesthe facts and the evidence.A.My understanding of the facts is that he --23the -- the -- the charges against him were24dropped before he left the country.25BY MR. ANDERSON:511Q.2Do you have any information that the policeinvestigation had not been completed?3A.No, I don't.4Q.Are you aware that as soon as Montero was5allowed to leave the archdiocese and return to6his home diocese in Ecuador, he was placed in7active ministry?8A.9arose.1011We removed his faculties when the accusationWe never gave him back faculties andhe returned home to his own home diocese.Q.And did you tell the bishop of his home12diocese that his faculties had been removed13because an accusation of child sexual abuse14had been made against him?15A.16Yes, I believe Bishop Pates was the one thatwrote to the bishop about that.17Q.And what bishop did Bishop Pates write to?18A.To the bishop of the diocese, I can't recall1920the -- the exact diocese in Ecuador.Q.And were you aware that Father Montero was21immediately returned to active ministry in22Ecuador?23A.2425I would only be speculating to say that I did.I -- I don't know for sure.Q.I called Father Montero shortly after we521learned and brought suit concerning that case2that he was in Ecuador and talked with him and3he was, then, in active ministry; and did you4know that we had a conversation with him?5A.I did not.6Q.Did you see anything in the Montero file that7you reviewed that we had had such a8conversation?9A.I did not specifically review the Montero10file.11chancellor.12Q.I had a summary from my civilFather Montero did not indicate that any13restrictions on his faculties had been placed14and he was in active ministry.15concern you that he's now in Ecuador in active16ministry?17A.Does thatWell, I believe that's why Bishop Pates wrote18the letter to the bishop, we were concerned19about that.20Q.But I'm talking about today, about the kids in21Ecuador.Having reviewed what Mr. Kueppers22gave you in preparation for this deposition23and having reviewed that, are you now24concerned that maybe something more should be25done about Montero being in Ecuador, given the531benefit of what you now know that you didn't2before?3MR. HAWS:45argumentative.A.67Objection, it'sGo ahead.I would agree to that, yes.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.Maybe we should do something about that.I8was able to call him and talk to him.Maybe9this would be a great opportunity for you to10directly contact the bishop of Ecuador and11say, "Bishop, we do have concerns based on12what Mr. Kueppers has told me and the13information we have about the safety of the14children in Ecuador, about Freddie Montero."15Maybe you should give him a full disclosure of16what you know here and about what happened.17Do you think that's a good idea?18MR. HAWS:Objection, that has19nothing to do with this case, counsel.20argumentative, it's a speech, it's compound,21asks dozens of questions within it, it assumes22facts not in evidence, it's your facts.23question and he can answer.24MR. ANDERSON:25MR. HAWS:It'sAsk aSpeaking objections.Ask a good --5412BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.Are you willing --3MR. HAWS:4question.5BY MR. ANDERSON:6Q.7Are you willing to do that, Archbishop?MR. HAWS:8-- question that's oneWilling to do what?BY MR. ANDERSON:9Q.Contact the bishop in Ecuador --10A.As I indicated --11Q.-- about Freddie Montero.12A.As I indicated before, he's already been13contacted, yes.14archbishop.15again and to share my concerns with him, yes.16Q.17That happened before I becameI would be willing to contact himI would appreciate that.I think it's veryimportant that you do that.Thank you.18A.You're welcome.19Q.Have you at any time reprimanded, punished,20demoted or taken any action against any priest21for -- or official for their mishandling of22childhood sexual abuse while archbishop?23A.2425Could you repeat the question again?You hadseveral verbs there.Q.Have you at any time reprimanded, punished,551demoted or taken any disciplinary action2against any priest or official of the3archdiocese for their mishandling of child4sexual abuse allegations?5A.I don't believe so, no.6Q.Do you believe you should have?7A.No.8(Discussion out of the hearing of9the court reporter)1011BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.Do you believe there are any priests in the12archdiocese or officials in the archdiocese13that have mishandled childhood sexual abuse?14MR. HAWS:15At what point in time?BY MR. ANDERSON:16Q.Allegations since your installation.17A.No.18Q.Father Michael Stevens, what do you know about19I don't believe so.him?20A.I don't.21Q.Are you aware that in mid-1980s, he pled22guilty to criminal sexual conduct with a23minor?24A.I'm not, no.25Q.Are you aware that in 2002, he was publicly --561excuse me, he was removed from ministry?2A.I'm not aware of that.3Q.At any time, are you aware that the4parishioners or the public were ever informed5that Father Michael Stevens posed a risk of6harm to the children in the archdiocese?7A.That was all before my time.8Q.Are you aware that Father Michael Stevens is9in monitoring?10A.Excuse me?11Q.Are you aware that Father Michael Stevens is12on monitoring now?13A.In the POMS program, yes.14Q.And the only ones that know that are now us15and those in your inner circle, correct?16MR. HAWS:Object to the form.17don't know if "inner circle" --18BY MR. ANDERSON:19Q.IWell, the inner circle would be the20chancellors, the auxiliary bishops and vicar21generals and your officials and the monitors.22A.I don't know that for -- as fact.23Q.Are you aware that Father Michael Stevens,24while on monitoring, still performs IT work25for the archdiocese and for various parishes?571A.2My understanding is that he had in the past,but no longer does perform that service.3Q.And he is still a priest, correct?4A.I believe that's correct.5(Discussion out of the hearing of6the court reporter)7BY MR. ANDERSON:8Q.9in parishes and for the archdiocese while a1011priest?A.1213And when, then, did he stop doing the IT workIt was some time ago, but I can't tell you theexact date.Q.14What prompted the revocation or termination ofhis IT work?15A.I don't have that answer.16Q.Who does?17A.I would presume Father McDonough would know.1819I think that that happened under his watch.Q.20His watch as promoter, but your watch asarchbishop, correct?21A.I don't have those dates.22Q.Does it concern you to hear and learn that you23had and have a priest by the name of Michael24Stevens who was on the monitoring plan -- and25by the way, that monitoring plan, did you581inherit that from your predecessor or did you2start that?3A.I inherited it from my predecessor.4Q.Does it concern you that you have Michael5Stevens on such a monitoring plan and that he6is still a priest and allowed to go into7parishes and do IT work, knowing that he had8been accused and not under monitoring?9A.It would be a cause for concern.10Q.Isn't it a conscious choice being made by11Father McDonough to take the risk to let that12guy out there as a priest even work in the13parishes?14MR. HAWS:Objection, that's15argumentative and misstates facts and16evidence.17A.I would have to talk to Father McDonough about18that.19BY MR. ANDERSON:20Q.Do you think it deserves some attention?21A.I -- I would be willing to talk to Father2223McDonough about that.Q.Thank you.Now, there is some indication that24Deacon Rourke is the monitor of Stevens.25you aware of that?Are591A.Deacon O'Rourke was the POMS person, that's2the name I couldn't remember before, but Mr.3John Selvig is now the monitor.4Q.5Is it O'Rourke or Rourke?I've seen it bothways.6A.Yeah, I can't tell you.7Q.Okay.I've got it as Rourke.8MR. KUEPPERS:That's correct.9MR. ANDERSON:Okay.1011Thank you.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.Are you aware, Archbishop, that Father12McDonough communicated to the monitor, Rourke,13concerning Stevens that Stevens was in four to14five parishes and the pastors in those --15doing IT work and a priest, the pastors had16not been informed of the fact that Stevens had17been accused of sexual molestation?18MR. HAWS:19referring to?20BY MR. ANDERSON:On what date are you21Q.I'm just asking if you're aware of that.22A.I was not aware of that.23Q.Are you aware that Jennifer Haselberger, your24former chancellor for canonical affairs,25raised concerns with Father Laird in 2011601about Stevens' status as a priest in the2parishes doing this IT work and that he had3had a criminal conviction?4A.I was not aware of that.5Q.Is it your testimony that Father Laird never6discussed that topic with you?7A.To the best of my recollection, he did not.8Q.Is it your testimony that Jennifer Haselberger9never brought to your attention concerns that10Stevens would not be working in the parishes,11being able to do IT work if he had been a12layperson because he wouldn't have gotten by a13record check?14A.15I am not aware that Jennifer ever brought thatto my attention.16Q.Did you remove Father Laird as vicar general?17A.I did not.18Q.Did he resign?19A.He did.20Q.Why?21A.To the best of my recollection, he had22disagreed with me at the time that I had made23Father Wehmeyer pastor of Blessed Sacrament24and St. Thomas the Apostle parishes and he25felt that when the MPR story came out on the61128th of September, that that reflected poorly2on himself and he felt that he had to resign3because of it.4Q.Did you ask him to resign?5A.I did not.6Q.Do you hold him responsible for the failures7that led to his resignation or do you hold8yourself?9A.I don't know what --10MR. HAWS:Objection, it assumes11facts not in evidence.12one's discussed failures.13A.about.15BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.Well, you referred to the MPR story.17the MPR story that caused the ultimate18resignation?19MR. HAWS:not what he stated, either, counsel.21ask questions that are questions --232425What wasWell, objection.2022NoI don't know what failures you'd be talking1416What failures?MR. ANDERSON:That'sTry toJust a minute.Don'tinstruct me.MR. HAWS:-- and not put -- I'minstructing you, counsel, because you continue621to misstate evidence and try to create your2own evidence by putting facts into a question3that don't exist.4statement.5That's an inaccurateMR. ANDERSON:6rephrase.7BY MR. ANDERSON:Just stop.I'll8Q.Did the MPR story trigger Laird's resignation?9A.I believe it did.10Q.Okay.1112What was it that caused -- in the MPRstory that triggered it?A.Well, I -- we didn't talk about that13specifically, so you'd have to talk to him14about that.15said -- he used the expression, "I'm being16painted with the same brush you are."17said, "I need to resign to maintain my18integrity."19Q.But my recollection is that heAnd heI'm sorry, I wasn't able -- there was20pounding, I didn't hear what you said he said.21Could you repeat that?22A.He used the expression -- he said, "The media23is painting us with the same brush, and for my24own integrity, I need to resign."25that's what he said.I believe631Q.23Did you feel bad for Laird and consider him tohave been a victim?A.I don't know that I considered him a victim,4but I felt badly that he felt he had to5resign, yes.6Q.There was an audio recording made of a meeting7you had with priests and reported by MPR where8I think, to paraphrase, you described Father9Laird as having been a victim in this whole10thing.11priests in the meeting?12A.Did you use those terms to your fellowI don't recall.I remember the event and I --13I spoke positively about Father Laird and the14contributions he had made to the archdiocese.15I don't remember the exact words I used.16Q.17Did you listen to the MPR recording of yourown words about Father Laird?18A.I did not.19Q.Did you hear about that?20A.I heard that they -- I heard that that was --21surreptitiously and secretly that that22recording was made, but I didn't listen to it.23(Discussion out of the hearing of24the court reporter)25BY MR. ANDERSON:641Q.2Did you discipline anybody or investigateanybody for having made such a recording?3A.I did not.4Q.Do you know who did?5A.No, I don't.6MR. HAWS:7the --8BY MR. ANDERSON:Who did what?Who did9Q.The recording.10A.There were only probably nine people, ten11people in the room, but if I were to guess, it12would just be a guess as to who it was.13Q.Okay.14Don't need you to guess.Archbishop, I'd like to ask you15about Father Gilbert Gustafson.16status in the archdiocese is what?17A.I believe that he is retired.His currentHe -- he's in18our monitoring program and he's living on his19own.20Q.21You're aware that he had been convicted ofcriminal sexual conduct?22A.I was, yes.23Q.When did you first become aware of that?24A.I think during the -- the last six months.25Q.Were you aware that he had been at some point651in time, either prior to or after your2installation, working at the archdiocese3offices in the tribunal?4A.I was not aware of that, no.5Q.Were you aware that a protest had been done,6prior to your installation, at the Chancery7about Gustafson's presence as a priest at the8archdiocese?9A.I was not aware of that.10Q.Are you aware that Father Gustafson has worked11as a consultant at Cristo Rey Jesuit High12School?13A.14I learned about that just recently.I wasn'taware of it at the time.15Q.And when did you learn that?16A.I believe -- I believe I -- I learned that in1718the -- as a result of the Kinsale file review.Q.Were you aware that Father Gustafson, after19some -- after a lawsuit was brought against20him by Anne Bonse, who became quite public21about it, was placed on disability and is now22receiving disability payments?23A.I'm not aware of that.24Q.Are you aware that there is an insurance25company in the archdiocese that insures the661archdiocese and priests in it --2A.Yes, I am.3Q.-- that qualifies somebody such as Gil4Gustafson for disability?5A.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 the89moment.Q.10Is that administered effectively by youroffice --11A.It would be --12Q.-- at least under the control of?13A.It would be done through our finance office.14Q.And are you aware that Gil Gustafson, as we15speak here today, is receiving disability16payments every month for the diagnosis of17pedophilia?18A.I was not aware of that, no.19Q.Do you know what pedophilia is?20A.I do.21Q.Do you think that's appropriate, Archbishop,22for him to be getting disability payments for23having the diagnosis and having been24established as being a compulsive sexual25offender that qualifies him for that6712diagnosis?A.I'm not aware of those facts.3MR. HAWS:Objection, that's a legal4conclusion.5also a legal conclusion.6that the Archbishop is qualified to evaluate7who it qualifies under its insurance policies8for disability, counsel.9A.1011There's no foundation here, butAnd I don't thinkI'm not aware of those facts.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.Okay.When you say you know what pedophilia12is, let's make sure we're talking about the13same thing.14A.Okay.15Q.Under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual16used by mental health practitioners and for17purposes of establishing disability and the18like and other reasons, pedophilia is defined19as a compulsive sexual interest in20prepubescent adolescents.21diagnosis in mind and now being informed that22he is getting, through this program,23disability payments for that diagnosis, does24that concern you?25MR. HAWS:Now, keeping thatSame objections and,681Archbishop, I don't know if you -- if you know2how to answer how he qualifies under an3insurance policy contract, you can answer.4you don't, you can advise that you don't5understand or know.6A.I don't understand and I -- I -- I have not7had those facts.8facts to see where the truth lies.9BY MR. ANDERSON:10Q.IfI'd have to look into theWell, does it concern you, having heard what11you just did, that he was working at Cristo12Rey and allowed to?13A.That would -- would have been a concern, yes.14Q.Why haven't you gone back to the files15pertaining to Gil Gustafson and others like16him, Stevens and LaVan and those that we've17discussed at least so far, and made sure that18you're abiding by the promise of zero19tolerance and the safety of the children in20this archdiocese?21MR. HAWS:There's no evidence,22counsel.You've implied that that hasn't --23that there's been some violation of zero24tolerance and there's no evidence of that, so25your statements again, if they're --691MR. ANDERSON:2If you have anobjection, state a legal objection.3MR. HAWS:4I do, counsel.Myconcern --5MR. ANDERSON:6Don't give me aspeech.7MR. HAWS:No.Here's my concern,8counsel.You are trying to make sound bites9for yourself and for media by inserting facts10that do not exist.11and imply that there's some violation when12there is not, that is unfair and it's13inappropriate.14archbishop questions about which he knows and15can answer, he'll do his best.16imply and don't create your facts for a media17sound bite.18So if you want to ask theBut don't(Discussion out of the hearing of19the court reporter)20BY MR. ANDERSON:21And so when you say thatQ.Why do you think you don't know that one of22your priests, Gil Gustafson, is getting23payments for a diagnosis of pedophilia while24he works at Cristo Rey?25A.Well, I would have to look into the facts.701You're -- you're telling me facts that may or2may not be true and I would have to look into3that.4mentioned, go through 800 files and they're5still in the process of doing that.6that their findings are going to be7enlightening for us and we will follow up on8whatever they -- they have come up with.We just had this Kinsale group, as I9(Discussion out of the hearing of10the court reporter)11BY MR. ANDERSON:12I suspectQ.Do you consider it a violation of the promises13you made to the people and the zero tolerance14policy to have allowed LaVan to have worked in15a parish?16A.I didn't know he was working in parishes.17was retired, and so he shouldn't have been18working in the parish.He19Q.You learned he was, though, didn't you?20A.Just recently I've learned.21Q.So it was a violation, wasn't it?22A.Well, we took him out of ministry as soon as23we learned.24Q.You say "we learned."25A.I learned.I learned.I'm sorry.711Q.That means other people learning.He couldn't2have been in there without other people having3known, right, other people under your control?4A.I don't know that as a fact.5(Discussion out of the hearing of6the court reporter)7MR. FINNEGAN:8You want to take abreak?9THE WITNESS:10MR. HAWS:11We can take a break.Is it a good time to takea break?12MR. ANDERSON:13MR. HAWS:14MR. ANDERSON:15MR. HIBBEN:16Sure, if you like.Okay.Thanks.We're going off therecord at 10:31 a.m.17(Recess taken)18MR. HIBBEN:This is video number 219in the deposition of Archbishop John20Nienstedt, taken on April 2nd, 2014.21is 10:47 a.m.22BY MR. ANDERSON:23Q.Time nowArchbishop, going back to the monitoring24program for a moment, today, are there25currently any priests on the monitoring721program pertaining to accusations of sexual2abuse of minors?3A.4Are there -- those on the -- on the POMSprogram?5Q.Yes.6A.Yes, there would be.7Q.How many?8A.Well, living members who are on our website.9Q.You're talking about the 36 that are living --10A.The --11Q.-- that are still priests?12A.Thirty-six, that would be -- yes.13Q.Did you say six or 36?14A.Thirty-six, I think.1516That's my recollection,anyhow.Q.So is it your testimony that if they're still17a priest and still alive, but on the list of18credibly accused as reported on the website,19which is 36 in number, they are on the POMS20monitoring program?21A.My understanding is yes, although they have22been taken out of ministry and they've had23their faculties removed, so they can't24function as priests any longer.25Q.Are there any that are on monitoring that are7312not on that list currently?A.Yes, there would be because the -- the3monitoring program includes those who have4abused children, but also includes others who5have not abused children, but who have maybe6had a drinking problem or a problem with a --7an adult, some -- some form of bad behavior.8Q.9Are there any that are on monitoringpertaining to sexual misconduct?10A.Yes, there would be.11Q.Has that been made public and known to any of1213the parishioners or the public?A.If there's an accusation of sexual misconduct,14we ask the individual priest to step aside15from ministry and that becomes known to the --16the public, yes.17Q.Is there an instance where you can point to18where the priest has stepped aside, resigned19from ministry and the reason for that has been20disclosed as allegations of sexual misconduct?21A.2223You -- you lost me there for a minute.Couldyou repeat that?Q.Have there been any instances that you've24disclosed that the reason they're stepping25aside or stepping down is because of741allegations of sexual misconduct?2A.Yes, there are cases of that.3Q.And what case?4A.I'm thinking of Father Huberty.5Q.Anybody else?6A.No one comes to mind.78That's the case thatcomes to mind as the most recent.Q.9Any cases that you know of where sexualmisconduct was involved and it wasn't10disclosed to the public and the parishioners11as to why the priest was taking a leave or a12sabbatical or resigning?13A.14To the best of my ability, I can't think of acase.15Q.What about Shelley?16A.Well --17Q.I mean, the parishioners weren't told that he18had been in possession of child pornography?19A.That's -- that's true.20Q.And they weren't told and the public was never21even alerted until October of this last year22when you made that public, were they?23A.Well --2425MR. HAWS:you've --Well, counsel, again,751MR. ANDERSON:2MR. HAWS:No.You've made your record3that's wrong and there's no evidence of child4pornography, as you said.5pornography.6try to assert your facts, they're different7maybe than the real facts.8questions.9A.The claim has beenAnd so let's be clear, when youAsk the properI -- I was going to make that intervention and10say that it was -- it was submitted to the St.11Paul Police Department twice and twice they12said they didn't find child pornography.13BY MR. ANDERSON:14Q.Was everything in possession of the15archdiocese files turned over to the police16for their investigation at the time they were17doing that?18A.Yes.19Q.Was the report done by Setter & Associates20Yes, sir.turned over to the police?21A.Yes, that was part of the file.22Q.Was the report done by Johnson, the forensic232425report?A.I believe that was part of the file.Weturned everything over in those three files,761everything that we had.2Q.Have you reviewed the Shelley file personally?3A.Personally, I -- I've -- I've read an awful4lot about that.5not gone through.6Q.Okay.The files themselves I haveWe'll go through that a little later.7Have you told the parishioners and the public8the names of all the priests in the POMS9program?10A.Well, there would be, as you stated before,11the -- the number that have been removed from12ministry and that would be known to the13public.14answer would be that everyone who has an15allegation of child sexual abuse would be16known to the public.17I'm not sure that those -- and so my(Discussion out of the hearing of18the court reporter)19BY MR. ANDERSON:20Q.I'm asking broader than that.I'm talking21about everybody in the program.22parishioners and the public been informed of23all the priests who are in the POMS program24for whatever reason?25A.Have theI'm pretty sure they -- they -- they have771been, but I can't say for sure.2is that they have been made known, they have3been disclosed.4Q.My impressionI get the impression that a lot of the5responsibility for the safety of the6parishioners and the public is delegated by7you to folks.8or not?9A.Is that a fair characterizationWell, I'm -- I -- typically I'm a hands-on10person and -- but I have to delegate11responsibilities, yes.12Q.You have been described by various people at13various times, priests included, both in New14Ulm and in the archdiocese, as a micro manager15in terms of your management style.16say that's a fair characterization?Would you17A.No.I don't think so.18Q.You would say a hands-on manager is a fair19characterization because I think those were20your words, right?21A.Correct.22Q.Do you feel you have taken a hands-on approach23to sexual abuse of priests -- excuse me,24sexual abuse of minors by priests in this25archdiocese?781A.Yes, I believe so.2Q.What action, besides the POMS program that3you've talked about, demonstrates your4hands-on approach to sexual abuse by priests5in this archdiocese?6A.Well, the whole VIRTUS program that we have7that assures us that people are being -- that8people are receiving background checks,9they're given training in terms of what to10look for, signs.We've had clergy study days11in which we've discussed all these related12issues.13Q.Anything else?14A.It doesn't come to mind.15Q.I'd like to ask you about Joseph Gallatin.16he on any list?17A.He would be on the POMS program.18Q.And besides those -- and that would be for19sexual misconduct pertaining to minors,20correct?21A.It was an allegation.That allegation is22being investigated now and so I can't say23definitively that it was.2425IsQ.When you say "being investigated," is that bythe police?791A.Yes.2Q.Do you have a practice that if an allegation3is being investigated by the police, that you4do not take action as to that priest because5you believe that to do so would suggest the6priest's guilt?7A.No.That's not correct.8Q.Just a moment.9A.Okay.10MR. HAWS:11We -- we --Well, let him -- he cananswer his question.12MR. ANDERSON:13He said that's notcorrect.14MR. HAWS:15you why.He can answer and tellSo you can finish, Archbishop.16MR. FINNEGAN:17MR. HAWS:He can ask him why.He can finish his18question -- an answer to the question.19BY MR. ANDERSON:20Q.Is your answer no?21A.Could you repeat the question, please?2223I'm alittle confused right now.Q.Do you have a practice that if a priest is24being investigated by the police for child25sexual abuse, that you do not take any public801action as to that priest because you believe2to do so would suggest the guilt of the3priest?4A.No, sir.5Q.Have you ever expressed that view to any of6those who occupy positions as officials in the7archdiocese, such as your current chancellors8or your former chancellors or your auxiliary9bishops or vicar generals?10A.No.Because we let the police do their own11work and then we would have our own12investigation.13that deals with precisely the charter issues,14and then we have a ministerial standards board15that we set up for everything else.16would be the areas that would ask for and do17the investigation.18Q.We have two boards set up, oneAnd thoseDid you ever express that view or practice or19the desire to employ such a practice to20Jennifer Haselberger?21MR. HAWS:22practice?23BY MR. ANDERSON:2425Q.I'm sorry, what view orThe view that you would take no actionconcerning a priest while there's a police8112investigation.A.3Well, we do take the action of removing themfrom ministry.4Q.But do you say why?5A.It depends on the case.6Q.Okay.And do you also choose not to tell the7people in the pews in the parishes and the8public because you don't want the suggestion9of guilt of the priest to have been made by1011that disclosure?A.Well, by the very fact that the priest is12removed from the public ministry is a signal13to the people that something's wrong, but we14don't -- we haven't done our investigation.15Q.Well, Father Jon Shelley went on sabbatical16and he told everybody he went on sabbatical,17right?18A.He did, I believe, yes.19Q.That was under your -- with your permission20that he told everybody that, right?21A.That's true, he was on sabbatical.22Q.But the fact of the matter was that it had23been discovered that he had been in possession24of possible child pornography?25MR. HAWS:Well, objection.That821misstates the facts and evidence as well.2BY MR. ANDERSON:3Q.Is that correct?4A.No.It's not correct.The -- he was in5possession of pornography, but he was never6accused of a crime.7Q.Is it your belief that for him to be guilty of8the crime of sexual abuse or possession of9child pornography, he has to be charged with1011it by the law enforcement authorities?A.Our standard practice is that when we receive12an allegation or we have reason to believe13that there has been a violation, we turn that14matter over to the police immediately, which15is what we did in his case.16Q.And then if the police do not charge, is it,17then, your belief and practice that the priest18is effectively exonerated?19A.We would do our own investigation after that.20Q.And --21(Discussion out of the hearing of22the court reporter)23BY MR. ANDERSON:2425Q.You said that Shelley was turned over to thepolice.When was that?831A.When the incident -- prior to my time, so I2can't give you a date, but it was on, my3understanding, two -- two occasions that that4was given -- the files were given to the5police.6Q.In 2004, you're aware that your predecessor,7Archbishop Flynn, and his subordinates became8aware of his possession of materials that were9borderline child pornography at least,10correct?11MR. HAWS:1213Objection, you're againmisstating facts.A.I don't know when that happened.I don't have14a recollection of that.15on two occasions, that computer was taken to16the police, but on two occasions it was also17said that it wasn't child pornography.18BY MR. ANDERSON:19Q.2021A.Did I?The incident happened prior to mybeing archbishop.Q.2425Did you ever, while the archbishop here, tellanyone to report Shelley to the police?2223I -- I do know thatI know.But he continued as a priest whileyou were archbishop.A.That's true.841Q.23although he is on sabbatical, correct?A.45And he continues as a priest to this day,He's on a leave of absence at this presentmoment.Q.And when he took that leave, he told the6people that he was going on sabbatical, did he7not?8A.Yes, he did.9Q.And a party was held?10A.I don't know that.11Q.So my question to you is, did you personally12order anyone in your charge to report Shelley13to police?14A.I don't know that I did, no.15Q.You say you don't know that you did.1617does that mean?A.1819WhatWell, I don't have the recollection of havingdone that.Q.So you don't recall ever having told anybody20or instructed anybody to report to the police21or having done it yourself, correct?22A.My understanding is that there was a question23on the part of my canonical chancellor as to24the matter to the -- of the computer, and my25moderator of curia, Father Laird at the time,851instructed her to take it to the police.2Q.Are you referring to Jennifer Haselberger?3A.I am.4Q.She was urging you to report to the police,56wasn't she?A.I thought she was working in our priests' work7group and the topic came up and my8understanding was that Father Laird had9instructed her to take that to the police.10Q.Archbishop, you wrote a letter to the C.D.F.,11the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith and12Cardinal Levada, specifically stating that13your concern that your advisors had told you14that you may be in violation of the law by15reason of possible possession of child16pornography previously possessed by Shelley,17correct?18A.No.19Q.Never wrote such a letter?20A.No.The letter was drafted by Jennifer21Haselberger, but when I read it, I did further22investigation, realized that this was not23correct and the letter was never sent.24Q.And did you look at the images?25A.I did, she showed me some images, yes.861Q.She claims that those images that she brought2to you and showed to you were child3pornography or borderline child pornography4and should have been reported to the police,5correct?6A.7No.I looked at those images and I could nottell whether they were adolescents or older.8Q.It was a close call, wasn't it?9A.It was, yes.10Q.Yeah.And so she urged you to turn that over11to the law enforcement for them to make that12determination, didn't she?13A.She may have, but it had already been turned14over to the police department and the verdict15had come back that it wasn't child16pornography.17Q.You're talking about in 2004?18A.Well, probably, yes.19Q.Well, what are you talking about?2021It hadalready been turned over?A.It had been given to the St. Paul Police22Department and the police department had said23it wasn't child pornography.2425Q.When Jennifer Haselberger placed the imagesbefore you and you looked at them, correct?871A.Correct.2Q.She urged you, because they were borderline3and you couldn't make the determination and by4looking at them you couldn't make the5determination and didn't, that it should go to6the police, correct?7A.8She -- I don't recall her at the time sayingthat.9Q.What did she say?10A.I don't recall.11Q.When did you view those images, Archbishop?12A.I -- I don't recall the exact date.I -- I'm13trying to think, but I -- I can't recall the14exact time.15(Discussion out of the hearing of16the court reporter)17BY MR. ANDERSON:18Q.When you made the determination that you,19yourself couldn't tell on viewing those images20whether it was adolescents or adults, did you21report that to the police?22A.I did not.23Q.You're a mandatory reporter, aren't you?24A.I am.25Q.And you're aware as a mandatory reporter that881you are required to report immediately any2suspicions of child abuse, correct?3A.Correct.4Q.And you're also aware that pornographic images56of children is child abuse?A.78Correct.I was not able to determine thatthat was child pornography.Q.9Why do you think we have reporting statutes?It's for the police and professionals to make10that determination?11A.Correct, and they already had.12Q.When did you learn they had already determined13that these images were not illegal?14A.Prior to the time of her showing them to me.15Q.Who told you the police had made that16determination?17A.I believe it was Father McDonough.18Q.When did he tell you that?1920you viewed those images?A.212225I don't recall.It was sometime before, Ibelieve.Q.2324How soon beforeWhat does "sometime" mean, a month, a week aday?A.I'm trying to recollect and I don't -- I don'thave that answer.891Q.Jennifer Haselberger was telling you that she2believed them to have been child abuse and, in3fact, pornographic images of children,4correct?5A.67true.Q.89I believe that she -- she believed that to beYes.And Kevin McDonough also had viewedthose images, correct?A.10To the best of my recollection, I think hehad.11Q.And he took a different view, didn't he?12A.He did.13Q.And what was his view expressed to you?14A.Well, I can't say for sure that he expressed15this to me, but I know that from others that16he believed that they were not child17pornography.18Q.1920Did McDonough tell you he had reported it tothe police?A.He told me that the -- that in 2004 that the21computer and everything on it and the -- the22disks had been reported to the police, yes.23Q.So you were relying on McDonough's24representation to you in 2000 -- I think it's25'12, that it had been reported back to the901police in 2004, is that what you're telling us2today?3A.Yes.4Q.Did you ever learn if it actually had been5reported to the police in 2004?6A.Well, yes.7Q.What informs you that in fact the police had8received a report concerning these images in92004?10A.See, there was a record.11Q.A record in the file?12A.Yes.13Q.Prepared by whom?14A.I can't tell -- answer that.15(Discussion out of the hearing of16the court reporter)17BY MR. ANDERSON:18Q.1920When did you see that record that you'rerelying upon for that assertion?A.When the whole matter was brought up about21whether or not the whole file had been turned22over, there was some discrepancy there,23Jennifer believed that the whole file hadn't24been turned over.25investigation with the -- the person whoSubsequently when we did an911worked on the computer, and he indicated that2everything had been encrypted into those3files.4Q.What person are you referring to?5A.I think it was the -- whoever worked for the67Setter Corporation.Q.There is a record that that person's report8and the forensic report done by them has been9withheld by your lawyer Tom Wieser from the10police.11A.That's not true.12Q.When was it turned over, then, by the1314archdiocese?A.Subsequent to that -- to -- to my seeing the15images, Jennifer took that to the St. Paul16Police Department and they had -- they were17given all the materials over again.18Q.19You did not instruct Jennifer to make thatreport, did you?20A.No.21Q.Did Father Laird tell you that he had told her22Father Laird did.to report?23A.Yes.24Q.When was that that Laird told you that he had25instructed her to make such a report?921A.2I think it was in two -- 2012.I can't -- Ican't give you an exact date.3Q.Did Father Laird view the images?4A.I don't -- I can't say for sure.5Q.Then why was Laird involved in this6conversation about whether it should be7reported and how is it you now claim that it8was Laird that told Haselberger to make the9report?10A.Well, because we had a -- what we called a11priest working group that Father Laird started12when he came on board as the moderator of the13curia, they would meet twice a month and they14would review any misbehavior on the part of15any of the priests or deacons and they would16discuss this among themselves.17the canonical chancellor there, the civil18chancellor, the moderator and the delegate for19safe environments, so that everyone had a20complete picture of what was going on.21was at one of those meetings that this22question of the Shelley files came up, and23it's my understanding that Father Laird24indicated to Jennifer that she should take25that to the police.There would beAnd it931Q.Did you disagree with Laird?2A.No.3Q.Did you disagree with Jennifer Haselberger on4whether this should be reported to law5enforcement?6A.No.Not at the time, no.7Q.Did you express disagreement to her at any8time that she should not report this because9it was not a violation of the law or for some1011other reason?A.I suspect, thinking back on it, that I told12her that it had already been submitted to the13police and that, having received an answer14from them on their opinion of what was on the15-- on the file, that it was not necessary to16take it to the police a second time.17Q.And when you told her that, she told you in18fact the file does not reflect that it had19been reported to the police earlier, correct?20A.I don't believe so.21Q.Do you recall her becoming quite animated and22adamant about that?23A.I don't recall that, no.24Q.Did you instruct her to leave it alone?25A.She asked my opinion.I told her, "I cannot941make a judgment here.2looked at by the police.3be reasonable that we would take it back to4the police a second time."5Q.This has already beenIt doesn't seem toAnd you have no recollection of having been6told by her that, in fact, the police had not7examined this earlier, only internal8archdiocese officials and their consultant had9reviewed it?10A.It was not my understanding.My understanding11was it had been turned over to the police in122004.13Q.At that time when there was this differing14view, did you make an effort to actually15discern, by review of the file itself, whether16or not such a report had ever been actually17made to the police concerning Shelley?18A.1920If you're asking me if I reviewed the filewith that purpose in mind, no.Q.21I did not.What law enforcement agency do you believe itwas reported to?22A.St. Paul Police Department.23Q.And what date do you believe that was made?24A.I think you indicated in 2004.25Q.Who at the archdiocese made such a report, in9512your belief, in 2004?A.34Father McDonough.Q.56It would have been either Mr. Eisenzimmer orAre you speculating or do you have some reasonto believe they actually did?A.Well, they were the ones that had the7responsibility, so I -- I guess I am8speculating.9Q.So you're assuming that, aren't you?10A.I think with reasonable certitude.11Q.And you base that reasonable certitude on1213what?A.1415On the trust I have in the people who weretelling me that they had already done it.Q.So because you trust them and because you know16that this information was possessed in 2004,17you're assuming they made a report as required18by the law in 2004, is that correct?19MR. HAWS:20you're misstating the record.21MR. ANDERSON:22that's correct.23Well, I'm asking ifIf it's wrong, he can say so.MR. HAWS:2425Well, again, counselNo.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.Is that correct, Archbishop?961MR. HAWS:2MR. ANDERSON:3objection, make it.4MR. HAWS:No.Wait, Archbishop.If you have anI am making it, and, no.5Don't.Wait, Archbishop.6your facts are not the record.7create facts, okay?8You can'tYou can't misstate --MR. ANDERSON:9Counsel, again,Don't give me alecture.10MR. HAWS:I am giving you a lecture11because you continue to do it and it's12improper.13Now, he's already told you that someone told14him that and you've asked him five times at15least the same question.16ask another question in a proper way that has17information in it that asks him what the facts18are as opposed to your facts, that's fine.19BY MR. ANDERSON:20Q.212225So if you want toToday you can't tell me who made the report,can you?A.2324That's not what the law allows.I can tell you with reasonable certitude, butI cannot tell you for sure.Q.Okay.So who made the report with reasonablecertitude?971A.23McDonough.Q.45When did that person make that report withreasonable certitude?A.67I would suspect it would have been FatherWhen the matter was brought up in -apparently in 2004.Q.8The question is when do you know withreasonable certitude the report was made.9A.No.10Q.With reasonable certitude, to whom was that1112made?A.13To the -- I don't understand the question.Tothe St. Paul Police Department you mean?14Q.Who at the St. Paul Police Department?15A.I have no idea.16Q.And on what do you base your answers using theThat was before my time.17term "reasonable certitude" that the report18was made?19A.2021On the trust and confidence that I have in thepeople who were working for me.Q.2223On what do you base that?Have you ever seen a record that demonstratesin the file that such a report was made?A.I did not see a receipt, no.I was told that24there was one and I had no reason not to25believe it.981Q.And, again, who told you that?2A.I believe that would have been Mr.3Eisenzimmer.4Q.And when did he tell you that?5A.When the whole matter came up again in 2012.6Q.And have you reviewed anything since then that78demonstrates that not to have been the case?A.No.I have not.9(Discussion out of the hearing of10the court reporter)11BY MR. ANDERSON:12Q.Is it fair to say, then, that there was a13question -- or let me put it this way.14there a question in 2002 on whether a report15had been made -- excuse me.16question in 2012, as Shelley was being17discussed, whether Shelley had been reported18in 2004?19A.There was not a question.WasWas there aIt was taken as a20fact that that had already been turned over to21the police and the police had made a decision22on it.23Q.2425And the only fact that was taken from was whatAndy Eisenzimmer told you?A.I believe that's correct.991Q.And what did he say to you?2A.He explained that the three files -- I believe3there were three files -- that had been done4by the forensic persons had been taken to the5St. Paul Police Department.6Q.Anything else?7A.No.8Q.Did you inquire further?9A.I don't believe I did, but I -- I don't have a1011recollection of having asked that.Q.When you, yourself, reviewed those images and12had the concerns as you've expressed it,13Shelley was still in ministry, wasn't he?14A.15Not at the time that I saw those images, no.He had been taken out of ministry.16Q.What date had he been taken out of ministry?17A.I can't recall that.18Q.How long after, then, according to your19belief, was it -- well, what was the time20differential between his resignation or21sabbatical in ministry and you having viewed22those images?23A.I think he was on sabbatical for six months24and then he was put on a leave of absence, and25so it probably would have been about eight10012months, I think.Q.Okay.3I want to go for a moment to -(Discussion off the record)45That's my best guess.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.-- Jeff Gallatin.6MR. HAWS:I had begun to ask you -I'm sorry, let me just7interrupt real quickly.Anything with respect8to Shelley, starting with the Shelley9questioning till now when you switched gears10is to be put under seal and noted as under11seal pursuant to --12MR. ANDERSON:No, it's not.13Shelley's been a public matter.14anything that has been turned over here.15Shelley came up in the first hearing in16October of this last year concerning this very17matter.18nothing that was made by way of my questions19that we consider under seal.20take that position, your position is noted.21We're not going to discuss it further.22I've not usedIt's a very public matter.MR. HAWS:There'sIf you want toIt is noted.And23anything that involves Gallatin is the same,24but we'll -- that is for the record and we'll25have to address that with the court.And I1011raise these issues that we would make that2objection and note that to be addressed later.3I'm just telling you, counsel, that it4shouldn't be disclosed by you until it's5resolved.6MR. ANDERSON:So far any question7that I've asked, counsel, has not been in8reliance upon any information other than what9has already been made public and both known to10you and the public and reported.11nothing that has been produced in this case12that has been relied upon in the questions13that I've asked.14discussion.15Gallatin.16BY MR. ANDERSON:17Q.So there'sLater on, we'll get to thatAnd I'm now going to JosephIsn't it correct that there was a public18disclosure made by the archdiocese on December1929th, 2013, concerning Joseph Gallatin?20A.I believe that's true.21Q.So let's talk about that.2223MR. ANDERSON: And that's not underseal, right, counsel?Right?24MR. HAWS:Gallatin?25MR. ANDERSON:Yeah.1021MR. HAWS:2No.I think it is, isn'tit?3MR. ANDERSON:They're the ones that4made the public disclosure that Gallatin -- on5December 29th, 2013.6MR. HAWS:That's not under seal.Well, counsel, we have7the ones that are under seal, you're aware8which is under seal.9with you here.I'm not going to fightIt's under seal.And if you10violate the court order, you take your risk.11But we have said that the ones that are under12seal are not to be disclosed publicly until we13resolve that with the court.14bring your motion for good cause.15BY MR. ANDERSON:16Q.You have toLet's talk, Archbishop, about the public17disclosures and representations made to the18people about Gallatin on December 29th, 2013.19It's correct that the archdiocese admitted20that he'd been engaged in inappropriate21boundary violations with minors, is that22correct?23A.I believe so.24Q.Who made the determination that that was not25criminal sexual conduct?1031A.I -- I can't say.2Q.If you can't say, why did you allow it to be3described as inappropriate boundary violations4when it could have been criminal sexual5conduct and described as such?6A.There had been -- there had been an7investigation into this and there had been a8determination made that it was inappropriate9boundary violations, that it was not criminal10intent.11Q.An investigation by whom?12A.I'm trying to recall and I just can't recall1314right at the moment.Q.It was an internal investigation done by15somebody in the archdiocese, is that what16you're saying?17A.I can't recall in this particular instance18whether that was turned over to the police or19not.20Q.Has the Gallatin file, to your knowledge, ever21been turned over to the police in its22entirety?23A.I can't say for sure.24Q.To your knowledge, has any file of any priest25accused of sexual misconduct ever been turned1041over to the police in its entirety maintained2by the archdiocese?3A.45Again, I don't believe so, but I can't say forsure.Q.6And why do you guys withhold information frompolice?7MR. HAWS:8you've misstated --9Well, again, counselMR. ANDERSON:10MR. HAWS:No.Just a moment.Can you quit trying11to put words in for your sound bites?12inappropriate, counsel.13MR. ANDERSON:14That isGive me anappropriate legal objection to it.15MR. HAWS:What facts do you have to16state that they withheld a request that they17provide -- that the archdiocese provide a file18to the police?19BY MR. ANDERSON:20Q.Have you ever provided a file to the police?21MR. HAWS:Have they requested a22file?23inappropriate and you know it.24BY MR. ANDERSON:25Q.Counsel, your misstatements areHave you ever provided a file to the police?1051A.23We have provided to the police anythingthey've ever asked for.Q.No.Tell me this.4no.Has the archdiocese ever turned over any5file to law enforcement concerning sexual6allegations and a priest?7MR. HAWS:First answer this yes orAnd, Archbishop, your8last answer to his question, which was the9same one, was just fine.10MR. ANDERSON:11witness how to answer.12BY MR. ANDERSON:Don't instruct the13Q.Did you hear the question?14A.If you could repeat it again, please.15Q.Has the archdiocese ever turned over any file1617to law enforcement?A.18I don't know.(Discussion out of the hearing of19the court reporter)20BY MR. ANDERSON:21Q.Have you ever told any of your subordinates or22officials to turn over the files in the23possession of the archdiocese to law24enforcement to assist them in their25investigation?1061A.I have always made -- maintained that -- that2whatever the police ask for, we are3cooperative and we give them.4Q.5So is it your position and practice that youdon't turn it over unless they ask?6A.That is correct.7Q.What if you get a report from somebody other8than the police that a priest has abused?9A.We turn that over to the police.10Q.Yeah, but if the police don't ask, you don't1112turn it over, right?A.No.If we get -- if we had an allegation that13was credible, we would turn it over to the14police.15Q.Have you ever told the police that you keep16files on each of the priests, both in separate17locations, some secret locations, some not so18secret?19MR. HAWS:Objection, that misstates20evidence.21proper question and then he can answer your22questions.23A.Again, your games, counsel.There are no secret archives.Ask aThe files are24kept in a -- in a room.We had invited the25St. Paul Police Department to come in and view1071that room just a few weeks ago.2no intent whatsoever to withhold information3from the police.4BY MR. ANDERSON:5Q.There's no --Before a few weeks ago, had you ever told law6enforcement about the archival file room where7Jennifer Haselberger retrieved the Shelley8materials and the Wehmeyer materials and9brought them to you?10A.And -- and your question is --11MR. HAWS:12done that?13MR. ANDERSON:1415Whether the Archbishop'sYes.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.16Have you ever told police about that archivalfile before a few weeks ago?17A.I think they had been informed before that.18Q.By whom?19A.My understanding in terms of the Shelley case,20it was -- would have been Mr. Eisenzimmer.21was the one that worked closely with the22police.23Q.HeIn connection with Mark Wehmann,24W-e-h-m-a-n-n, there are some public25statements made by the archdiocese and I quote1081in a release done by the archdiocese, "There2were several incidents of inappropriate3conduct with minors involving boundary4violations."5use a descriptor "boundary violations" and6that it was not criminal sexual conduct?7A.8Who made the determination toI believe that would have been an internaldecision that had been made on that.9Q.Who made that?10A.It would have been Father Dan Griffith, who is11our new delegate for safe -- safe12environments.13Q.And do you know what he based that on or if he14interviewed or on what he based such a15determination?16A.Well, I think it -- he -- he knew that it17wasn't a question of sexual abuse and it was18inappropriate behavior.19Q.Was that reported to law enforcement?20A.I don't believe it was, no.21Q.Was Gallatin ever reported to law enforcement?22A.I have no recollection of that.23Q.So what qualifications does Dan Griffith have24to determine what's a crime and what's not a25crime?He's a priest, right?1091A.He's a priest, yes.Yes.Has a law degree.2Q.I mean, a civil law degree, right?3A.Civil law, yes.4Q.So what qualifications does he have in child5detection and the criminal investigation of6what constitutes a crime involving children7and what doesn't?8A.I don't know that I can answer that.9Q.There have been some public disclosures10concerning Father Keating and he was either11removed from ministry or resigned his position12on or about the same day that he was sued.13that your understanding, Archbishop?14A.IsThat is my understanding.15MR. HAWS:Before you get into16another one, counsel, I'm sorry, just Wehmann17is under seal as is Keating, if you get into18that.19MR. ANDERSON:This is public and it20-- it's already out there, counsel.21sued.22MR. HAWS:He's beenIt's our request it's23under seal and we'll take it up later.24BY MR. ANDERSON:25Q.What did you know about Keating and what he1101had been accused of and how it had been2handled before Keating got sued and that suit3made public?4A.The situation surrounding Father Keating5happened before my time as archbishop.6aware that something was going on when I7became coadjutor because I knew a relative of8the person who was involved in the case, but I9didn't know -- I didn't -- wasn't privy to --10to the case itself, to all the details of the11case.12Q.I wasCan you think of any priests that have neither13been discussed or identified that have --14well, let me put it this way.15for me the priests that actually have been16reported by the archdiocese, either you or17somebody at your direction, to law enforcement18for suspicions of sexual abuse under the19mandatory reporting act?20MR. HAWS:21You're talking aboutsince he became archbishop?2223Can you nameMR. ANDERSON:A.Yes.The case of -- the one case under my tenure24was the case of -- of Curtis Wehmeyer and we25reported that immediately.1111BY MR. ANDERSON:2Q.You say "we."Who is "we"?3A.Well, it would have -- the information came in4to the civil chancellor and the civil5chancellor notified another person on our6staff, Father McDonough, who was at the time7the delegate for safe environment.8also informed me that Father McDonough and9this Deacon Vomastek were being sent over toAnd he10tell Father -- Father Wehmeyer at the time to11leave the premises and to take a leave of12absence.13Q.When did Jennifer Haselberger first bring to14your attention that she believed that Wehmeyer15posed a risk of harm to the children in the16archdiocese if he was allowed to continue in17ministry?18MR. HAWS:Well, again, you're19assuming facts not in evidence.20statement, I don't know.21can answer whether that came to his attention,22listening to what he asked you, that's fine.23A.If that's aIf the archbishopJennifer prepared a memo for me prior to the24time that I had made him pastor of Blessed25Sacrament of St. Thomas the Apostle, pointing1121out that five years previously he had --2BY MR. ANDERSON:3Q.4The question was when now.When did she bringthis risk to your attention?5MR. HAWS:You're answering and6that's fine, Archbishop.7answer your question.8MR. ANDERSON:9question of when now.Counsel, he canYeah, I asked aI'm just trying to get10the anchor for the date here.11MR. HAWS:12A.And he's providing that.I can't tell you the -- the month or the date,13but I -- I think it was in 2008 prior to my14making him pastor.15administrator of Blessed Sacrament and we16were talking --17BY MR. ANDERSON:18Q.He was already parochialSo let's just get the when so we're talking19about the right time frame here.You're20talking about sometime in 2008, right?21A.Right.22Q.And you're saying that it was when Wehmeyer232425was at what parish?A.He was parochial administrator of BlessedSacrament in St. Paul.1131Q.23And are you able to identify the month in2008?A.It was shortly after I had become archbishop,4I became archbishop on the 2nd of May, so I5believe it would have been in the month of6June.7Q.And at that time, what did you learn about8Wehmeyer's fitness as a priest to continue in9ministry and the risk that may be posed by it?10A.The information that Jennifer brought to my11attention was that Father Wehmeyer had a same-12sex attraction, that he had approached two13young men in their mid-20s at a book store of14some sort and made an advance on them.15was reported to the -- I think that was five16years previously, that was reported to the17Chancery and Father Wehmeyer was sent off to a18rehabilitation program, a clinic, and came19back and had a -- I mean, it confirmed the20fact that he was same-sex attracted and he was21put on the monitoring program.22therapy once a month and spiritual direction23once a month.24being same-sex attracted as an indication that25he had any interest sexually in young childrenThatHe was to doAnd I obviously didn't see him1141and that he was a pedophile.2to believe that he was.3was fit at that time to take on these two4parishes.5Q.I had no reasonAnd I believe that heThere's some indication that in February of62009, Rourke was his monitor.7recollection of that?Do you have a8A.I think that would be true.9Q.And that you signed on to a monitoring plan at10that time.Do you recall that?11A.That I signed on?12Q.Did you sign on to monitoring plans?13A.For whom, please?14Q.Each of the priests that were being monitored1516for sexual abuse.A.1718Could you explain that?That program was already in place when Ibecame archbishop.Q.But in 2009, in order for somebody to go on19monitoring, didn't it require you or, as a20matter of practice and protocol, to approve21that?22A.Yes, that would have -- that would be true.23Q.And when did you place, then, Wehmeyer on the2425monitoring program?A.I believe, and I could be wrong on this, I1151believe that he was on the monitoring program2based on that previous incident.3Q.Yeah.I'm looking at some records and I think4that's correct.It looks like he had been on5monitoring for four years as of 2009.6that sound right?7A.That sounds right.8Q.Okay.9DoesDid you become aware, at least in 2009,then, that he'd been in monitoring for10misconduct in 2004 and in 2006 for seeking out11sexual encounters with 18-, 19-year-olds?12A.I didn't know about that second incident.13did know about the first incident, which14happened, I think, in 2004 in a book store15somewhere.16MR. HAWS:IAnd I don't think,17counsel, your words of 18, 19, I don't know18that that's what the Archbishop testified to.19You can ask him that.20your own facts --212223Again, you've insertedMR. ANDERSON:I'm asking him ifknew.MR. HAWS:Well, how is he -- he's24answered he knew, but you have your little25sound bite.It's completely inappropriate yet1161again that you insert your facts or what you2want to be the facts for whatever reasons.3Let's get to what the truth is and ask the4questions that the Archbishop can provide you.5Try to get to the truth and not made-up facts.6MR. ANDERSON:That little speech7doesn't count on our time.8documents.9MR. HAWS:And look at theYou ask him and then he10can answer.11is, then, fine, but don't just say things.12Ask him to answer those.13BY MR. ANDERSON:14Q.He can answer.If that's what itIn April of 2009, I think you just said that15-- well, let me put it this way.16you believe that Wehmeyer was fit to continue17in ministry without informing any of the18parishioners and the public that he was on the19monitoring program?20A.In 2009, didAt that time we didn't -- I -- I don't believe21that we had informed the trustees that he was22on the monitoring program.23Q.And you didn't inform anybody other than those24in the official position of the archdiocese,25so that would be your chancellors, the vicar11712general, yourself and the monitors, correct?A.At the time I don't believe so.If that were3to happen today, we would disclose to the4trustees.5Q.We're talking about in 2009 now, okay?6A.Uh huh.7Q.Is that correct?8A.Correct.9Q.In April of 2009, do you recall receiving10information from Haselberger about concerns11about a change in Wehmeyer's status from being12the business administrator to being the13pastor?14A.1516Well, that would -- would have happened, Ithink, in 2008, if I'm not mistaken.Q.Yeah, but she raised concern in 2009 to you is17my question.Do you remember, you know, you18made that decision in 2008?19A.I thought I had.20Q.Okay.Could have been 2009.Let's assume, then, that you made the21decision in 2008, do you recall Haselberger22bringing the concern to you about why that was23done?2425A.She brought the concern to me that he -- aboutthe incident that I told you about in the book1181store and that he was same-sex attracted.2(Discussion out of the hearing of3the court reporter)4BY MR. ANDERSON:5Q.And she also raised with you the concerns6about the St. Luke's findings that had been7made and in the file, correct?8A.She may have.I don't recall that.9Q.You recall that he had been diagnosed with10having sexual compulsion or sexual addiction11and unable to control his sexuality?12A.No.I don't remember that at all.13Q.Did you read the St. Luke's report?14A.I believe I did, yes.15Q.When?16A.At that time before I made him pastor.17Q.When you made him pastor and changed his18status from business administrator to pastor,19did you know that he was a risk of harm?20A.21I did not know.I would have not have madehim pastor if I'd known.22Q.He proved to be, didn't he?23A.Unfortunately (Nods head).2425(Discussion out of the hearing ofthe court reporter)11912BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.3Did Father Laird warn you against making himpastor?4A.He did.5Q.And he told you that there were questions6about his fitness to be in ministry, much less7to be a pastor, didn't he?8A.He thought he was somewhat unstable.9Q.And in -- was that a yes?10A.That's what he told me.I -- he said he had11an unstable personality, but Father Laird12clearly didn't like Father Wehmeyer and there13was a -- I think a bias there.14Q.15So you thought it was a personality conflictbetween Laird and Wehmeyer?16A.I thought to a certain extent, yes.17Q.And so you didn't think about the fact that18Laird was speaking for the safety of the19potential children where he was serving as20pastor?21A.Well, there was no indication that he had22interest in -- in sexually abusing children,23there was no indication at all.2425(Discussion out of the hearing ofthe court reporter)12012BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.When you read the St. Luke's report and3received the other information you've4described at the time you made him pastor and5continued him in ministry, did you tell6anybody at the parish what you knew about his7history as reported in St. Luke's, as raised8by Father Laird or as raised by Jennifer9Haselberger?10A.At the time I believed that that was the11responsibility of Father McDonough.12out subsequently that he did not inform the13trustees, but normally in those situations at14that time we would have informed the trustees15of the parish.16Q.17I foundSo when did you learn that McDonough had notdone what --18A.I think it was in the last week of September.19Q.Of what year?20A.Of 2013.21Q.Did anyone ever tell you or did you ever learn22from review of the file that Curtis Wehmeyer23had been restricted from working with youth in242004?25A.No.1211Q.23Had you ever heard that before I made thatassertion today?A.I had not.4(Discussion out of the hearing of5the court reporter)6BY MR. ANDERSON:7Q.8Did you learn that Curtis Wehmeyer had gottena DUI in 2009?9A.I did.10Q.How?11A.It was reported to us.It was after I had12made him pastor and it was reported to us, I13think, through Father McDonough.14Q.And did you also learn that as a part of that15arrest relating to the DUI, he had been trying16to solicit some young people to a party with17him?18A.I don't recall that as part of the DUI.19Q.What do you recall as a part of the DUI,2021either what you were told or learned?A.I learned that he was on a camping trip and22that he went into kind of a 7-11-type place23and they noticed that he was unstable in his24walk and someone called the police and they25came and -- and stopped him from driving and12212gave him the citation.Q.Were you aware that when he was arrested for3the DUI, that he called Joe Kueppers as his4criminal lawyer?5A.I was not aware of that.I knew that he was6friendly with the Kueppers, so it doesn't7surprise me.8Q.9Were you aware that at the time of that he wasstill on monitoring?10A.I was aware of that, yes.11Q.Did you ever see the report or get informed by12any of your -- any of your officials that the13report says that he was trying to pick up14teenagers to go back to the campground to15party?16A.No, sir.17Q.Having heard that, is that the first time18you've heard that?19A.I believe so, yes.20Q.Does that alarm you?21A.It does.22Q.And would it have alarmed you if you had been23I didn't know that.told that back then?24A.Certainly would have, yes.25Q.You didn't know he was on monitoring, you1231didn't know --2A.No.I didn't know he was on monitoring.3Q.I said you didn't know that, you didn't know4about the other things.5the DWI, did you call Curtis Wehmeyer and say,6"I need to get to the bottom of this," and ask7him if he had been engaging in inappropriate8sexual contact of any kind with anybody?9A.At that time afterDuring that time period, I called him in four10times from reports that I had gotten in the11parish about his anger management or12mismanagement, I would say, but I didn't have13the knowledge at that time to question him on14his -- on any sexual activity.15Q.1617Well, you knew about the St. Luke's report, hewas a sexual addict, you knew that?A.But that -- I hadn't had any -- but that had18been five years before and he had been in19therapy and he had been in spiritual direction20and St. Luke's report indicated that he was21fit to go back into ministry.22Q.Well, if you had reason to call him in on four23different times and ask him about certain24things not pertaining to his sexuality, why25didn't you ask him about his sexual conduct or12412possible misconduct?A.Didn't you want to know?Well, those were not things that had been3reported to me.4nature that had been reported to me except the5St. Luke's remarks and the report of the 20046incident.7Q.There's nothing of a sexualBut sometimes the way you get information,8Archbishop, is to ask; and why didn't you ask9him?10A.Because there was no reason to.11Q.The St. Luke's report gave you reason, didn't1213it?A.It did, but that had already been a matter of14at least a year and -- that I had received15that report -- no.That would -- that would16have been in 2004.I'm getting confused here.17And I had to deal with the situation of what18was current in his administration and that19happened to be the question of his getting20along with staff, his anger mismanagement,21those were the -- the topics that were on the22table.23Q.Scerbo was urging you to not continue him in24ministry because of his sexual issues, wasn't25he?1251A.I don't believe that.2Q.Well, then, what was Scerbo concerned about as3expressed to you?4wasn't it?5A.67No.It was sexual issues,Scerbo never expressed any sexualconcerns to me.Q.What was the basis for him being concerned8about his unfitness to be and continue in9ministry, if not sexual?10A.Are you talking about Scerbo --11Q.Laird, I mean, excuse me.12A.Okay.He never mentioned anything to me about13his whole sexual nature.14primarily, as I recall it, was that he said he15didn't think he had a stable personality.16Q.His concernDid you ever tell anybody to get the 200917police report that reflects what I just told18you about him and the teenagers?19A.I did not -- I -- I wasn't -- I was aware of20the -- the arrest, but I wasn't aware -- aware21of the other incident that you just alluded22to.23Q.Did you tell anyone to get the 2009 report?24A.No.25Q.You knew there was a police report?I don't believe so.1261A.2Sure, I would have known there was a policereport.3(Discussion out of the hearing of4the court reporter)5BY MR. ANDERSON:6Q.When is the first time you asked that a list7of abusers be compiled, both accused or8credibly accused?9A.When was the first time I asked that that -- I10believe it would have been in October when we11were making our plans to do disclosure.12Q.You're talking about October of --13A.2013.14Q.And who did you ask to do that?15A.It would have been the members of the staff,16the canonical chancellor, the civil chancellor17and the delegate for safe environment.18Q.1920And, specifically, who are you talking abouthere?A.I'm talking about Father Dan Griffith, talking21about Joe Kueppers, I'm talking about Susan22Wilhern.23Q.Susan who?24A.Wilhern.25Q.She's a secretary to the vicar general?1271A.No.2Q.What is she?3A.She is the -- she's the chancellor for45canonical affairs.Q.6Okay.And when was such a list first compiledfor your eyes?7A.In October of 2013.8Q.And how many priests or deacons were on it?9A.My recollection is that there were 36 on the1011original list.Q.And then how many -- that was the original12list of the credibly accused as has been13described you're talking about?14A.Correct.15Q.And then were there any added to that?16Because that list had been compiled originally17in 2004.We're now in 2009.Any new names?18A.2013.19Q.2013.20A.There were subsequently another nine that were2122added to the list.Q.232425Any of those now on the credibly accusedpublicly disclosed?A.They're all publicly disclosed and they're allout of ministry.1281Q.All nine?2A.Yes, out of ministry without faculties to34function as a priest.Q.Did you ever see any lists of priests accused5of sexual abuse of minors before October of62013?7A.No.8(Discussion out of the hearing of9the court reporter)1011BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.12Did you ever ask anybody to compile one orprepare one or give you one?13A.I did not.14Q.As the archbishop, isn't your first goal and15primary to make sure first the children's16souls are safe in the archdiocese?17A.1819Certainly is.It's my primary goal, to makesure that children are safe.Q.Well, then, why wouldn't you make making sure20you get all the information possible from all21those under your charge about --22A.Well, I had --23Q.Just a minute.2425Let me finish -- who couldpose a risk of harm to those children?A.As I indicated before, I had that conversation1291with Father McDonough and others when I first2became coadjutor archbishop.3were under the monitoring system and I felt4that they were not putting children at risk.5Q.67But that was back in 2008.I knew that theyWe're now in 2013.Why hadn't you done more before?A.Well, I think we have done more.I mean,8we've done the VIRTUS program, as I indicated,9we've done background checks on everyone,10we've had seminars and programs for our clergy11and for our staff.12as if we weren't working on this.13I've said before, that our number one priority14is to make sure the children are safe.15Q.16So we -- it isn't -- isn'tAnd, asWhen you got the compilation in 2013 inOctober, was that made publicly known?17A.Yes.18Q.To all the people?19A.That was publicly disclosed, yes.20Q.And did you turn any of the files pertaining21to any of those and/or all of those accused22offenders over to law enforcement agencies?23A.2425To my knowledge, we did not.They were allout of ministry.Q.Yeah, but they may have been guilty of crimes,13012right?A.That could be.And so I believe some of them3would have been -- already been turned over to4the police.5Q.But you don't know which ones, do you?6A.I don't.7Q.Because you made a conscious choice to not8turn them all over, correct?9MR. HAWS:Well, objection, counsel.10Again, you've made a misstatement of facts for11the purposes of your own needs here.12anyone has ever asked, you can ask did anyone13ever ask you that you've not turned over a14file, you can respond, Archbishop.15BY MR. ANDERSON:16Q.IfArchbishop, the question was, you made the17conscious choice to not turn all the files18over to law enforcement, correct?19A.I don't believe it was a conscious decision.20I think we were trying to disclose to the21public for the safety of children those who22had abused.23Q.But there's a difference between identifying24names and turning over files to law25enforcement, correct?1311MR. HAWS:Well, objection, that2misstates evidence.I'm not sure that the3Archbishop has a --4BY MR. ANDERSON:5Q.You can answer the question.There's a6difference between disclosing names to the7public and turning over files concerning those8names to law enforcement, correct?9A.There would be a difference, yes.10Q.Okay.Let's talk about those two things.11You're saying you turned over the names to the12public, right?13A.Yes.14Q.Yes?15A.Yes.16Q.Okay.How many of those files of those names17of offenders that were made public were turned18over by the archdiocese to law enforcement?19A.I can't answer that.I'm sorry.20Q.Can you answer that any were?21A.No.22Q.Is it correct to say that no file had ever23been turned over after termination had been24made and a priest was credibly accused to law25enforcement until and unless law enforcement1321asked?2MR. HAWS:Object to foundation.3Are you talking about while he's been the4archbishop?56MR. ANDERSON:A.78Yes.I don't recall.BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.9So is it fair to say that your answer, then,you have no recollection of ever having10voluntarily said, "Look it, we just looked at11this file and made a determination internally12that this is a credible allegation.13just turn it over to law enforcement, whether14it's Chisago County, Washington County, Ramsey15County, Hennepin County, let's just do that16voluntarily without a request"?17can tell or remember, you've never made that18decision?19A.No.Let'sAs far as youI think that there were cases that were20turned over to the police in -- in December, I21believe with Father Gallatin --22Q.Okay.Now we're talking about December of --23A.2013.24Q.-- 2013?25A.There were three, but I can't think of theOkay.Anybody else?1331other two.2(Discussion out of the hearing of3the court reporter)4BY MR. ANDERSON:5Q.6Did you turn those files over to lawenforcement, to the police?7A.I believe we did.8Q.To whom?9A.I think it was the St. Paul Police -- Police1011Department.Q.12Had they requested or did you do that on yourown initiative?13A.I don't recall.14Q.So, do you recall ever on your own initiative15ever ordering any files to be turned over16without request by law enforcement?17A.I don't have that recollection.18(Discussion out of the hearing of19the court reporter)20BY MR. ANDERSON:21I'm sorry.Q.22Have you reported any of the offenders to theC.D.F.?23A.I -- I believe we have, yes.24Q.Who?25A.Wehmeyer, certainly.And I believe Montero.1341And I believe there was another priest by the2name of -- of Bussman, so there have been3files turned over to the congregation.4Q.Wehmeyer, Bussman and whom else?5A.Montero, I think, although that may not be it6because he wasn't our priest, so I -- I -- I'm7not sure about that one.8Q.When was Wehmeyer?9A.Shortly after he was charged with the crime.10Q.When was Bussman?11A.Before I -- my arrival as archbishop.12Q.And Montero you're not sure about --13A.No.14Q.-- it would not have been done by you?15A.It probably wasn't because he wasn't our1617priest.Q.18He belonged to another diocese.Under the SST issued in 2001, you're requiredto report to the C.D.F., are you not?19A.Yes.20Q.And required in your quinquennial report to21also disclose any allegations of sexual abuse?22A.Yes.23Q.Have you done that in the quinquennial report?24A.Yes.25Q.And so who did you disclose in the13512quinquennial report?A.I don't recall right off the top of my head.3The quinquennial report would have been, I4wanna say, 2010, but I'm not sure about that5and so I just don't have that recollection6right now.7Q.Did you report Shelley to the C.D.F.?8A.I don't recall.9Q.Isn't that something you would recall if you1011had?A.1213It should be, I agree.I would bespeculating, though, to say that I did.Q.Do you have any recollection of any others14having been reported by you or your offices to15the C.D.F. under the SST requirement?16A.1718All that we were required to would have beenhandled by the canonical chancellor.Q.19And you're the reporter and the one that signsoff on that report, however, are you not?20A.I am.21Q.Father Wajda, Joseph Wajde --2223MR. HAWS:Counsel, isn't it adecent time for a break?24MR. ANDERSON:25MR. HAWS:Sure.I mean, if you want to1361finish this, that's fine, but it's --2MR. ANDERSON:3MR. HAWS:4That's fine.We've been going anhour-and-a-half.5MR. HIBBEN:6We're going off therecord at 12:15.7(Recess taken)8MR. HIBBEN:9This is video number 3in the deposition of Archbishop John Nienstedt10taken on April 2nd, 2014.11p.m.12BY MR. ANDERSON:13Q.Time now is 1:04Archbishop, before the break I had begun to14ask about Joseph Wajda, and did you become15aware that Rome had conducted a canonical16trial, a penal trial of him and findings had17been made?18A.I -- I do recollect that, yes.19Q.Did you become aware that it was -- the20instruction was to remove him from the21clerical state?22A.I don't recall that particular part of it.23Q.Did you become aware that at some point in24time, the instruction from Rome was re-25investigated by your office or at your1371instruction by Kevin McDonough?2instruct that to be done?Did you ever3A.I did not.4Q.So that if it was done, it was your5predecessor?6A.It must have been, yes.7Q.Are you aware that McDonough did re-8investigate Wajda after the Rome instruction9and made the recommendation that Wajda be10suspended for ten years from ministry?11you familiar with that?Are12A.I'm not familiar with that at all.13Q.At this point in time, what are your plans14pertaining to Joseph Wajda?15allowed to continue in ministry or is he going16to be reinstated?17A.1819Is he going to beHe's -- my understanding is he's not to befunctioning in -- in ministry at all.Q.Did you become aware that there was some20controversy around McDonough's findings that21contradicted those of Rome?22A.That must have been before my time.23Q.Okay.24A.Could -- could I make a correction?25I wastold by my counsel that I was confused about1381the 2004 investigation of the Shelley2computer.3this Mr. Setter, who was a retired police4officer.5turned over to the police.6turned over to the forensics, so I got that7mixed up.8and then to the police.9Q.Apparently, we turned that over toThat's why I thought he had beenAnd then that wasI thought it went to forensic firstWell, Setter, yeah, Setter, S-u-t-t-e-r (ph)10-- S-e-t-t-e-r, is an investigator hired by11the archdiocese.You're aware of that?12A.Yes.13Q.All right.14A.Apparently a retired officer, so I got that1516confused.Q.I apologize for that.So as we speak, then, you have no information17that any official law enforcement agency18acting as a law enforcement agency ever19received a report in 2004?20A.No.21Q.Is that correct?22A.That's correct.23Q.Okay.24A.I apologize for that.25Q.Were you relying on that same mistaken belief1391when you were making decisions about Shelley2in 2012 or was that just a correction for3today?4A.That's just a correction for today.5Q.Okay.Thank you.Archbishop, you have made a6number of statements to the public and the7parishioners that the primary goal is to care8for those abused by priests and made promises9to the people that that is one of your goals,10is it not?11A.It -- it is, yes.12Q.You did make the decision, did you not, to13permit the taxation of costs against Jim14Keenan, who had litigated against the15archdiocese and have a judgment entered16against him for $64,000 for having brought17that case.18consistent with a promise to care for the19victims?Do you consider that to be20A.I'm not familiar with that case.21Q.It is John Doe 76C and it was the one that22went to the Supreme Court under your watch.23A.And what -- what year was that?24Q.2010, I think.25A.I -- I -- it's not registering with me.I'm14012sorry.Q.Are you aware that the statute of limitations3had -- the Supreme Court had determined the4statute of limitations had expired and,5therefore, his claim and others like it could6not be brought?7point?Did you learn that at some8A.No.9Q.So you have no knowledge of the taxation of10I don't believe I did.the costs against him?11A.No.12Q.Okay.Are you aware that in this -- in the13case of John Doe 1, there has been an effort14by your representatives to take the deposition15of his 91-year-old mother and, thus, disclose16to her, who she does not know that he was17abused.18your promise to care for the survivors?19Do you think that is consistent withMR. HAWS:Well, objection, counsel,20you're getting argumentative and litigation is21taking place and the archbishop has -- that's22an inappropriate question for you to get into.23BY MR. ANDERSON:24Q.You can answer it.25A.It's the first I've heard of it, number one,1411that the mother was 91 years old.2look at it, but it doesn't -- from what -- the3way you have stated it here, it doesn't seem4appropriate.5Q.I'd have toIt wouldn't be right to really force the6mother to have to know what she hasn't been7told to this point in time, would it?8A.I don't think so, no.9Q.And other family members that don't know?10A.I don't --11MR. HAWS:1213Goahead.A.I don't know the case well enough to be able14to comment on that.15BY MR. ANDERSON:16Same objections.Q.17Well, you can comment to your lawyers aboutthat, can't you?18A.I will.19Q.Thank you.20A.Uh huh.21Q.In the case of Curtis Wehmeyer, when did you22first learn definitively that he had been23accused of or suspicions arose that minors24were involved?25A.The day that he was arrested.1421Q.What day?2MR. HAWS:34Do you have that date?If you don't remember,Archbishop, don't guess if you don't know.A.5I -- I don't remember.BY MR. ANDERSON:6Q.Okay.7A.I believe it was a Friday, though, I do89remember that.Q.10Some records show that his arrest was June22nd.11Is it correct -(Discussion out of the hearing of12the court reporter)13BY MR. ANDERSON:14Q.1516So what did you learn on that date and fromwhom?A.I learned from, I believe it was Mr.17Eisenzimmer, that Father McDonough had been18informed of the allegation and that he and19Deacon Vomastek were going over to Blessed20Sacrament to tell Father Wehmeyer at the time21that he was being removed from his assignment.22Q.And you had received no information before23that time and that date that Wehmeyer had been24suspected of involvement with minors?25A.No.I had not.1431Q.Had you received information that Wehmeyer had2been known to have been taking minors on3camping trips?4A.56No.I only became aware of that the firstweek in October of 2013.Q.Did you ever -- did you become aware that one7of the officials had called the mother of one8of the children who had been taken on camping9trips to discuss that relationship?10A.I learned about that in October of 2013.11Q.What did you learn about that?1213Who had madethat call?A.It was a Father -- at the time Father Scerbo,14Father Paul Scerbo, who was at -- had just15been pointed the vicar general and moderator16of the Curia.17Q.18So he was empowered to handle this on yourbehalf, correct?19A.He was.20Q.And so when you learned on October 13th, then,21that minors were involved definitively,22October 13th --23A.No.24Q.Oh, excuse me.25October 2013.do about that?October of 2013.What did you1441A.I don't understand the question.2(Discussion out of the hearing of3the court reporter)4BY MR. ANDERSON:5Q.Okay.So I want to get my dates correct.I6think you had told me earlier that the date7you first learned that minors were involved8was the date that he was arrested and some9records show that he was arrested on the 22nd.1011Does that sound right?A.1213allegation, yes.Q.1415That's when I first learned about theAnd what action, if any, did you takeresponsive to having learned that?A.That day, I agreed with the decision, and when16Mr. Eisenzimmer told me that they were --17Father McDonough and Deacon Vomastek wanted to18go over there, I said yes due to -- right19away.20Q.2122police, though, wasn't it?A.232425And that was before it was reported to theI think it was reported at the same time.Ithink they were simultaneous.Q.Why would you want Father McDonough and DeaconVomastek to go to Curtis Wehmeyer before it14512had been reported to the police?A.Well, in hindsight, I -- that was a mistake,3but I think we wanted to act immediately on4the information that we had.5Q.And you're aware that Father McDonough and6Deacon Vomastek met with Wehmeyer that morning7at the parish?8A.I think it was morning or afternoon, it was --9Q.And you're aware that they retrieved the gun10and got a computer from Wehmeyer, correct?11MR. HAWS:Objection.I'm not sure12that that's facts in evidence, counsel.13Again, if you've got something to show him14that, ask him.15BY MR. ANDERSON:16Q.Are you aware?17A.I -- I heard about the gun.1819I didn't knowabout the computer.Q.20Is that the first you heard of Wehmeyer havingturned a computer over to McDonough?21A.To my recollection right now, yes.22Q.So you never looked at the computer of23Wehmeyer?24A.No.25Q.And that if McDonough took possession of it,14612where is that computer?A.34I don't know, sir.heard of that, so --Q.I'm going to show you Exhibit --5(Discussion out of the hearing of6the court reporter)7BY MR. ANDERSON:8Q.910A.That day, I don't believe I spoke to anyoneelse about this.Q.1314Who else did you talk to besides Eisenzimmerabout this, then, that day?1112This is the first I'veAnd once you learned it, why didn't you reportit?A.My presumption was that the one that would15normally do the reporting is the civil16chancellor.17he was going to report it and -- and had18already reported it, had called the police.19Q.And so my understanding was thatDo you believe that the mandatory reporting20statute that applies to you permits the21delegation of your responsibility to somebody22else?23A.Don't you --I -- I have the -- the authority, but I24believe that as long as it's -- that things25are done correctly, that that's what's14712important.Q.34The statute provides an obligation, not anauthority, correct?A.I believe so.5MR. HAWS:6conclusion.7Statute speaks for itself.(Discussion out of the hearing of8the court reporter)9BY MR. ANDERSON:10Objection, it's a legalQ.What did Eisenzimmer tell you about when the11archdiocese had first gotten a report when he12talked to you?13A.He told me that morning.14Q.That morning of the 22nd?15A.Yes.16Q.All right.17Let me show you Exhibit 18.(Discussion out of the hearing of18the court reporter)19BY MR. ANDERSON:20Q.And before I do, let me just ask you,21Archbishop, what did you find out specifically22about who had made the report, then, about23Wehmeyer to law enforcement and when?24A.Could you repeat the question?25Q.What did you find out about who had reported1481and when they made that report?2MR. HAWS:3or to the archdiocese?45I'm sorry, to the policeMR. ANDERSON:A.To the archdiocese.I think I learned later that day, is my6recollection, that the police had been called7and that Father McDonough and Deacon Vomastek8had gone over to Blessed Sacrament.9BY MR. ANDERSON:10Q.Who is the first in the archdiocese, then, to11have received the information that minors were12involved?13A.14That would have been Father John PaulErickson.15Q.And what were you told about that?16A.I was told that he was informed of that, that17the person in question had told him that there18had been an incident of incest in the family.19Q.Well, let's go back a moment.I'm talking20about the abuse of the child and by Wehmeyer,21okay?22imparted by Father Erickson?23A.So is it your testimony that that wasFather Erickson was the first one, I believe,24to have been told of -- of the abuse because25the -- the mother in question had discovered1491some incest in the family and she had2subsequently, in talking to her children about3that, discovered an involvement of Father4Wehmeyer.5John Paul Erickson again and -- but it was in6the context of spiritual direction, so it was7a privileged context, so he had to call her8and get her to report this to us outside of9that context and to the police.And she went back and told Father10Q.Who told you that?11A.Father John Paul Erickson.12Q.When did he tell you that?13A.I believe that was -- excuse me, I misspoke14myself.I think Andy Eisenzimmer told me the15same day of that.16Q.On June 22nd?17A.Yes.18Q.Were you told that the report had been made in1920the context of the confession?A.I hadn't been told that it was in the context21of confession.22it was in the context of spiritual direction.23Q.2425What I had been told is thatAnd you also knew that Erickson was amandatory reporter?A.Yes.1501Q.2And that what he'd been told would require areport?3A.Correct.4Q.Have you talked to Father Erickson to get some5more clarity about what he was actually told6and the circumstances of it since?7A.I have not, no.8Q.Why not?9A.I thought he did what he should have done and10the end result was what needed to be done to11get Father -- Father Wehmeyer out of the --12the -- to get him reported to the police and13take him out of ministry.14Q.What should he have done?15A.Well, in -- in hindsight, I suppose he should16have taken this to the police himself once he17had clarified the context of which the18communication had taken place.19Q.And do you have any knowledge that he did?20A.I do not have.21Q.And your knowledge to this date as to who22actually made a report to the police, then, is23limited to -- who is that to?24A.To Mr. Eisenzimmer.25Q.The same day that you learned?1511A.I believe so, yes.2Q.Same day that McDonough and Vomastek had gone3to visit Wehmeyer at the parish?4A.That is correct.5Q.I'm going to refer you to Exhibit 18.And you6have it before you, Archbishop, and this is7entitled a decree, and it's typewritten with8your name at the bottom, correct?9A.Correct.10Q.And it states, "On June 18th, 2012, the11Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis12received a complaint that Reverend Curtis13Wehmeyer, a priest of this archdiocese,14supplied alcohol and sexually explicit images15to a minor, and fondled or attempted to fondle16the minor's genitals."Correct?17A.Yes, correct.18Q.It then goes on to state, "I have concluded19that this constitutes information which 'at20least seems to be true unquote.'"Correct?21A.Correct.22Q.So this reflects that on June 18th, the23information was received, does it not?24A.It does, but it's incorrect.25Q.And who prepared this?1521A.Jennifer Haselberger.2Q.And what makes you say that or believe or34assert that it's incorrect?A.Because I have since learned that the5information didn't come to us officially until6the morning of the 22nd.7Q.Well, mandatory reporting doesn't make a8distinction between official and unofficial.9So what do you mean by "official"?10MR. HAWS:Again, objection to the11legal conclusion in the start of your12question.13BY MR. ANDERSON:14Q.What do you mean by "official"?15A.What I mean by "official" is the -- the16context in which it was first revealed was a17context that was privileged, and so what I18refer to as privileged is the part that's not19privileged.20Q.Okay.It goes on to say at the third21paragraph, "Since my other duties prevent me22from conducting this investigation personally,23I hearby appoint Reverend Peter Laird, Vicar24General, to act as investigator in this25matter."Correct, you did that?1531A.Correct.2Q.And then you also, at the fourth paragraph,3instructed that in conducting his4investigation, Father Laird is to take care5that such investigation does nothing to harm6Father Wehmeyer's name or to violate his7rights to protect his privacy, correct?8A.Correct.9Q.Is there anything in this decree that talks1011about protecting the victim or their family?A.The decree, to my understanding, is a12canonical document that pertains particularly13to a priest who has acted out badly.14MR. HAWS:15(Indicating).16BY MR. ANDERSON:17Q.18The bottom paragraphDid you sign the decree before Vomastek andMcDonough went to the parish?19A.No.20Q.When did you sign it?21A.Well, I couldn't have signed it on the 20th,2223I did not.so the -- the dates here are wrong.Q.Well, that's where we're going to go right24now.It says, "Given on June 20th, 2012," and25then it's signed by you.1541A.Correct.2Q.So you're now asserting that that date is also3incorrect?4A.Correct.5Q.And you're asserting that's incorrect on what67basis?A.On the basis that, subsequently, I found out8that I did -- I learned this on the 22nd, so I9couldn't have signed it on the 20th.10Q.This is a pretty serious matter when it's your11decree for an internal investigation, isn't12it?13A.Yes, it is.14Q.Okay.15And that is your signature, so you didsign it?16A.I did sign it.17Q.You're just confused on the dates, is that18right?19A.Right.20Q.So you did order an internal investigation.21Did you order this internal investigation22before or after the report to the police was23made?24A.It -- my best recollection, it was after.25Q.You're not sure about that, are you?1551A.23Well, this whole period I -- is -- is a ratherconfusing one.Q.4You're not sure about any of these dates, areyou, really?5MR. HAWS:Objection, that's6argumentative, counsel.7what he can testify to.8BY MR. ANDERSON:9Q.10All right.He's testified toYou're not sure about the dates,are you?11A.I'm sure that these dates are wrong.12Q.And what document is there that establishes,13other than this document, this decree, exactly14when you learned, then, of the abuse of the15minor?16MR. HAWS:I'll object.First of17all, the decree, Exhibit 18, does not18establish that, as the archbishop said.19go ahead as to whatever.20BY MR. ANDERSON:21Q.ButThe question is, is when did you first -- what22document is there, if there is one, that can23establish the date you learned it?2425A.There would not be a document.testimony of what I recall.I'm giving my1561Q.2The conversation with Eisenzimmer, was that inperson or by telephone?3A.It was in person.4Q.At the Chancery?5A.At the Chancery, yes.6Q.And in his office or yours?7A.My office, he came down to my office.8Q.Anybody else present?9A.No.10Q.Did you make any notes of that conversation?11A.I did not.12Q.Has there been any record made by him of that13conversation?14A.I don't know that.15Q.Has there been made any record by anybody that16you know of, in or out of the archdiocese,17that establishes that the report was actually18received by you on the 22nd versus Exhibit 18,19which seems to demonstrate the 18th?20A.I don't know of any other document, no.21Q.There is evidence that on the 19th, there was22-- or 20th, there was a meeting called by23Greta Sawyer and she was employed to interview24this mom and child.25A.I was, yes.Were you aware of that?1571Q.You ordered that as a part of the2investigation, did you not, and empowered3Laird to do it?4A.I don't believe that was the right order.5Q.Well, you decreed an investigation and Laird6was given the authority to do it?7A.That's correct.8Q.And he was given the authority to give to her910to interview these people, right?A.That I don't remember.I -- my -- my11understanding is that she -- that the mother12had been advised to go to see Greta to reveal13this allegation.14Q.15Right.Been advised by either Erickson orLaird, correct?16A.I think it was Father Erickson.17Q.Right.18A.Yes.19Q.And so she did and she brought the child at20the request of Father Erickson, correct?21A.That I don't know.22Q.And you're aware that an interview was23conducted of the child at that time?24A.I wasn't aware of that, no.25Q.Is that news to you?1581A.That is news to me.My understanding was that2the mother went and I did -- until now I had3not heard that she brought the child with her.4Q.The child was interviewed, according to the5records that we have, at one of the Chancery6offices on the 20th by Greta Sawyer and tape7recorded.Is that news to you?8A.That is.9Q.And that it could have been the 19th or the1020th.11claim a report was even made to the police,12correct?13A.In any case, that would be before youWell, my understanding of the sequence of14things all revolves around this privileged15context, and I -- my understanding was that16Father Erickson had suggested, because he17didn't feel he could break the confidentiality18of the conversation, that she should go to see19Greta Sawyer.20Q.21Well, the interview done by Greta Sawyer wasdone at your offices at the Hayden Center?22A.At the Hayden Center, yes.23Q.And that was not a confessional secret kind of24thing, that was done at the request of Greta25Sawyer and Father Laird, correct?1591A.That I don't know.2Q.Well, weren't you overseeing this?3A.I was overseeing it.My understanding is that4it was Father Erickson that had advised the5woman to go to see Greta Sawyer and to -- and6to reveal this event and the allegation7therein.8Q.9Did Greta Sawyer tell you about the meetingbefore it happened?10A.No.11Q.Did Laird tell you that they were going to12She did not.meet before it happened?13A.No.He did not.14Q.Did Erickson?15A.No.16Q.So you didn't know there was going to be?17A.I did not know.18Q.On the 21st of June, there's an indication ofHe did not.19a meeting in the morning between Haselberger,20Laird and Eisenzimmer.Are you aware of that?21A.No.22Q.That's news to you?23A.It is.24Q.Have you looked at any of the documentation25pertaining to this matter at all?1601A.No.I didn't know it existed.2Q.At 9:42 there's an indication that a3litigation hold was placed and there was an4instruction given by Andy Eisenzimmer on that5day to not destroy any files or evidence.6you aware of that?Are7A.I'm not, no.8Q.Had there been some destruction of files and9evidence before this time --10A.No.11Q.-- on any cases that you're aware of?12A.No.13Q.That you know of?14A.No.15Q.Why would he give such an instruction if that16I do not.hadn't been a practice in play before --17A.I have no --18Q.-- do you know?19A.I have no idea.20Q.After you, then, first met with EisenzimmerIt was not our practice.21and learned what you claim to have learned,22what was the next thing you did or what did23you do responsive to the information you24received?25A.I instructed him to do what he had told me we1611should do as the next steps, which was to2inform the law -- legal -- I mean, the -- the3police and then to inform Father Wehmeyer of4the accusation.5Q.67And it's your belief you prepared the decree,then, after that time?A.8That's my recollection, yes.it.I didn't prepareJennifer Haselberger prepared it.9Q.But you signed it?10A.I did sign it, yes.11Q.And she was authorized to prepare it as --12A.Correct.13Q.-- your canon lawyer?14A.Correct.15Q.Did you read it?16A.I read it, but I wasn't paying attention to17the -- the dates per se.18content of the -- the statement.19Q.I was looking at theIn the first paragraph you are reciting when20you received the information and you used both21a quote and an "I," don't you?22A.Yes.23Q.You read that, didn't you?24A.I did.25Q.Okay.When's the next time you received any1621information from any source pertaining to2either the internal investigation or3Wehmeyer's status?4A.Well, I had asked, as the document indicates,5I asked for a regular report from Father6Laird, and so that would have been given to7me, generally speaking, at our weekly8meetings, which is on Tuesday mornings.9(Discussion out of the hearing of10the court reporter)11BY MR. ANDERSON:12Q.Was that after the arrest?13A.Yes, it would have been after the arrest.14(Discussion out of the hearing of15the court reporter)16BY MR. ANDERSON:17Q.So is it correct to say, then, the only18information you had and the only source of19that information before the arrest of Wehmeyer20was that told you by Andy Eisenzimmer and21nothing else --22A.Correct.23Q.-- is that what you're saying?24A.Correct.25Q.And you've told us everything that Andy1631Eisenzimmer told you?2A.Correct.3Q.And --4A.That I can recall, yes.5MR. HAWS:6right?7MR. ANDERSON:8Pertaining to thatsubject, yes.9(Discussion out of the hearing of10the court reporter)11BY MR. ANDERSON:12Talking about that day,Q.Did you have any discussions of having13meetings with your top officials at that time,14Haselberger, Laird, Eisenzimmer, about whether15it either should be reported or should have16been reported sooner?17A.I don't recall any discussions on that at that18time.19that subsequently when it was reported in the20newspaper, but at that time I don't recall any21discussion of that.22Q.232425I know that there were discussions ofWhat discussions are you talking aboutsubsequently?A.What was said and by whom?When -- there -- there was a sequence ofdiscussions that took place, I believe, in1641early October of 2013 about what the -- the2dates were and how the sequence fell out.3there was a great deal of confusion about4that.5our employ at that point, so we weren't able6to ask her about the confusion of the dates.7Q.89AndOf course, Jennifer had already leftWho have you asked about it to try to clearit?A.We talked about it in terms of my staff at the10time, it would have been Mr. Kueppers and11Susan Mulheron and I believe our12communications director.13figure out the sequence of how that all14happened.We were trying to15Q.And you're talking about Jim Accurso?16A.He was not involved in the --17Q.Who was the communications director then?18A.Sarah Mealey.19Q.So, really, discussions were more about20communications management and crisis21management than trying to get to the bottom of22really what happened?232425A.No. No.MR. HAWS:Objection, that'sargumentative and misstates facts.1651A.23BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.45Then why have a communications personinvolved?A.67I would not agree to that.Because she was involved in all of ourdiscussions.Q.But that's for purposes of public relations.8I'm interested in what you did about9protecting the children and making sure you10adhere to the law.11communications person into that conversation?12A.Why did you bring theWell, because this was subsequent, this was in13October 2013 is what I'm saying, but when I14first discussed it after the event had taken15place, we acted immediately to inform the16police and to make sure that he was taken off17of the premises so that he couldn't be a18threat to the -- to the -- the children.19Q.You have made and your office has made a20number of statements that you have acted21immediately to inform the police concerning22Wehmeyer.23try to assure the people that they can trust24what you say about child safety and your25reporting of it?And do you make those statements to1661A.We say that because that's our policy, and as2we would say in any other situation, we would3quote our policy and this is the way we -- we4act and we let people know that.5Q.Jennifer Haselberger has been very critical of6you and the way you handled Wehmeyer, has she7not?8A.910Q.Well, you've seen the MPR reports where shehas?A.1314I haven't talked to her aboutit.1112I don't know.I've heard her quoted, but I haven't talked toher directly about this.Q.And she has reported very publicly that you15did not report when you learned that Wehmeyer16had abused?17A.1819Well, she's -- she's inaccurate on that.She's not correct.Q.20And as a canon lawyer, she's your recordkeeper, isn't she?21A.She should be.22Q.And you have no records today, nor are you23aware of any, that contradict the assertions24she has about what you told her and when it25was reported, correct?1671A.I have my memory and my memory doesn't2correspond to what you're telling me she has3said.45(Discussion out of the hearing ofthe court reporter)6MR. ANDERSON:I think we need to7take a break here, so let's take a short8break.910MR. HIBBEN:We're going off therecord at 1:44 p.m.11(Recess taken)12MR. ANDERSON:This will be on the13the transcription record and not used for14purposes of time.15because we were posed with the dilemma of the16time limitation and the fact that the17archbishop began the last segment with a18correction to his earlier testimony concerning19Shelley, and he began it with a correction by20stating that a report, he believed, had been21made to law enforcement in 2004, he corrected22that by saying that the report had been made23to a person working for the archdiocese who24had been in law enforcement earlier.25correction changes the questions that we nowWe just took a breakThat1681need to ask or would have asked, had he not2made it, regarding Shelley.3discussion with counsel about taking more time4to make sure, using that correction, we ask5the questions that need to be asked.6position on that, counsel, was and is?7MR. HAWS:So I just had aAnd yourThe archbishop testified8when you asked him the questions, and you did9do follow-up questions, and he testified that10when you asked specifically, "Does that change11any of your testimony that I've asked you12about and how you took actions," his answer13was no, only as to today when he said it was14his belief it was a report to St. Paul Police,15but it was a report to what was a retired16police officer.17It changed nothing else and he told you that.18That's all that it changed.MR. ANDERSON:Well, it may not19change how he answers some of the questions,20but those are questions that haven't been21asked and the questions that now need to be22asked are very different than those that were23asked pre-correction.24to give the time, just state it on the record.25MR. HAWS:So if you're not goingYou have 20 minutes.You1691can ask whatever questions you want.2MR. ANDERSON:Wait a minute.Well,3I just want to see if you're going to agree to4the additional time by reason of the5correction or not.6minutes -- there was actually 32 minutes taken7on Shelley -- no.8minutes remaining, according to our9calculation, and, you know, if I can getAnd I think it's 15There was actually 3210through it, I just want to know if we're going11to have more time or not.1213MR. HAWS:left.You have what time isI don't think it's 32 minutes, either.14MR. ANDERSON:Well, we've been15keeping time on that and excluding your16speaking objections, counsel, and so we're17going to start the deposition of the18archbishop.19not affording more time and I'm going to, for20purposes of Shelley, given the correction21made, I'm going to use the 32 minutes22remaining to do the best I can to get through23what I can today, knowing that that isn't24feasible.25I'm going to assume that you areMR. HAWS:You have the opportunity1701to ask whatever additional questions on2Shelley to clear up what you need to do now.3And, again, the time left is whatever it is.4MR. ANDERSON:5Okay.go back to the video record now.6MR. HIBBEN:7one moment, please.8MR. HAWS:9All right.I just needWhat is the actual time,videographer, of what we've got on the10videotape deposition?11MR. HIBBEN:12I have three hours, 35minutes and 52 seconds.13MR. HAWS:14MR. HIBBEN:Thank you.Yes, sir.15on the record at 2:03 p.m.16BY MR. ANDERSON:17We're going toQ.We're backArchbishop, because you made a correction at18the start of the last section concerning19Shelley, I'm going to go back and try to get20your testimony concerning some of the things21that need to be asked, given that correction,22that weren't asked because of your testimony23given before it.2425I'm going to show you an Exhibit 38and it is a memo from you -- excuse me, from1711Jennifer Haselberger to you, correct?2A.Correct.3Q.And pertaining to Shelley in February of 2012?4A.Correct.5Q.At that time, at the bottom of the second6paragraph, it reflects Shelley was without7supervision.89Is that your understanding?MR. HAWS:Archbishop, just read thedocument, the entire document --10MR. ANDERSON:11MR. HAWS:12-- so you have it incontext.13MR. ANDERSON:14MR. HAWS:15ask out of context.1617No.No.No, he's not.Well, counsel, you can'tMR. ANDERSON:Go off the record.Let me --18MR. HAWS:19off the record.20deposition --21Well, no.He's not goingHe has a right to read theMR. ANDERSON:No.We're not going22to have him reading documents, taking the time23on the record.24process.25That's intended to delay theMR. HAWS:You want to ask a1721question about a document that's in front of2the archbishop and you want to be unfair and3not let him read to see what the context is,4is that your position?56MR. FINNEGAN:We'll take abreak and let him read it.7MR. HAWS:8a break?9deposition?10No.Well, why would you takeWhen do you ever do that in aThis is a deposition.Ask yourquestions.11MR. FINNEGAN:We don't have people12that are trying to delay the depositions like13you.14MR. HAWS:I hardly am trying to15delay the deposition.16asked properly, it would have been much17quicker.18If questions wereMR. ANDERSON:19officer of the court.20this.Mr. Haws, you're anYou know better than21MR. HAWS:I am.22MR. ANDERSON:We'll take it up with23the judge, but I'll tell you right now, I'm24going to read a portion from this and ask you25a question, Archbishop.17312BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.In this memorandum to you, she states, "The3reason this was not given more attention in42008 only became clear recently.5there is reference to the misconduct in Father6Shelly's green personnel file, the detailed7information relating to the misconduct,8including the investigator's report, was of 489restricted files that were archived (meaningFor, while10moved to the basement, without reference to it11being placed in the personnel files) in the12early months of 2008."13discussing that with her at that time?14A.1516Do you remember(Examining documents) I don't at this moment,I don't recall discussing that with her.Q.She goes on to state, and I'll ask you, "I17have attached a list of files that were moved18to the archives, although we have not been19able to locate all the files on the list."20Were there files moved to the archives,21Archbishop?22A.We have -- we have two archive rooms and the23files of active priests are in one, files of24priests who have left and priests who are dead25would be in another room.1741Q.And in the same memo at the second page,2there's a recitation of various things known3about Shelley that -- my question to you as is4stated in the memo to you, she says, "In 20045while Shelley was assigned to St. Jude, Father6Shelley's" --7MR. HAWS:Where are you reading?8Counsel, can you just tell him where you're9reading from?1011BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.At the top."Shelley's personal computer (one12of three) was mistakenly donated to a13parishioner during the parish garage sale."14Do you know what happened to the three15computers?16A.1718(Examining documents) I only see here onecomputer -- one of three.Q.Yeah, but I'm talking about there were three19computers.20three computers?21A.Do you know what happened to thoseI know that the one computer that they22referred to was ultimately turned in by the23person who received the donation.24the archdiocese about it.25happened to the other two computers.He came toI don't know what1751Q.There's also reference to the archdiocese2ordering an investigation and a computer3analysis to be done of the machine.4see that yourself?Did you5A.I did not.6Q.You were told there were images on there by7the experts that did the analysis that there8was questionable or borderline child9pornography, were you not?10A.I did read the context and I think they would11-- it said they were borderline, but they12didn't think it was child pornography.13Q.14But there were questions about that, werethere not?15A.I think there were questions for Jennifer.16Q.And you had questions about that?17A.I did.18Q.And aren't questions the same as suspicions19enough to justify a report to the police at20that time?21A.I sincerely thought that what we were doing22with this outside investigation, that the23person -- the forensic person and the retired24policeman had the wherewithal to make that25investigation.1761Q.2You say "outside investigation."The fact ofthe matter is, this is a --3A.Well, internal.4Q.-- internal investigation?5A.Internal investigation with an outside6company.7Q.An outside company hired by the archdiocese --8A.Correct.9Q.-- to find out for them what's on it, right?10A.Right.11Q.And all of this investigation was done and12handled by those retained and those in your13office, correct?14archdiocese?15MR. HAWS:16You're now referring tothe 2004 time frame here?17MR. ANDERSON:1819Nobody outside theI'm referring to the-- yes.A.Well, what I meant by "outside" was that they20weren't people that worked directly for us on21our staff.22BY MR. ANDERSON:23Q.Father Shelley's still in ministry, isn't he?24A.Father is not in ministry.25absence.He's on a leave of1771Q.Okay.2A.Took a sabbatical and then he was placed on34Excuse me, he took a sabbatical?leave of absence.Q.The point that this memo was sent to you and5you read it, Shelley was in ministry, was he6not?7A.He was.8Q.And he was continued in ministry, was he not,910by you?A.I don't have those dates.This is 2012.11was -- 2012 he would have been out of12ministry.He13Q.It was June 2012 that he took a sabbatical?14A.(Examining documents) I don't -- I don't know1516where you're getting that date.Q.Archbishop, Haselberger refers also at the17bottom paragraph that she's attaching a copy18of a September 23rd, 2004, letter -- 200419letter of referral to the SLI.20St. Luke's Institute, correct?That would be21A.Correct.22Q.And you had seen that report, had you not?23A.(Examining documents) I can't recall at this24moment whether -- whether I did.25by this.I'm confused1781MR. HAWS:2You're referring to theletter or the report?3MR. ANDERSON:4Luke's Institute report.5BY MR. ANDERSON:6Q.Had you ever seen that?7A.I don't believe I did.The report, the St.If it came in8September of 2004, I wouldn't have been9present on the site at the time.10Q.The records seem to reflect that they actually11got the report and sent him there before they12got the computer evaluated or completed.13MR. HAWS:Archbishop, if you know.14I don't know if those are facts or not, but if15you know.16A.Well, I would have to look more carefully at17this.18BY MR. ANDERSON:19Q.Okay.Well, let's just look at the sentence.20It says, at the last paragraph she says,21"Archbishop, I'm attaching the copy of our22September 23rd, 2004, letter of referral to23SLI as well as their report to this memo."24Correct?25A.Correct.1791Q.That means you received it, correct?2A.That somebody would have received it, yes.3Yes.4Q.Well, this is to you?5A.Yes.6Q.So you're not disputing you received it --7A.No.8Q.-- correct?9A.No.10Q.That is correct?11A.That's correct.12Q.Okay.The last paragraph, and she writes to13you, "Father Shelley has not been assessed by14SLI since the computer was determined to have15images that were borderline illegal."16do anything responsive to that information,17Archbishop?Did you18A.I don't recall.19Q.At the next page, the last sentence, she20writes to you, "You will recall that this has21not been without problems, including" --22A.Where -- where are you reading, please?23Q.The next page.24A.Yes.25Q.Last sentence of the first paragraph.1801A.Okay.2Q.She writes, "You will recall that this has not3been without problems, including the fact that4Father Shelley had an 18-year-old male living5in the rectory of St. John the Baptist in62009."7having received this?8A.910I don't believe I knew it before receivingthis.Q.1112Did you know that, Archbishop, beforeSo when you got this information, did you doanything about it?A.I -- I -- I do believe that it was looked into13by -- by somebody on the staff and I think it14was my delegate for clergy, who would have15been Father Tiffany.16Q.1718And did he give you a report or takeany action?A.1920Okay.I think it was past the time that the youngman was living there.Q.21Was Shelley interviewed by you or any of yourdelegates --22A.I believe by my --23Q.-- to find out?24A.I believe by my delegate.25Q.And was that recorded or reported to police?1811A.I believe it should have been.I don't know2-- I can't say definitely it was, but it3should have been reported.4Q.Do you have any knowledge that it was?5A.No, I don't.6Q.The next paragraph goes on to state, at the7second sentence, beginning -- the paragraph8starts with "However."9A.Yes.10Q.And the second -- I'll read it, it says,11"However, now that you have access to the12information that was recently recovered13(including DVDs of the material that was found14on the computer) I think there is a great risk15of associated" -- "a great risk associated16with reassigning Father Shelley."17correctly?18A.You did.19Q.You did reassign him, didn't you?20A.I believe -- no.I don't believe I did re --21reassign him at that point.22Hugo.23Q.2425He was already inActually, you left him there for six months,didn't you, in the parish he was?A.I read thatI believe I did, yes.1821Q.23Without notifying anybody of this informationthat you had received from her, correct?A.That would be correct, but I don't know that4her information was -- was correct here.5just looking at this again for -- it's been a6long time since I've seen it.7Q.Well, let me ask you another question.I'mUnder8that same paragraph enumerated number 1, she9states, I'll read and then ask you questions.10"Collecting all the personal computers/11laptops that Father Shelley is using at this12time and sending them for similar analysis."13This is a recommendation action?14A.Uh huh.15Q.It states,"If the SLI report is correct and16Father Shelley has an ongoing problem with17compulsive sexual behavior in his Internet18pornography use, it is very likely that this19use will have continued, and since Father20Shelley's never received treatment to address21this."22that alarming you at the time?23A.2425Did that alarm you or do you rememberI believe that would have alarmed me at thetime, yes.Q.What did you do about it?1831A.23I can't -- I can't remember what I did aboutit.Q.Did you alert any of the parishioners or the4public or the police of what you were alarmed5about and the information you're receiving in6this memo that concerns you?7A.89I honestly can't say right now what I -- whatI did or didn't do.Q.At the last paragraph you do state -- it is10stated by her, "I shared this information with11Father Laird last July."12memory of having taken any action to report13Shelley to law enforcement, to alert the14parishioners or the public about the risks now15discerned concerning Shelly's danger to16children or use, possible possession of child17pornography?18MR. HAWS:Do you have anyObjection, that misstates19the facts, the evidence, the document you just20read, counsel.21that says that there's a danger to children,22so you've misstated the record again,23inserting your own facts.24another way, it would be a proper question.25BY MR. ANDERSON:There's not a word in thereIf you ask it1841Q.23Did you take any action responsive to theinformation contained in this memo?A.I believe that there was a question of the4ongoing nature of the -- the images that were5on that computer and I believe I was waiting6for a final analysis of that in order to make7some kind of reaction.8Q.9And so it is correct that four months later,Shelley was allowed to resign from his parish,10claim to the parishioners he was taking a11sabbatical, correct, with your permission?12A.I -- I'd have to look at the record.13Q.Do you have a memory of that?14A.I don't have a memory of that.I know that he15did ask for a sabbatical and he was granted a16sabbatical, and then I put him on leave after17other information came to the fore.18Q.And did you or anybody under your direction19ever alert the police or the public of what20you knew as contained in this memo about21Shelley?22A.Not to -- not to my knowledge.23Q.And I'm going to refer you to Exhibit 45.24Before I do, do you remember a dispute between25Jennifer Haselberger and Kevin McDonough about1851whether these images on this computer were2illegal and child porn and, thus, a form of3sexual abuse?4A.I do remember there was an argument, yes.5Q.Tell us about that argument, what you heard67and what you did responsive to it.A.Well, Jennifer maintained that the images were8those of child pornography and Father9McDonough said they were not.And we had the10-- at the time the investigation that was done11with the retired policeman indicating that12these were borderline.13dispute, obviously, about the nature of these14images.15Q.And so there was aAnd Kevin McDonough took the position that 6016percent of the images are created by law17enforcement and because he had not been18caught, he had not been guilty and he made19that case to you, didn't he?20A.I don't recall that at all, no.21Q.He also claimed that they may have been pop-up22images and innocently, then, on that computer.23Do you remember that?24A.Subsequent to this, yes, I remember that.25Q.Jennifer Haselberger disputed that vigorously,1861did she not?2A.I believe she did.3Q.And she went to the length to even copy some4of those images and put them on your desk,5didn't she?6A.7Those were the same images I believe that youreferred to before.8Q.How many images?9A.I think there were only three, that I recall.10Q.And she told you that she had showed those to11McDonough and he ordered her to put them back12in the archive, didn't she?13A.I believe she did, yes.14Q.And she was upset about that?15A.I believe she was, yes.16Q.And she wanted you to take action, didn't she?17A.I believe she did, yes.18Q.And you chose not to, didn't you?19A.Well, I didn't think they were child2021pornography.Q.She also urged you to report to law22enforcement what those images were and what23the archdiocese knew and included in Shelly's24file, including the earlier stuff, correct?25A.I don't recall that.1871Q.Okay.I'll show you Exhibit 45.2A.Yes.3Q.And I'll direct your attention to 45, which is4dated February 8th, 2013, it's to you from5her.6would also like to reiterate that I think all7of this information should be turned over to8law enforcement for their determination, in9hopes of avoiding prosecution for you and yourFifth paragraph down she writes, "I10staff by offering an affirmative defense."11She wrote that to you, didn't she?12A.She did.13Q.And then she states, "Finally, I am attaching14a memo written by Father McDonough when he15made a similar assessment of Father Wehmeyer.16His conclusion, which Father Laird supported."17In other words, she's saying, "Don't make the18same mistake here that you made with19Wehmeyer."20Is that the way you read this?MR. HAWS:Objection, it's assuming21facts not in evidence.22memo says.23BY MR. ANDERSON:That's not what the24Q.As you recall, is that the way you read it?25A.No.1881Q.You didn't turn this over because you were2worried that you were in possession and you3could be prosecuted?4A.That's not true.I didn't turn it over5because I didn't think it was child6pornography.7(Discussion off the record)89BY MR. ANDERSON:Q.10So what training do you have in the area ofwhat is and isn't child pornography?11A.Not very much.12Q.Well, what training at all?13A.None.14Q.Okay.I'm going to go into the sealed part of15the record and ask you to look to Exhibit 99.16Under the court order, I now believe that we'd17be under a sealed part of the record.18I'm showing you sealed Exhibit 99,19Archbishop.20A.Uh huh.21Q.And it's identified at the top as "Restricted22Files in VG's Office," that's vicar general's23office, correct?24A.Correct.25Q.Correct.Says, "Can be moved to archives,18912downstairs."A.What is this and why is it kept?I cannot tell you why it was kept in the vicar3general's office.4list of files that are kept in our archives,5which happen to be on the basement floor.6Q.I believe this is just aIs it also correct when you look at this and7your knowledge of the protocols in the8archdiocese that this is the list of9individual priests who pose a potential risk10of harm or who have engaged in some11misconduct?12A.I don't -- I don't know that by reading this13list.14There are priests on this list who have never15done -- never been accused and never done any16abuse at all.17Q.18I don't know what the list is about.Why were these files restricted in this kindof manner?19A.I have no idea.20Q.Isn't this an effort to keep secret some of21the names and the information pertaining to22offenders current or past that you don't want23publicly disclosed?24MR. HAWS:25Objection, it misstatesevidence, facts and his testimony today.1901MR. ANDERSON:2MR. HAWS:3A.It's a question.It was a statement.I would say that -- I would say not.It's a4restricted clergy file, all of our clergy5files at the time were restricted and I don't6know looking at the list what the common7denominator is behind the names that are on8this list.9BY MR. ANDERSON:10Q.What did you do when you got this list, then,11from Jennifer Haselberger as an attachment to12the memo about it to find out what's behind13it, why you have it and what it means?14A.Which -- which memo are you referring to?15Q.The earlier memo that we were referring to.16A.And where do you --17Q.Where she attaches this as a restricted file.1819That was Exhibit -A.I didn't make that connection between the two.2021MR. HAWS:exhibit that he wasn't allowed to read?2223MR. FINNEGAN:No.We read it toMR. ANDERSON:No.I read it tohim.2425Is that part of thathim.1911MR. HAWS:But this Exhibit 99, was2that part of it?3that and he wasn't allowed to go back and read4it.5Because it didn't refer toMR. FINNEGAN:6attached, Exhibit 38.7BY MR. ANDERSON:8Q.9It says that it'sExhibit 38 says this was attached.So myquestion to you is -- Exhibit 38 says it was10attached, Archbishop.11A.Okay.I do see that now, yes.12Q.I'll read it to you, it says, "was one of the1348 restricted files that were archived," and14the last paragraph and the last sentence of15the last paragraph she says, "I have attached16a list of files that were moved to the17archives, although we have not been able to18locate all the files on the list," okay?19would be that attachment.20you is, when you look at this list of21restricted files, what did you do responsive22to the information imparted to you in it, if23anything?2425A.ThisSo my question to(Examining documents) Well, I'd have todetermine what the -- the common denominator1921is among the people on this list.2say.3Q.She doesn'tWell, what did you do to find out what the4common denominator was, why they're keeping a5list that is so restricted?6A.78Well, as I said before, all of our archives atthat time were -- were restricted.Q.9Well, if you look at the list, you can seesome of the offenders that are publicly10accused --11A.Yes, I agree there are some, but not a --12Q.-- and are known to us are on this list,1314correct?A.1516Correct, some, I would put the emphasis onsome, but not all.Q.Did you make any effort to share any of the17information here with law enforcement at any18time?19A.I don't believe I did.20Q.Okay.21A.I don't understand the nature of this2223attachment.Q.Have you ever turned these files over or the24fact that such a restricted list has been kept25to law enforcement?1931A.Not to my knowledge.2Q.Let me ask you this, Archbishop.You've now3testified and publicly declared that you have4identified those that you believed credibly5accused and that you have files pertaining to6them, don't you think it's past time to turn7it over to law enforcement and, if so, will8you do that now?9MR. HAWS:Objection, that calls for10a legal conclusion and something that the11archbishop doesn't have -- isn't going to do12at this point in time.13BY MR. ANDERSON:14Q.1516Well, I'm going to ask you.Will you turn thefiles over to the law enforcement agencies?A.Well, as I mentioned before in this testimony,17we've had a thorough review of the files by18the Kinsale -- Kinsale and with the -- and19they're still in the process of doing that and20I'm waiting for that -- results of that to be21able to -- to do exactly what you're22suggesting.23Q.But Kinsale was hired by you, aren't they?24A.Correct.25Q.Okay.Just like the clergy review board is1941appointed by you, correct?2A.Correct.3Q.Just like Setter was hired by your former --4the former archbishop, correct?5A.Correct.6Q.And just like the forensic investigator was7hired.So the question I put to you, and8maybe it's a request, why not just privately9turn the files over of those priests to law10enforcement to let the professionals review it11instead of trying to do this yourself?12MR. HAWS:13Same objections.BY MR. ANDERSON:14Q.Why not?15A.My answer would be, we are prepared to do what16we have to do when the Kinsale file review has17been done.18Q.Don't you realize how risky it is and the19danger this poses by keeping all these things20within your control and those you hire and21keeping it under the internal processes that22you have instead of turning it over to the23professionals who are trained in law24enforcement investigation?25MR. HAWS:And I'll object again,1951counsel.2There's no evidence that the archdiocese has3not cooperated with any law enforcement4officials, with any person that's been --5You're trying to make sound bites.MR. ANDERSON:6That's not a legalobjection.7MR. HAWS:That is a legal8objection, counsel, because you continue to9try to create your own clips and that's not --10MR. ANDERSON:No.We're trying to11protect kids here, we're trying to protect12kids, counsel.13about it.14MR. HAWS:15it.16BY MR. ANDERSON:17Give me a legal objectionQ.Ask him questions aboutAnd I ask you, Archbishop, and giving you a18chance to give the law enforcement people to19know what your office knows by turning those20files over to them privately and letting them21investigate it.22MR. WIESER:23Time's up.BY MR. ANDERSON:24Q.Why don't you do that?25A.As I indicated to you, once we have the19612file -Q.Why wait?Kids are at risk.3MR. HAWS:4MR. ANDERSON:5we're done?6deposition.Counsel, we're done.We're not done with this7MR. WIESER:8MR. ANDERSON:9What do you meanWhat time does -You're declaring thetime is up?10MR. HAWS:Let's take a break and11find out what the time is, okay?12break right now from the video and we'll find13out how much time you've been on the video.1415MR. HIBBEN:We're going off therecord at 2:34.1617Let's take aMR. HAWS:We can stay on therecord.18MR. HIBBEN:I have four hours and19seven minutes and five seconds.20MR. HAWS:We're over the time.21MR. ANDERSON:Well, I told you at22the start, you've got speaking objections.23You're not going to get away with creating24delays by your crazy speaking objections,25counsel.There's not one legal objection you1971have posed that was legitimate.2privileged or, you know, if you want to do3form or something like that.4is speaking objections and a waste of time.5warned you in advance and I said I'm not going6to count that on the time.7had a timekeeper here and according to my8timekeeper -- and your speaking objections9took up how much time?101114All it has beenISo given that I'veMS. ODEGAARD:Two-and-a-halfMR. ANDERSON:Two-and-a-halfminutes.1213It was eitherminutes.MR. WIESER:For the record, I've15been also keeping track and I have less than a16half a minute of total time spent on what17you're referring to as speaking objections.18So at this point you're saying there are an19additional two minutes left?202122232425MS. ODEGAARD:Two-and-a-halfminutes left.MR. WIESER:Will you keep track ofthat, Mr. Videographer?MR. HAWS:Well, my speakingobjections, for the record before you go on1981the video, are because of improper questions2you posed, improper hypotheticals, improper3factual scenarios that require that, counsel.4And as an officer of the court, you should5know that you cannot do that, that is not6appropriate nor is it fair to insert your own7facts in order to create whatever it may be8you're trying to do here.9been here to answer whatever questions he can10The archbishop hasas best he can in a proper form, so --11MR. WIESER:We're over already.I12think we can wrap it up at this point, if you13want to.14MR. HAWS:15MR. BRAUN:16MR. WIESER:17MR. ANDERSON:18MR. HAWS:1920Yeah, let's just do that.I'm good with that.That's fine.So are we done?We're done.You're pastyour time.MR. ANDERSON:Well, I consider this21deposition to be open for reasons that were22legitimate at the start of this deposition by23reason of the failure to disclose, which24should have been, and the untimely disclosures25as well as the incomplete ones.And now it's1991even more acutely problematic by reason of two2things:3testimony that altered the necessity to ask4questions that otherwise would not have been,5in which after a break was taken, the decision6was made; two, there have been speaking7objections, none of which have been legally8based or identified in law as anything other9than recitations of belief; and, three --One, the archbishop's change in1011MR. HAWS:You can take thearchbishop out.12MR. ANDERSON:So I guess counsel is13leaving now, we're considering the deposition14open.15continue, Archbishop?16MR. WIESER:17181920They're gone -- and are you prepared toArchbishop, why don'tyou come?MR. HAWS:don't have to.No.Archbishop, youWe can go.For the record, you had Shelley21files and the Wehmeyer files beforehand.In22terms of testimony, I believe you've actually23gone beyond what the court had authorized you24to do in the deposition in any event.25objections were necessitated by your ownAnd the2001conduct.2with the court.3and we've made ours, so there's no other4reason to argue about it.5678910111213141516171819202122232425And we'll deal with what we have toYou've preserved your recordMR. ANDERSON:No.We're done.2011I, ARCHBISHOP JOHN NIENSTEDT, do hereby2certify that I have read the foregoing3transcript of my deposition and believe the4same to be true and correct, except as5follows: (Noting the page number and line6number of the change or addition and the7reason for it)891011121314151617181920212223Subscribed to and sworn24before me this ___ day25of ___, 2014.2021STATE OF MINNESOTA2COUNTY OF RAMSEY345678910111213141516171819ssI hereby certify that I reported thedeposition of ARCHBISHOP JOHN NIENSTEDT, onthe 2nd day of April, 2014, in St. Paul,Minnesota, and that the witness was by mefirst duly sworn to tell the whole truth;That the testimony was transcribed under mydirection and is a true record of thetestimony of the witness;That the cost of the original has been chargedto the party who noticed the deposition, andthat all parties who ordered copies have beencharged at the same rate for such copies;That I am not a relative or employee orattorney or counsel of any of the parties, ora relative or employee of such attorney orcounsel;That I am not financially interested in theaction and have no contract with the parties,attorneys, or persons with an interest in theaction that affects or has a substantialtendency to affect my impartiality;That the right to read and sign the depositionby the witness was not waived, and a copy wasprovided to him for his review;WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL THIS 4th dayof April, 2014.202122232425Gary W. Hermes