·•- -i • ,~ C-· , -=- ·-- i DISTRICT COURT STATE OF MINNESOTA SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF RAMSEY Court File No: 62-CR-15-4175 C. A; File No. 2139124 State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS E. RING v. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) Thomas E. Ring, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states as follows: A. I am an Assistant Ramsey County Attorney assigned to represent Plaintiff in the above. captioned matter. B. Attached hereto as correspondingly numbered exhibits are true and correct copies of the following documents: 1. Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, · dated June 12, 2003. 2. Corporation Bylaws template for a Parish Corporation of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. 3. Excerpted report of Inv. G. Leatherman concerning interview with witness M.S. 4. Transcriptof911 telephone call to Fillmore County Sheriff's Office on September 29, 2009. 5. Report of Inv. G. Leatherman of follow-up interview with witness F. W. 6. Report of Inv. G. Leatherman of interview with witness D. G., with relating documents that were provided by D. G. Redaction within these documents occurred before receipt by Leatherman. 7. Excerpted report of Inv. G. Leatherman conceming review of affidavit of witness W. S. 8. Report of Inv. G. Leatherman concerning review of affidavit of witness J. C. 9. Report of Inv. G. Leatherman concerning interview of witness P. B. 10. Reports of Inv. G. Leatherman concerning review of affidavit of, and interview with witness E.T. 11. Report of Inv. G. Leatherman concerning review of affidavit of witoess M B. 12. Report of Sgt. E. Skog concerning interview with Archbishop John Nienstedt. 13. Excerpts of the Affidavit of Jennifer M. Haselberger, dat.ed July 7, 2014, provided in . Doe 1 v. Archdiocese ofSt. Paul and Minneapolis and Thomas Adamson, Ramsey County District Court File No.: 62-CV-13-4075; follow-up report of Inv. G. Leatherman. 14. Excerpted report of Inv. G. Leatherman concerning interview with witoess T. W. 15. Excerpted report of Inv. G. Leatherman concerning interview with witness R. W. 16. Excerpted report of Inv. G. Leatherman concerning interview with witness J. H. 17. Report of Inv. G. Leatherman concerning interview with witness C. W. 18. Report of Inv. G. Leatherman concerning interview with witness M. W. 19. Letter from Curtis Wehmeyer to Archbishop John Nienstedt dated April 23, 2009. 20. Excerpts of Deposition of Andrew Eisenzimmer in Doe 1 v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis and Thomas Adamson, May 6, 2014. 21. Excerpts of Deposition of Archbishop John Nienstedt in Doe 1 v. Archdiocese ofSt. Paul and.Minneapolis and Thomas Adamson, April 2, 2014. 22. Criminal Complaint in State v. Curtis Carl Wehmeyer, Ramsey County District Court File No.: 62-CR-12-7664, County Attorney File No.: 2113626. ' Subscrib~d, and this sworn to before me Q/Sf- dayofMar~016. 041 .~d rt~· . Notary Public - ·CL~/\ A{)J -- ,,-. -·· -' ..::·.-_.':_:. STATE OF MINNESOTA ···-.:: DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF RAMSEY Court File No: 62-CR-15-4175 C. A. File No. 2139124 State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS E. RING v. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. EXHIBIT 1 < - Home(/) Search (/Business/Search) Filings (IBuslnesslFil!ngs) Search » Business Filings .-~---------- ~-------1 ! « Back to Search Results ... ··-· ·-- -~· ---------··-··-··- ......: Business Record Details » Minnesota Business Name The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis MN Statute Business Type General Entity File Number CH-500 Filing Date 07128/1883 Status Active/ In Good Standing Registered Office Address 226 Summit Ave St Paul MN 55102 USA Number of Shares "NONE Registered Agent(s) (Optional) None provided Comments 315 II Filing His!oiy Filing History 0712811883 07/2811883 Original Filing • General Entity -----'----~----~---------·--·· General Entity Business Name 01/05/1971 General Entity Business Name 1212111990 Amendment- General Entity 03128/1994 Amendment - General Entity 05/1712004 Registered Office and/or Agent - General Entity 05/17/2004 General Entity Restated Articles -------------- .. ·~·-···--------- ....·--·· ·-----~-·---------- - l '\•:_ - or - -·~ .-,,.-: ~, _.- - :.·-. Office the MN Secretary of State Home Page (http://www.sos.state.mu_us) System Reqirirements The MBLS application works with the follo"Wing web browsers: Microsoft Internet Explorer (version 7+) Mozilla Firefox (version 3.5+) Apple Safari (version 3+) Google Chrome ~ i I ·;c; ~ . • _.,_-;.,;:_::;_ ~·-:· Additional MBLS Information Terms & Conditions (http://www-sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx? page=1667) Contact Us (http:/ /www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx1 page=42) Frequently Asked Questioru (FAQ) (http://www.sos.state.mn_us/index.aspx1 page=12) Copyright 2011 I Secretary of State of Minnesota I All rights reserved ,_,,, ·-· . ' -· ~-:'""-·-~-1 I: NP- RO/ f2A 11111111111 9057060002 ·coRPORATERESOLUTION OFTlIE ARCHDIOCESE OF SAINT PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS BE IT RESOLVED, That the Articles of Incorporation of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesotn, hdng Section 3 l 5.16, arc herohy restated to include therein all· amendments made to the original Articles of Incorporation adopted on November 3"', 1970: RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION Article 1. The name of this corporation shall be The Archdiocese of Sa:int Paul and Minneapolis and the location of its registered office shall be 226 SIJD1lllit Avenue, SL Paul, MN 55102. Article 2. The general purpose of this corporatiQJ'.1 ls to take chl!rge of, and manage, all temporal affairs of the Romany Catholic Cbun;h to the said Archdiocese belonging or in any wise appemrlning, to promote the spiritual, eduoational and other inti:rests of the Roman Catholic Church in said Archdiocese, Including all the chllritllble, benevolent, el eemosyruuy and missionary worl< of said Church in said Archdiocese and to establish and maintain Clnm:bes and Cemeteries therein and also tu estllblish and conduct schools, seminaries, colleges and any benevolent, charitable, religious or missionary worl< or society of tho said Roman Catholic ChUICb within said Aithdiocese, to take charge of, hold and manage, all prope!ly, personal and real, that may at any time or in any m=er come to, or vest in, this cmporation for any purpose whatever fur the use and benefit of said Arobdiocesc and for the use and benefit of the Roman Catholic Church therein, whether by purchase, gift, grant, devise or otherwise, and to mortgage the 5"Jlle, sell or otherwise dispose of it ss the necessities or best interests of said corporation in the opinioo. of the members thereof may require, Article 3. The Members of this corporation shall be the Archbishop, the Vicar General and the Chancellor of tbe Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minnel!Polis, and two other members of the Roman Catholic ChUrch, residents of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, selected and appointed by the said Archbishop, the Vicar General and the Chancellor, or a majority of them. The tenn of office for each. of the aforesaid two appointed members shall be fur a period of two years ofuntil his successor is chosen. Atilele 4. The Board of Directors shall be composed of not less than five (5) directoIS. The five (5) Members of the corporation, I\lllllely, tb.e Archbishop, the Vicar Genera!, and the Charu:ellor ofThe Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis and the two (2) other Menlbers of the cotpQration selecred and chosen as aforesaid, and their respective successors shall always be members of -, .;.,... ·.:. ' .:--~- '--··. ·-""---; '- . ~---<--E- - 1 the Board of Directors. The other directors shall be selected by a majority vote of the five (S) Members of the corporation at a regular meeting of the corporation, and the term of office for suclt elected directors shall be for a period of two (2) years or until their suceessors have been duly elected and qualified. The Board of Directors shall have power to transact all business of said corpaxation, Article 5, The officers of said corporation shall be a President, a Vice President, a TreMurer and a Secretary and such other officers as shall be provided for in the By-Laws. The Archbishop or person appointed in bis place or stead shall be ex officio President The Vicar General shall be ex officio Vice President The Secretary and the 'freasurer shall be chosen from the Members of said corporation provided th•t the offices of Secretary and Treasurer may be held by the same pecsoo. The term of office of1he Secretary and Treasurer and other officers provided for in the By-Laws, and the duties of each, except so far as the same are fixed by the Articles, may be prescribed by the By-Laws. The Board of Directors may at any time remove the Secretary or Treasurer if the Board of Directors shall deem that the best interestll of the corporation require soch removal. Article 6. No real estate belonging to said corporation may be sold, mortgaged, encumbered or disposed of in any way without the consent of a majority of the Directors, provided such majority shaU include the Archbishop or tho Vicar General. Article 1. The said Directors may by a two-thirds majority vote adopt such By-Laws, not contmy to the laws of this State and the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church aod these Articles, as may be deemed necessacy fur the proper government of this corporation and the management of the property and business thereof and may by a like vote alter or amend tho same and when so adopted such By-Laws and all amendments thereof shall be recorded by the Secretary ina book to be provided and kept for that purpose. Artlcle8. To the full extent permitted by.Jaw, the Corponmon shall indemnify each person who is or was a member, director, officer or employee of the Corporation for judgments, paymeats, costs and expenses paid or incurred by any of them as a result of any action, suit or proceeding to which such person may be a party by reason of bis or her said capacity with the Corporation, unless is otherwise adjudged that such person did not act in good faith or in the best interests of the Corporation. In criminal cases, such right ofindcmnif!cation shall only apply if tho pel'!ion la found not guilty and only if a mijority of the directors :find that such person acted in good faith in the best interests of the Corporation, The Corporation may provide and maintain insurance on behalf of any such person indemnified by the terms of this Article. 2 BE IT FURTHERRESOLYED, That an officer of this corporation is hereby directed to cxocute an appropriate certificate ofRestated Articles ofinccl']loralion for filing in the office of the Secretary of Stat<: of the State of Minnesota, and such other publfo oflfocs as tboy docm appropriate, and the officcfl! are directed to file and record said ccrtifi caw, according to 1a w. 3 -----------··-··--·. -·-· DIOCESAN CORPORATION AFFIDAVIT/CERTIFICATE BE IT RESOLVED, "tbi>t the Restated Articles of Incorporation and the Restated By-Laws attached hereto are hereby approved and adapted. The resolution following was adopted unanimously, in writing, by the members and directon; of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota religious diocesan corporation, organized and existing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section §315. l 6 on the 7th day of November, 2002, at the annual meeting of the members and directorn of said corporation. !, William S. Fallon, the duly elected, qualified and acting Secretary of The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Mtnneapolis, dn hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of the resolution adopted by the members of said corporation on the aforementioned dale and is now in full force and effect, and that the members of said corporation have and at the time of adoption of the said resolution had full power and lawful authoriJy fu adopt said resolution. w~s0~ William S. Fallon Secretary STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) On this p-fll day of ~I , 2003, in the said CoUllty ofRmnsey, SSloniid and qualified, in and for the State and befute me, a Notacy Pu6lie duly co · County aforesaid, personally known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing certificate, and acknowledged to me that he =uied the same; and being by me duly sworn, did depose and lll!Y !hat he executed the same; and being by me duly sworn, did depose and say !hat he is the Secretary of said corpora~ion and a member of said corporation; that as such officer, he keeps the corporate minute books and seal of the sald corporation; and that the foregoing certificate is true of his own ktiowledge. Subscn"bedaod sworn to before me1hls /ar'd!iy of Cf.tvh.I. 2003. Z/ "f/a-., Board, separately or col· lectlvely, shall .be con.strued as establlshlng"a legal ag·e;ncy b·indlng on the Board. no XVI. .There ~hal,i lW e~pendJtures for equipment, . repair, remodeling or riew coristruction costing ln excess of .$5,boo.oo, or such o·ther amount as shall be .f'iromulgated by the Archbishop from time to time tri the Clergy Bulle\in, with9ut. th!", una11lrnous consent of the .Boarcj, ~er[lpted.from ttils expenditure limila· . tion. are .tile purchase of parish automobiles, the purchase or routiQe ieplacernent of mechanical .equipment, regular maintenance such .as pairitirig, i!.nd routi~e employment contracts teachers and· reQtilar parish staff. Any Indebtedness resulting from operating deliolts shall not exceed 5% of the prior year's annual operating budget, without the unanimous consent o(the Boarcj. for .. XVII. All acti0f>,0t-whatever nature, of the Corp0ration shall be null and void, which is not in con· formity with its. own Certiiicale of lncorp~ra­ tion, wi.tb the..statutes and ruie'? of The Arch.diocese· o(Sajnt P~ul and Minneapolls, and With jhe'gener~IJy recognized d·iscipline Of the Roman Catho.lic. Ctiurch . · · XVIII. These Bylaws sh~ll not be.repeaied or amended. expep\ by a 1.manimousvoie of ali the members of the Corporation. 1. ' • • •••• ; .... , • ,;:.,.~ / . ~... . ....·.. -~.: .,, . .:' . -2-;;o: __ ,. I . -···· - STATE OF MINNESOTA - :-.-_ DISTRJCT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRJCT COUNTY OF RAMSEY Court File No: 62-CR-15-4175 C. A. File No. 2139124 State ofMinnesota, Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS E. RING v. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. EXHIBIT 3 1, b - :. - .- - --- - . RAMSEY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CONFIDENTIAL INTERVIEW OF~ Howev~ particularly upbeat one day and told her "Father Webrneyer took me camping, and he even hears my confession." At that time she did not put two and two together. ........ c - STATE OF MINNESOTA ••• - DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No: 62-CR-15-4175 C. A File No. 2139124 State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS E. RING v. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. EXHIBIT 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 . STATE OF MINNESOTA v. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis Court File No. 62-CR-15-4175 C.A. File No. 2139124 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 911 Reporting Call Date: September 29, 2015 September 29, 2009 0 Hours, 0 Minutes, 19 Seconds. FILLMORE SHERIFF'S OFFICE: Fillmore County Sheriff's Office. This is Bob. CALLER: 16 17 18 Hi Bob, could you do me a favor? I don't know if Tim's still on duty- Could you send him to the Kwik Trip over here? I got a guy out here who's asking alot of strange questions to the kids here. 19 20 FILLMORE SHERIFF'S OFFICE: Okay any description of the vehicle or person or? 21 22 CALLER: 23 24 25 FILLMORE SHERIFF'S OFFICE: Okay. 26 27 28 CALLER: Uh, he's gra- ,uh, salt and pepper hair, he's probably in his 40is to SO's, uhhh .... life jacket type shirt. Um, he's standing out there right now and I'm just- he- he just asked a couple questions that were not really- 29 30 FILLMORE SHERIFF'S OFFICE: Okay. 31 32 CALLER: -uh you know .... 33 34 35 36 37 FILLMORE SHERIFF'S OFFICE: Alright, I'll send him over there; he's just out of town a little bit, but it shouldn't take him too long to get there. CALLER: Alright. 38 39 40 FILLMORE SHERIFF'S OFFICE: Okay. 41 42 43 44 45 CALLER: I don't, I don't know what he's up to. I'm just making sure the kids stay safe. FILLMORE SHERIFF'S OFFICE: Sure. You bet. P:\Ring\Harstedt\FllmoreCty911Transcriptdoc Transcribed by Michelle Lutz March 16, 2016 46 47 48 49 50 51 CALLER: Alright. FILLMORE SHERIFF'S OFFICE: Thank you. CALLER: Thank you. 52 53 54 END OF TAPE P:\Ring\Harstedt\FilmoreCty911Transcript.doc Transcribed by Michelle Lutz 2 March 16, 2016 •·.· 1 ... ·. j . .· STATE OF MINNESOTA I - -. -..,;::.o------ - _-_,_ , DISTRICT COURT SECOND mDICIAL DISTRJCT COUNTY OF RAMSEY Court File No: 62-CR-15-4175 C. A File No. 2139124 State of Minnesota, Plaintiff; AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS E. RING v. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. EXHIBIT 5 i ; - -=- -- RAivlSEY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW F - On March 11, 2016 at approximately 1250 hours, Investigator Eugene Leatherman of the Ramsey County Attorney's Office spoke by phone with W - . The interview was not recorded_ The purpose of the conversation was to confirm information Fr. wllmiiad provided in February of 2015. Fr. ~stated that in late 2013 there was rumors circulating amongst priests of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis that Archbishop John Nienstedt had been involved in inappropriate conduct. On December 28, 2013 at approximately I: 15 pm, Fr. - - p h o n e d Fr. W - Fr. Tmiiad. been one of several priests who had met with Abp. Nienstedt and bis ~neral in November of 2012 concerS,the lack of Archdiocesan protocols that had been revealed by the Wehmeyer incident. Fr. ~served on the Clergy Review Board and attended meetings at the Chancery. During the phone conversation, Fr. ~armed Fr. W~t Abp. Nienstedt was homosexual/ gay. Fr. ,.stated that Abp. Nienstedt's conduct was not illegal, because it involved consensual sex with seminarians ~riests. Fr. ~d Fr. if Fr. ~knew. F~aid that Fr. ~dknow. Fr. ~sked if "Rome" also knew and Fr.~ they did. tho. ·.: ·..--::'" ... ·1 .. ~· ;.·:. . -·. : .i STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY -.,, ~-·.'.·.'.• I I DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No: 62-CR-15-4175 C. A File No. 2139124 State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS E. RING v. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. • . ·• .~? ;;- ' ' ~·. .·..• ,.. ""' ;:;~ .• ~. -· 1 . -- --'. - ' I ' RAMSEY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE INTERVIEW OF rim On May 14, 2015, at approximately 1020 hours, Investigato~ne Leatherman and Assistant County Attorney Thomas Ring conducted an interview of~ ~t the Ramsey County Attorney's Office, St. Paul, MN. The interview was digitally record:r.· is a Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis (ADSPM). • cm In August of 2013, Fr. followed Fr. Kevin McDonough as the .ADS PM Delegate for Safe Environment. Fr. am;olltinued in the position until July of2014. Fr. ~stated that shortly after being appointed to the position, he realized that this position sho~t be filled by a priest - but rather a lay person full time. Fr. G~aid that part of th~lem the ADSPM got in was a result of not paying enough attentio~e problem. Fr. ~stated that he advocated for a person very much like Timothy O'Malley (ADSPM Director of Ministerial Standards and Safe Environment), who has a lot of experienc~s investigations, and does not have "Chancery Legionnaire's Disease"· which was Fr. ~ s term for "people who breathe the oxygen of the Chancery" and their :first thing is to protect the church at all costs; and they don't even know their doing it; it's just a reflexive thing. ~said that he is happy with O'Malley and has positive feelings about the future direction of the ADSPM. rm omll Fr. said that Curtis Wehmeyer was one year ahead of him in the Seminary. Fr. said~ehmeyer did not have good social skills and did not seem to be the healthiest person. Wehmeyer was known as being very morose; he did not laugh a lot. Fr. ~eard in 2002, that after Wehmeyer was ordained and assigned at St. Joseph's as Assistant Pastor, Wehmeyer d t drunk and yell at his pastor- Fr. Lee Piche'. Fr. (mll out of concern, spoke with Fr. ho he knew: was afriendofWehmeyer's and askedP.ifanyone was talking with y d doing anything about what had been heard. Fr. •old Fr. amthat he was talking to Wehmeyer. l!!: ,·. "' After the arrest of Wehmeyer, Fr. ~was told by a colleague at St. Thomas University named ~~about her experiences with Wehmeyer as assistant pastor at St. Joseph's, West St. Paul. 19lso told Fr: that concerns about Wehmeyer going into the boy's bathroom at the.school. ~that her children who attended the school called him "Father Creepy". nmlhad gone to then St. Joseph's pastor, Fr. Lee Piche', and told him her cm Saci - ---·---- -···· ····-· . ~: .. . -,.-_,,_ ---· - ~· ' : . -~-.:~ .. ·.: :: .::. . ·. 1 ,;,-:_· .·:.·. - concerns about Wehmeyer. Fr. Piche' and th~ ~al told staff they were not to go into the children's bathrooms according to r9Fr. ~said that from what he had found in his research, Wehmeyer had a lack of impulse control- a clear sign of issues. iaold Fr. ~ she again saw Wehmeyer going into the boy's bathroom and again alerted Fr. Piche'. ~ had told Fr. that Wehmeyer had been arrested at Crosby Park. . ! s o told Fr.~ about the camper being in the church parking lot and going to meet with Archbishop Flynn. am stated that Fr. Piche' became the pastor at All Saints, Lakeville in 2005.~ --·Fr.G--remembered being told at that time by Fr. Piche' about Fr. Piche's experience of Wehmeyer as his assistant at St. Joseph's and Fr. Piche' having concerns about Wehmeyer. Fr. Piche' shared with Fr. omabout Fr. Piche' meeting a couple of times with Archbishop Harry Flynn over Piche' s concerns about how unhiialthWehmeyer was. Fr. Piche' was :frustrated with Archbishop Flynn over it. Fr. G aid that he, Fr. Fr. . .all can't understand why, when later Fr. Piche' as Bishop had authority over Wehmeyer, and Wehmeyer was still advanced. Fr. asked, "Why on earth would Bishop Piche' not speak out against if?" -:mmd om Fr. omll said that he, Fr. - - a n d Fr. ~et in 2012 and discussed the information about Wehmeyer that each had, and came up with ideas about what would be best practices in handling allegations. They met with Bishop Piche' as a group in at that time, and share~ all the ,co!lecti;e information concenS..Wehmeyer they had gathered. Fr. ~tated that Bishop Piche' said to Fr. Fr. ~d Fr. ~that he could not remember the or going to meet with Archbishop Flynn concerning information provided by complaints about Wehmeyer, or being told by Fr. n9 I that Wehmeyer was sleeping · with a minor in his camper. Fr. ~concern was over the file reviews and the three-year Archbishop statute of limitations approaching. In November of2012, Fr.~ Fr. Nienstedt, Andrew Eisenzimmer and Fr. Peter Laird met concerning the lack of protocols revealed by the arrest of Wehmeyer and what led up to that. Fr. imwould have attended this meeting, but was not available. Eisenzimmer was fairly defensive in his response to the information provided to him. Fr. c9said that a red flag is a red flag and speaks for itself. G- rm am, Fr. o9 said that the best practices they came up with are: 1. A comprehensive clergy file review- as seemingly "red flags" were being ignored and there was no idea as to "what could be out there". 2. The Church, Fr. Kevin McDonough and Fr. ~should not be in the business of ""· . •cOhcl!ucting investigations. Fr. disagrees with O'Malley's use of the recently hired group of investigators. He thinks credibility of the investiogl!;ors and investigations would be better with use of a totally outside firm. For reasons of perceived credibility, among others, Fr. ammrucated that he had stopped some investigations aheady started and became the point person for outside fums. Fr. ~indicated that the point person wqu!d·meet With the independent law firm and their investigator and give the lawyer and firm invest!!'gator the allegation coneer5_ii. priest. Fr. ._,,,as the point person on Fr. Thomas Keating' s cas~e Fr. ~ recused himself since he had been ordained . with Fr. Keating. Fr. ~was the point person for allegations concerning Fr. CJllll S B - and the liaison with the Greene Espe! Law Firm on its investigation of Archbishop Nienstedt. 3. Improvement was nee~ dealing with victims. A legal defense strategy should not be in the forefront. Fr. G-said the approach should be to think more with heart of pastor than the head of an attorney. 4. Safe Environment staff should be physically located completely separate and apart from the Archdiocese's location. Former Hennepin County Attorney Tom Johnson has been an advisor to the ADSPM and said that if anything is even close concerning an allegation, it should be submitted to the police for investigation. Fr. ~said that some vehicle was needed to share known information to avoid the "silo mentality" that isolates and just stores information. Fr. omcredits Fr. Peter Laird for bringing this change after Wehmeyer' s arrest. Fr. ~said that the Safe Environments and Ministerial Standards Taskforce was successful. Fr. ~aid that preserving power at all cost must be weighed against the common good and proclamation of the Gospel. Fr. ~said that the ADSPM was slow to acknowledge that it/they had made mistakes. Fr. said that the ADSPM should early on have gone to the victims and lay people, admitted they had violated their trust, and ask for forgiveness and prayer for healing. Fr. added that basically there is a lack ofleadership and accountability at the ADSPM. om am Fr. understands the reasons that Jermifer Haselberger revealed ioformation she possessed concerning the ADSPM response to abuse allegations. Fr. ~has shared with Fr. ~ that Haselberger sent to him by email a number of files concerning priests within the Archdiocese that concerned her before she left employment there. om Fr. said that Joseph Kueppers may have a copy of the Greene-Espe! investigation report, as well as Bishop Piche', Fr. ~said that the client for the Greene Espel investigation was the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Fr. ~saw the billing submitted that names the ADSPM as client of the firm's services, and that Fr. ~ave the billings to Joseph Kueppers for processing. Fr. G-stated that the ADSPM cannot be a parrot for just the Archbishop's responses to the investigation findings; essentially, that the archdiocese is not the archbishop and the archbishop is not the archdiocese. In the subsequent investigation, Attorney Peter Wold has stated that his client is Bishop Piche'. Director 0 'Malley told Fr. ~that he had clarified to Wold that the client is the ADSPM, not Bishop Piche'. Fr. cm was asked about Greene Espel's investigative facts as they concern Wehm~r. omsaid that the report itself does not address issues concerning Wehmeyer. Fr. ~aid that the original investigative engagement of Greene Espe! did not include Wehmeyer. Fr. said that he later became aware of allegations concerning Wehmeyer and the Archbishop. Fr. G~en added Wehmeyer to the allegations Greene Espe! was to om investigate. Fr. CJ9clarified that he read a subsequent letter from Greene Espe] which does address the investigative findings concerning Wehmeyer and Archbishop Nienstedt. Fr. ~ said that Wehmeyer bad been interviewed by the Greene-Espe] investigator. Fr. G-recalls that the letter raises issues about an unusual relationship which was not professional, but social in nature, between Archbishop Nienstedt and Wehmeyer. Fr. G-said that the letter documented Archbishop Nienstedt (not in clerical clothing) and Wehmeyer meeting and often ther - which is not something the Archbishop would do normally with priests. Fr. cated this alone was troubling because Wehmeyer was struggling with alcohol abuse. F as not been out socially with the Archbishop. !li Fr. om:aised concerns in a written memo to Bishop Piche', Bishop Andrew Cozzens and Fr. Charles Lachowitzer about whether the alleged past behavior of Archbishop Nienstedt (given that these behaviors had some similarities to Wehmeyer)iia have affected the archbishop's decision-making in promoting Wehmeyer to pastor. Fr. said, that as the Delegate for the Safe Environment, he postulated that given his past bebaviors, chbishop Nienstedt may possibly be a threat to the safe environment of the Archdiocese. Inv. Leatherman thanked Fr. ~and the interview was concluded at 1135 hours. The digital recording of the interview was downloaded to the RCAO computer for safekeeping. Refer to the recording for additional details concerning the conversation. RAMSEY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE . FOLLOW-UP WITH ~G On M~;.~at approximately 1430 hours, Inv. Leatherman and ACA Ring met again with Fr. ~UWlll Fr. provided a one- page document entitled "Confidential Memor?Jljium November 22, 2013" and a four-page document entitled "Confidential Memorandum" dated April 20, 2014. Inv. Leatherman dated and initi~ first page of each document. Fr. a:muntialed the first page of each document. Fr. ~tated that he had authored the documents and had additional written documentation as was requested at his interview. Fr. ~tated again that in light of the Archdiocesan directive to be transparent and forthcoming, he felt compelled to share information with law enforcement conducting a criminal investigation. Fr. ~ated that in the Greene Espe! document that he spoke about on May 14, 2015, he read that Curtis Wehmeyer stated that Wehmeyer felt that Archbishop Nienstedt had been "grooming" him. Additionally, Greene Espe! sent a letter of disengagement to the ADSPM from the investigation of Archbishop Nienstedt. Fr. ~read this letter, which said, among other things, that Greene Espel stated the firm did not want to be part of perpetrating a fraud on the public and therefore disengaged. Gm On M~ 2015, at approximately 0930 hours, Inv. Leatherman andACA Ring again met with Fr. ~egarding a letter drafted b~ Ring. The letter, dated May 26~ was a written request for documents in Fr. ~s possession. In response, Fr. ~rovided two documents which Fr. had authored. The first, dated July 7, 2014 consists of 11 pages and is entitled "Memorandum" and was directed to Bishop Lee Piche'. The second consists of 3 pages, dated February 6, 2014 and is entitled "Confidential Memorandum Allegations of Misconduct Regarding Archbishop John C. Nienstedt". Fr. ~d Inv. Leatherman initialed the front pages of each. Inv. Leatherman dated and placed a circled designation of the number of pages. Both of the documents are the work product of Fr. ~which he redacted names from in order tq not victimize again those who had come forward with allegations. Fr. ~tated that he read a document entitled "Memorandum of Interview of Curtis Wehmeyer" produced by Greene and Espe! for the Archdiocese. This is the report of the interview of Curtis Wehmeyer by Greene and Espe!. am On June 23, 2015, Inv. Leatherman received by email a memorandum from Fr.~ concerning best practices leamed from the Archdiocese of Chicago during a trip he had made there in April of2014. The memorandum was dated September 29, 2014 arid consisted of 4 pages. All documents received are attached to this report. CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM November22, 2013 As Delegate for Safe Environment, a number of allegations of misconduct have recently been brought to my attention concerning Archbishop John C. Nienstedt. Other matters, which I had known about previously, I now bring forward as delegate as they potentially relate to the allegations noted below. I do not presume to have jurisdiction in this matter, nor do I judge the veracity of the allegations described below. However, injustice, these matters must be brought to the attention of Archbishop Nienstedt. I further believe that an investigation of these allegations should be conducted as they pertain to the reputation of Archbishop Niesntedt and the well-being of our local church. o • 0 A reputable source has indicated that a priest in Detroit has alleged that while staying overnight at the rectory of the National Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, Michigan (then) Fr. Nienstedt sexually solicited him. The alleged advance was not reciproca:ted. In a discussion with the source, wherein the incident was recounted, the priest stated: "I know when I am being hit on." A priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis recently had a conversation with a former priest, J~hich is documented in the attached statement. The priest states that-old him about an incident in Michigan where Bishop Nienstedt (the year is not · !mown) asked • t o drive bis car back to his summer home from a restaurant where they had dined. According to the priest, -alleges that while he was driving, Bishop Nienstedt began massaging his neck. When they arrived home, asked Bishop Nienstedt to drive him to the airport the next morning. The priest also stated that when he asked- whether he was concerned that Archbishop Nienstedt occasionally camps with seminarians in the boundary waters, he responded, yes. Another priest of the Archdiocese told me a number of years ago that he was in Detroit as a presenter at a conference. The conference took place shortly after it was announced that Archbishop Nienstedt was named coadjutor archbishop of St. Pan! and Minneapolis. He stated that a number of priests of the Archdiocese of Detroit spoke to him regarding what they described as Archbishop's promiscuous gay lifestyle while serving as priest in Detroit and while living in Rome. " A reputable source from Detroit who serves on a board of directors of a Twin Cities university allegedly stated to other board members that many people from the Detroit Archdiocese knew of Archbishop Nienstedt's promiscuous gay lifestyle while he was serving there as a priest. ~ Recently, the spouse of a chancery official of the Archdiocese has received a number of calls from men with whom she works in the Twin Cities Arts industry. The callers told her that they have knowledge that Archbishop Nienstedt was active in a gay lifestyle while serving as a priest in Detroit. They further told her to convey this information to her husband. o In the last 4-5 weeks, Archbishop Nienstedt has received several anonymous letters postmarked from different cities. All of these letters reference a place called the "Happy Tap", a gay bar and strip club in Wmdsor, Canada. This establishment is located across the river from Detroit. The writers of these letters allege that they remember Archbishop Ninestedt and ask if he remembers them. They also sta:te that he should "come out" and tha± he should resign soon. .. I ; CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM Allegations of Misconduct Regarding Archbishop John C. Nienstedt February 6, 2014 For an Internal Investigation of These Allegations Prepared by Fr.~ Delegate for Safe Environment, Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis fi'."'° As Delegate for Safe Environment of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, a number of allegations of misconduct have been brought to my attention regarding Archbishop John C. Nienstedt. Other matters and allegations which I had known about previously, I now bring forward as Delegate, as they potentially relate to some of the allegations noted below. I am not · . -_fl..ble-tc~Jgl~y-j~ggg_t):ie veracio/: o:f:these.allegations. HaweYer, I .would.note fuat_all .of_th_e _. ... __ . ... allegations at least ris~-to the-levei, lll my' opfuloi:i, beiiig iiot 'mvcilolliici!' iri8:iiireSt1yffilse. -· of A thorough and discreet investigation will help determine the credibility of these allegations and whether they can be substantiated. I have advised the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis that an investigation of these allegations should be conducted as they may pertam to the reputation of Archbishop Nienstedt and the well-being of our local church. In the investigation of these allegations, the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis is applying, injustice, the same standard that would be applied to priests facing similar allegations. Archbishop Nienstedt has formally authorized this investigation hy decree and has appointed Auxiliary Bishop, Lee Piche as the person responsible for carrying out the investigation. I will serve, in my capacity as Delegate for Safe Environment, as the liaison between Archdiocese of St Paul and Minneapolis and those parties retained to carry out the afor=entioned investigation. • has indicated to a reputable source (Archbishop Harry J. Flynn) that while staying ovemight at the rectory of the NatiDnal Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak Michigan (then) Auxiliary Bishop John Nienstedt sexually solicited him. The alleged advance was not reciprocated. In a phone conversation with the source, wherein the incident was recounted, the priest allegedly stated: "I know when I aro being hit on." • a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis had a recent Fr. E conversation with former p r i e s t , - - . which is documented in the attached statement. Fr. ~states that-told him about an incident in Michigan where Bishop Nienstedt (the year is not known by Fr.~ asked.to drive bis car back to his summer home from a restaurant where they had dined. According to Fr. ~ alleges that while he was driving, Bishop Nienstedt began messaging his neck. When they arrived home,masked Bishop Nienstedt to drive him to the airport the next rooming. Fr. also stated that when he ask~hether he was concerned that Archbishop Nienstedt occasionally camps with semi~ed, yes. Fr. ~in a phone conversation, also indicated tha~ told him that Bishop Nienstedt came orrto him while at ~s~ 11 ••er home. Archbishop Nienstedt when asked about his relationship wi~stated that they were just TT- ' .. --··. ' ··. -·- -··-· . ::...... ': .. friends and there was nothing inappropriate between them. Archbishop Nienstedt has denied the allegations that he came o n t o • A priest (who wishes to remain anonymous) of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis told me a number of years ago that he was in Detroit as a presenter for a conference. At the time of the conference, Archbishop Flynn was preparing to retire as Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis and awaiting tlie appointment of a coadjutor archbishop. A priest of the Detroit Archdiocese came up to the presenting priest and inquired about the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis as he was thinking about incardinating into the archdiocese. He indicated that he would certainly not incardinate into the archdiocese if Bishop John Nienstedt were named coadjutor archbishop. The priest of Detroit then descnoed in detail John Nienstedt' s promiscuous gay lifestyle wliile Nienstedt served as a priest in Detroit and while living in Rome . . .. lived and. ~~~l~ed fu niiiny yeai:s a"s--~ a member of the Board of Trustees of the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul. Sr. • allegedly stated to other board members that many people from the Detroit Archdiocese knew of JohnNienstedt's promiscuous gay lifestyle while he was serving there as a priest, including the fact that he would frequent gay bars and establishments acyoss the border in Canada • Sr. M: · ·· · · iiiilha.s i:ietroli :fur and lias servcii.· • This past fall - o e Kueppers (Chancellor for Civil Affairs) received several calls from men with whom she works in the Twin City Alis industry. They told her that they have knowledge that John Nienstedt was active in a gay lifestyle while serving as a priest in Detroit. They further told her to tell oe Kueppers said "I know these guys, they're credtole." • This past fall, Archbishop Nienstedt received several anonymous letters postmarked from different cities. All of the letters reference a place called the "Happy Tap Tavern" a gay bar and strip club in Windsor, Canada. This establishment is located across the river from Detroit The writers of these letters allege that they remember John Nienstedt and ask if he remembers them. They also state that he should "come out" and that·he should resign soon. • Parishioners and former staff members of Holy Spjrit Catholic Church in St. Paul indicated that they found the relationship between former pastor) and Bishop Nienstedt ~New Ulm) odd. Bishop Nienstedt was a frequent overnight guest o~at the Holy Spirit rectory. Apparently, he would drive to St. Paul from New Ulm and stay overnight. Bishop Nienstedt indicated that he was often flying out of the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport the next day. The former trustee of Holy Spirit (now deceased) and her husband occasionally would invite Bishop Nienstedt ao o their home for dinner. It has been ~ed that the trustee and her husband became troubled by the excessive drinking o~d Bishop Nienstedt and the interaction between the two of them which was described as flirtatious. ~: lo·. q " In December of2013, a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul aodMinneapolis who is a 'mandatory reporter, reported to Detective Urbanski of the St. Paul Police Department that he had learned about an incident where a minor boy alleged that Archbishop Nienstedt inappropriately touched on the buttocks during a picture taking session following a confirmation at the Cathedral of St. Paul. The alleged incident took place in May of2009. Archbishop Nienstedt strongly denies this allegation. The St. Paul Police Deparlment has taken the statement of both the young man (now 19) and Archbishop Nienstedt. It is believed that the investigation is now complete and the matter has been forwarded to the Ramsey County Attorney's Office, awaiting a charging decision. mm • A priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis has indicated that a nlimber of years ago Bishop Nienstedt (then bishop of New Ulm) helped move a young priest of the Duluth diocese into his residence. Apparently, the Duluth priest was troubled by the ··. - · · c·.: :·atl!li+ti.Q.n_!i§.IDg'P.fliil-·h:i.m:.l>y·a-:\Ji~hoJl·from another -diocese .. When the (then.) bishop of __ Duluth heard about this, he allegedly -~illed BiBhop Nieuiitedt ·an.a: toid fuilli:o sfuj"away· from his young priests. .. Joe Kueppers indicated that has been a Blessed Sacrament Parish in Maplewood for the past several years. On some Sunday mornings (then pastor) Curtis Weymeyer would tell Kuepper's .that Archbishop Nien.stedt had come over to the Blessed Sacrament rectory the prior evening to visit with Weymeyer. Curtis Weymeyer was charged and convicted of the abuse of two minor boys aod the possession of child pornography in 2012 and is now serving time in prison. Archbishop Nienstedt has indicated that he has tried to be a sphitual rather to Weyrneyer over the years and to help him with his struggles. Most of these allegations were presented to Archbishop Nienstedt, November 25, 2013 via an earlier memo. Archbishop Nienstedt has indicated that he is not gay and that he denies these allegations. When asked where he thought they may have come from and what might be the motive behind them, he indicated that~ay be upset by Nien.stedes decision that he not return to the priesthood in the Archdiocese of St. Paul aod :Minneapolis. Regarding the allegations of a prior promiscuous gay lifestyle, Archbishop acknowledged that he has been dogged by these rumors for several years. He noted that while Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit he was given tbe difficult assignment of closing down tbe Dignity Mass there which had become a popular Mass among gay Catholics of Detroit. Archbishop has indicated that perhaps some of these rumors are the result of this decision which was unpopular in that community. -·.-, . - ·-···-~ -.. ) -•:.·· - .-.-:' ·, -··' ::-~-1 ' - . :::· -~·-· . ··'· :-._; CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM To: Most Reverend Lee Pich~; Most Reverend Andrew Cozzens; Very Reverend Charles Lachowitzer ~(.Jllirt~ Fr: Reverend D - G - Delegate for Safe Environment Re: Archbishop John N:tedt and the Safe Environment of the Archdiocese Date: April 20, 2014 Introduction In June of2013, Archbishop John Nienstedt asked if I would serve as His Excellency's Delegate for S.afe .Environment. After prayerful discernment, I accepted this assignment and was appointed Delegate for Safe Env.iromnent on August 15, 2013. From the beginning of my work I came to a place of significant concern regarding the safe environment of the Archdiocese. TI1ese concerns were validated by the recent report of the independent Task Force. There is no doubt that we have all worked very hard in recent months to improve the safe environment of the Archdiocese and have made significant progress. We have stated that our most important goals are to create safe envirorunents for our children and om· Catholic faitbful and to restore trust through consistent application of our safe environment policies and practices. To that end, as leaders we must remaio vigilant with regard to any factors still present that may inhibit the safe environment of the Archdiocese and affect our credibility going forward. Given my role as Delegate, I write this memorandum to summarize my concerns regarding Archbishop Nienstedt and the safe environment of our Archdiocese. I trust you lmow I have not arrived at this decision lightly. Allegations regarding Archbishop Nienstedt As you know, an internal investigation is currently being conducted regarding allegations of misconduct by Archbishop Nienstedt. 111ese allegations were originally presented to Archbishop Nienstedt in a memo dated November 22, 2013. Those apprised of these allegations agreed that the Archbishop, in justice, must be held to the same standard as any priest serving in this Archdiocese. Archbishop Nienstedt agreed to and authorized an internal investigation of these allegations in a January 31, 2014 letter to Bishop Lee Pich~. In that authorizing letter, Archbishop Nienstedt appointed Bishop Pichif as the responsible person to cari)' out the investigation and stated that the report should be as candid and thorough as possible so that the character of the investigation may not be impugned. Subsequently, Bishop Pich~ appointed me as liaison between the Archdiocese and the law firm selected to carry out the investigation. In selecting an investigator to undertake tlris important task, a number of lawyers were considered. The Archbishop's attorney was invited to submit a list oflawyers whom he believed could fairly, competently, and credibly carry out tlris work. Mr. Matthew Forsgren, was among three names provided by Archbishop Nienstedt's attomey. After speaking with Mr. Forsgren and lawyers who know him, his integrity, and his work product, we agreed to the selection of Mr. Forsgren of Greene Espe! to lead the investigation of these allegations. ., The Preliminary Investigation Matthew Forsgren and David Wallace Jackson of Greene Espe! began the investigation of the veracity of these allegations in early February, 2014_ In our initiaI meeting, I indicated to them that the sole goal of the investigation was to determine as best they could the truth or falsity of the allegations. This was not to be a white wash or a witch hunt. Rather, they were directed to discreetly and thoroughly investigate the allegations. Earlier this month, Mr. Forsgren and Mr. Wallace Jackson presented the evidence gathered thus far to the auxiliary Bisliops, the Vicar General, to Mr. Brian Wenger and to me. Both attorneys clearly cautioned us that there was more investigative work to be done, including following up on at least 24 additional leads, and interviewing Archbishop Niesnstedt and his selected witnesses. Please note that any significant evidence uncovered in the next phase of the investigation favorable to the Archbishop will be considered for the purposes of my safe environment analysis. At the early April meeting, Mr. Forsgren and Mr. Wallace Jackson presented 10 affidavits and two memoranda of interviews as well as a smnmary of the affidavits and interviews. They noted that affidavits constitute sworn testimony and that the penalty for providing false testimony in an affidavit is a felony under federal and state law. They further noted that they found all of the individuals who signed affidavits to be credible and explained how, through their experience as lawyers, they detennine credibility. In addition, they noted that many of the affiants were concerned about reprisals and some of the affiants made statements against self interest, by placing themselves in situations in which they ought not to have been as priests. The sworn statements provided to those gathered detailed a number of allegations of misconduct by Archbishop Nienstedt, spanning many years. Allegations regarding Archbishop Nienstedt (JN) stated in the sworn statements include: JN seen at a gay bar in Windsor, Canada; JN cruising at a Detroit park known for such activity; JN seen at a gay video store in Detroit; alleged sexual harassment by JN of a Detroit priest; 3 contemporaneous reports of the alleged sexual harassment · by JN of a Detroit p1iest; allegations of reprisals by JN against a Detroit priest; concerns raised about JN's interaction with seminarians in Detroit; alleged sexual harassment by JN of a former St. Paul priest; a contemporaneous report of the alleged sexual harassment by JN of a former St. Paul priest; allegations of reprisals by JN against a former St. Paul priest; concerns raised by a college seminary rector and another St. Paul priest regarding JN's interaction with seminarians in St Paul; allegations of excessive drinking by JN. It is fair to say that all gathered for the meeting found the evidence presented to be very concerning. In examining the evidence gathered thus far, I find the following compelling: nearly everyone interviewed has been willing to back up their testimony in a sworn statement; that many have done so fearing reprisals; that some affiants malce statements against self interest; that much of the sworn testimony alleges similar patterns of behavior across both time and geography; and that all of the affiants were found to be credible by Mr. Forsgren and Mr. Wallace Jackson. Concerns Regarding the Safe Environment of the Archdiocese As Delegate for Safe Environment for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, I respe1Ctfully call your attention to concerns regarding Archbishop John Nienstedt and the safe environment of this Archdiocese.- Before stating these concerns, I would like to acknowledge, in justice, that Archbishop Nienstedt has not yet had an opportunity to formally answer the allegations against him. I understand that this opportunity is forthcoming. My concerns regarding Archbishop Nienstedt and the safe environment of the Archdiocese are based on several factors. First, the evidence presented to the Archdiocese at this stage of the investigation is compelling, with attorneys Forsgren and Wallace Jackson indicating they have at least 24 additional leads to pursue. Presented this level of evidence against a priest, we would certainly take action. Second, there are troubling concerns about patterns suggested by the evidence thus far: alleged unwelcome advances; inappropriate interaction with seminarians; and reprisals in response to those who do not reciprocate the alleged advances. For example, the current Rector of St. John Vianney College Seminary and the fonner Director of the Office for Priestly Life and Ministry both state in their affidavits t11eir concern regarding Archbishop Nienstedt' s interaction wifu seminarians. Bofu of.these priests were appointed by Al:chbishop Nienstedt to fueir respective positions. The current rector further notes in his affidavit that his predecessor at St. John Vianney Seminary also had con\:ems regarding fue Archbishop's interaction with seminarians. Archbishop Nienstedt's fonner vicar general recently told me that he expressed bis concern to Archbishop regarding annual camping trips fue Archbishop has taken with college seminarians. Both fue current and former Chancellor for Canonical Affairs have noted seeing odd letters written to seminarians by Archbishop Nienstedt wherein warm and affectionate language is used. One letter alleged to have been written by Archbishop Nienstedt to a pastor in the southern metro thanking hini for an overnight visit to bis parish includes a comment by the Archbishop that it was fun to see the young parochial vicar the next morning in his pajamas with his messy hair. Additionally, I recently learned that Mr. Forsgren and Mr. Wallace Jackson were contacted by an individual whom they had initially attempted to locate earlier in fue investigation. This individual, now married with children and living in Oregon, alleges tliat when he was 18 years old and a seminarian in Detroit, he was asked by fuen Monsignor Nienstedt (then rector of the seminary) to accompany hin1 on a ski trip. When the seminarian declined and stated that he fuought the invitation was inappropriate, he alleges he was promptly removed from the seminary by then Monsignor Nienstedt. This individual, who described the behavior as a "kind of grooming" has now presented his testimony in the forrn of an affidavit. Third, in my work as Delegate I have come across a number of decisions made by Archbishop Nienstedt that raise serious concern. These decisions relate to priest misconduct similar to Nienstedt's alleged misconduct described above. A high profile priest who was accused of an ongoing homosexual relationship with a man he was alleged to have met while cruising was given the rare opportunity to sit down with Archbishop to explain the allegation. FoITller Chancellor for Civil Affairs, Andy Eisenzimmer referred to this meeting as unusual. The investigation was abruptly closed before its completion and Archbishop Nienstedt told Eisenzimmer to convey to fue man malcing the allegation that he could be sued for defamation ifhe did not cease with his clainis. Anofuer example concerns a priest of a diocese in Wisconsin who was seeking incardination into this Archdiocese. His file noted several reports of homosexual misconduct from his previous diocese. Former Chancellor Eisenzimmer, in a memo written to Archbishop Nienstedt, stated that it would be a grave mistalondedtO theii"oii"gfiliiI mqurry: This-coriespondencefesllitoo-Unrn'eleventhaffiaavit 'W~rein ... ' the man alleged that then Monsignor Ninestedt promptly dismissed him from 1he seminary in Detroit after tbe then 19 year old semioarian turned down as inappropriate, Nienstedt's invitation to join him and two other seminarians on a ski trip. After Easter, Mr. Wallace-Jackson and I met with you at your office in the chancery. At that meeting, you told bofu of us that the attorneys were to narrow the focus of their investigation to the questions of whefuer a crime or a grave deli ct had been committed by Archbishop Nienstedt and that their interview of the Archbishop should likewise focus on these questions. When Mr. WaJ4u;e-Jackson asked whether they could do more investigative work and to pursue further leads to detennine these answers, you stated that he would have to get the permission of the Nuncio; permission, you stated that you believed would be denied. At this same meeting, I raised the issue of the two potential cases of sexual harassm~ in the evidence. I noted that these were serious claims and that 1he one involving-presented potential liability for the Archdiocese as well as the Archbishop. You agreed to allow the investigators to cover this area as well, but not as their main focus. In _response, both David and I stated that this further narrowing of the investigation was not in keeping with the original January 3 lst letter calling for a thorough investigation the integrity of which cannot be impugned. In the presence of Mr. Wallace-Jackson, I said that these two lawyers worked at a very well respected law furn and were well respected in their own right. I further stated that I could not imagine thai: they would be party to a white-wash, effectively allowing themselves to be patsies in a cover-up. I further indicated to you that your directive (or perhaps the Nuncio's) not to investigate other alleged · misconduct clearly applied a different and more p=issive standard to the Archbishop than would be applied to priests serving in the Archdiocese. You did not disagree with this assessment. At that same post-Easter meeting, you gave Mr. Wallace-Jackson a correspondence which you later took out of his hand as he was reading it, sayfug that he could not read it, nor could he be given a copy of this and that you should not have given it to him in the :first place. Mr. WallaceJackson was very concerned by this and asked me to follow up to obtain a copy. In a subsequent conversation with you, I asked you jf the investigators could see the letter and you said no. At this same meeting, you indicated to Mr. Wallace-Jackson and me that after you snd Bishop .. ·.-. ' L Cozzens· had sent your April letter to fue Apostolic Nucio, fue Nuncio in response asked you to take back the letter and destroy it You did not indicate whether you had complied with this request, or perhaps it was a directive. I would like to pause for a moment and visit the gi-avity of what you conveyed to JV&:. Wallace-Jackson and me in your office at the chancery. Tue destruction of evidence is a crime under federal law and state law and the fact that this request was made of you by a papal representative to the United States is most distressing. I sincerely hope and trust that you and/or Bishop Cozzens did not comply with this shocking request/directive made of you by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States. I would advise you that if you have not done so already, to report this request (or perhaps directive) made by the Nuncio to destroy evidence to ao appropriate authority in the Vatican. Regarding the decision to interview Ms. Haselberger, fuis decision was in keeping with a fuorough investigation, the integrity of which could not be impugned. Both the Task Force and Kinsale Management reache.d q¢ to Ms. ,Haselb~i;g\'r fo!. .an. ffi.terview, and were denied. 'EiieryoiieWfiolaiew ofllie iiivesfigation mevn:lwthere·wrurn·riskthat·any·ofthose·interview.id- ... could go to the press. I believe this risk was one of the reasons Archbishop Nienstedt took so long to agree to the investigation. Our investigators did stress confidentiality as I did in my introductory phone calls. I would note here that I did not contact Ms. Haselberger prior to her conversation with Greene Espe! because I believed it would have been inappropriate given her pending matter wiih the Archdiocese. I thought it best to have our independent investigators contact her. Mr. Forsgren and Mr. Wallace-Jackson laid out well their rationale in contacting Ms. Haselberger as her interview potentially pertained to concerns regarding a possible relationship between Archbishop Nienstedt aod Curtis Wehmeyer. I would like to conect the record regarding one point in JV&:. Forsgren and Mr. Wallace-Jackson's July 3rd letter in regards to 1he interview of Ms. Haselberger. I did not specifically instruct them to interview Ms. Haselberger. Rather, they made the case to me that in their professional judgment it was absolutely necessary to interview Ms. Haselberger. AB this was to be a thorough and independent investigation and as Mr. Forsgren and Mr. Wallace-Jackson are skilled investigators, I relied on their professional judgment and allowed the interview to proceed. Given the number of those interviewed and given the number of sworn statements obtained, I have no doubt that this matter was going to be made public eventually. ! do regret that the investigation was made public, especially prior to conclusion of the investigation. Although, as it turns out, fuat point is now moot as our investigators have now withdrawn given the inhibiting restrictions placed on the independent investigation. Regarding fue decision to not publicize the investigation, I agree with fuis decision. There is no way that JV&:. Forsgren and JV&:. Wallace-Jackson would have been able to conduct the investigation they did and gather the evidence they did if the investigation was announced before hand. Further, fue Archbishop is entitled to his good naroe and to make the investigation public would have unjustly tamished his reputation prior to the findings of the investigation. The decision of whether the Archbishop should have stepped down during the investigation is his to make in consultation with the Apostolic Nuncio. Bishop Cozzens noted that when we were presented with compelling evidence gathered during the preliminary stage of the investigation, this would have been an appropriate time to ask the Archbishop to temporarily step down. But, as the Archbishop had just returned to ministry, we were presented with a difficult dilemma. To -- .. ·--·---- .... i •• - • ...:.;.;; • - J l.o : 2.\ my knowledge, tlris dilemma further prompted the decision of you and Bishop Cozzens to fly to Washington D.C. to advocate for a pastoral solution_. Obviously, when the story broke Tuesday of the existence of the investigation, the Archdiocese found itself in a difficult decision. Still, there was the possibility that some semblance of a credible investigation and report could be salvaged, notwithstanding the Nuncio's unf01tunate interventions. AB you know, I counseled strongly this past Tuesday that due to the public revelations of the investigation, the interests of the Archdiocese and the Archbishop were not in total concert. Thus, I argued that the Archdiocese should be very careful to make neutral statements regarding the Archbishop and the investigation as this would be in.keeping with its future interests as well as the integrity and independence of 1he investigation. It is very unfortunate that your statement was not provided to Commonweal, nor was it included in the Ca1holic Spirit In my opinion 1his was a significant communications error. The only response fromfiltributed to the Archdiocese were the vigorous deJl.ial.s pf the allegations by the Arcli.b!shop:Tfie Archbfsliop ceffiiiril.yha8'lliefigli.tmpiib1irally'exjiress ills de-mm; but the. Archdiocese also has a right, and in fact a dutj; to express its neutrality in response to an ongoing independent investigation. Additionally, the Archbishop's statements that he had called for the investigation were at best misleading. As we know, he only agreed to it after pressure from some in the chancery, including from Brian Wenger and me. As the Archbishop indicated to Mr. Forsgren and Mr. WallaceJackson in his interview, he agreed to the investigation because there was a possible MPR story on the horizon. Archbishop Nienstedt's co=ents that his alleged behavior did not implicate anything illegal is not accurate as the Archdiocese and the Archbishop fi~xposure regarding sexual harassment, related to his alleged unwelcome touch o f Rarely, have I been more stunned than when I read the letter written by Mr. Forsgren and Mr. Wallace--JackBon July 3, 2014 withdrawing as counsel to the Archdiocese in the investigation of Archbishop Nienstedt. In working with both of them, I found them to be highly competent, professional and exhibiting consistent integrity. The fact that they were able to gather the evidence they· did is remarkable especially given the secretive culture of the Church wbich is replete with fear of reprisals. They were asked to complete a very difficult and sensitive task for the Archdiocese. Along the way, they were insulted and swore at by Mr. Hapeman, unjustly accused of investigative bias and euphoria at their results, and hamstrung in their work as the ground-rules and scope kept changing. Bishop Piche, I assume you received couosel in the July 2nd letter you sent to Mr. Forsgren and Mr. Wallace-Jackson. I have not seen the letter, but I can only conclude by the response of Greene Espel kd fueir description of its contents, that you received very poor counsel in the drafting and sending of the July 2nd letter. Although I am liaison between the Archdiocese and Greene Espel, 1 was not consulted regarding the July 2nd letter and have heard nothing from you since our lawyers withdrew as counsel. This letter and the understandable, and predictable, response from Greene Espe! has now put the Archdiocese in a very difficult position. First, as stated above, I strongly advise the Archdiocese to contact Greene Espe! in an effort to reengage them to complete this investigation. If that route is not pursued, I strongly advise the Archdiocese to make known to the public immediately Greene Espel's decisiou to withdraw as counsel to the Archdiocese. It only takes one reporter's question or one affiant or interviewee to call and inquire of Greene Espel regarding the investigation. Their truthful and appropriate response will be "we no longer represent the Archdiocese." This fact will be known soon and if the Archdiocese does not disclose this before it becomes public, we will look even worse than we otherwise would have if we fail to disclose that Greene Esp el' s withdrawal as our attorneys. The decisions made subsequent to your April visit to the Apostolic Nuocio to comply with his request to narrow the scope of fue investigation, to quickly bring the matter to a close despite at least 24 lea.dB, and now to further inhlbit the work of our lawyers in this so called independent investigation have made the Archdiocese complicit in a white-wash and a cover-up. I believe there still exists a principle of Catholic moral fueology that one's conscience is not bound by something immoral or unjust. There is still the possibility to allow Greene Espel to complete this investigation consistent with the January 31st letter and in furtherance of both truth and justice. Regarding Greene.Espel's decision fo wifudraw and their July 3rd letters addressed to you,.I cann"or. firia fallif With ili:eit eleciSfc.i:il, rurregtel:tl!bfo· as it i:s for ihe·:AJ'cbrliocese;-A-s..indita:techn · .. ·· ·· · ·· · · ·· fueir letter, they were not willing to sacrifice the hard won reputation of their firm by agreeing to perpetuate the myth that this was truly an independent and thorough investigation. Sadly, this investigation could have been both had Greene Espe! been allowed to follow the original January 3lst mandate. Greene Espe! had all but concluded its investigation as they had interviewed Archbishop Nienstedt twice and were now circling back to affiants one more time. To my knowledge, they were already drafting their final report. To limit Greene Espel to present on1y factual findings as the July 2nd letter apparently conveyed is not only inconsistent with normal protocol for internal investigations, it also inconsistent with the original January 31st mandate authorizing the investigation. In an unrelated matter I recently received a detailed 43 page report from another reputable and prominent Minneapolis law furn. In its report, the firm presented its findings, an evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, the judgment of the investigators, and their conclusions, all of which are standard protocol for internal investigations. Was the Archdiocese anticipating a :final report that might have been unfavorable to the Archbishop? Did this possibility prompt this ill advised decision, one fuat has now put the Archdiocese in a most difficult position? Whatever the answer to these questions may be, the Archdiocese should endeavor to find a solution to its untenable position. In response to the difficult situation that the Archdiocese riow finds itself in, I offer a few suggestions by way of cormsel. If the Archdiocese chooses not to reengage Greene Espe! in this matter as I recommend, I strongly advise the Archdiocese not to hire another law firm to complete the investigation. This would be rightly seen by the public and our Catholic faithful as not credible and thus unworthy of trust. I have little doubt that it will eventually come out that Greene Espel withdrew because they were not allowed to do their work consistent with the original charge of a thorough and independent investigation.. I would advise the Archdiocese to send the affidavits and any work product of Greene Espe!, along with original memos to the Congregation for Bishops. This was originally Susan Mulheron's suggestion as she voiced prescient concem that the Nuncio would bury the findings of an investigation. The Congregation can do what it chooses with the information it receives.. This course of action is proper as the Archdiocese is taldng the step of advancing issues of serious concern to an appropriate authority. The Archdiocese. should prepare for the eventuality that any or all of the affidavits may be made public and/or may be compelled through discovery. Accordingly, the Archdiocese ought to be very careful not to llJBke any statements inconsistent with information contained in these affidavits. Archbishop Nienstedt has already made several comments in response the Connnonweal story that are concerning at best and some which are factually wrong. It is important to also know that any of the affiants are free to do what they wish with their affidavits, including giving them to the press. Our ill advised decision to further inhibit the investigation at this eleventh hour may just prompt them to do so. Conclusfon The Archdiocese was on the verge of an unprecedented moment in the history of the Church in the United States. In an attempt to turn the page and begin to restore trust in an Archdiocese that was presently in crisis, some in tbe Archdiocese insisted injustice that the Archbishop be held to the same standard as priests serving in the Archdiocese. In addition to conducting this investigation, the AJ:phdiocese_a1s9 •. - --1 f:.·,:> -- ...-. -- - ,.; communications. It was clear to me that a friendly relationship had ended and clear what my life in ministry would be like under him. I did not want any part of that abuse. In my current position with~e treat people with dignity and respect which would not be my future in the Church. I did not want to overtly disclose in the laicization process the actual reason I was seeking to leave but hoped that it would be investigated. I said that I wanted to get a job (I was a priest already) or marry a woman already married- again all nonsense. I was trying to signal everyone to investigaJ:e without actually saying what I had experienced. After a few years had gone by I decided to approach Archbishop Nienstedt by letter to see if we could reconnect. My thoughts were that he would see this as a business letter concerning my priestly vocation versus connecting personally and wanting to hang out with him. He responded with a letter saying that he felt somewhat burned, was not interested in reconnecting and told me to have a good life. I spoke with my brother about the letter and showed it to bim. He said that he felt the Archbishop was acting scorned by our former friendship. I wrote back to Archbishop Nienstedt saying if not personally, how about ecclesiastically- meaning bim being the Archbishop and me being a former priest. My thought was to talk with him about me being reinstated into the ministry or get his blessing to approach another Bishop- since there would first be a courtesy conversation to him about me. There was no response in regards to my last letter and I have not heard from him since. In about 2012 I spoke with Bishop Richard Pates in the Diocese of Des Moines, Iowa about possibly returning to the ministry- but not in the ADSPM. I ultimately decided that the Diocese of Des Moines was too close to the AbSPM. In 2013 I again decided to pursue the mioistry. I wrote to Cardinal Timothy Dolan in New York about returning to the ministry there. I received a warm letter in response from Cardinal Dolan. After further commuoications, I eventually went to New York and met with Cardinal Dolan. I had company business io Boston and used personal reasons to fly to and from New York to meet with him. I my view, Cardinal Dolan seemed positive about my return to the ministry. Cardinal Dolan told me that he had done this many times before and that it would be easier since he knew me from our time in Rome together. Cardinal Dolan ioformed me that he would need to contact Archbishop Nienstedt as a courtesy. Thereafter I received a short letter from Cardinal Dolan which stated that it would be best if I not return to the ministry in New York at that time. He mentioned that he had received word from Archbishop Nienstedt. I do not know what Archbishop Nienstedt told Cardinal Dolan- but know that Archbishop Nienstedt said something very personal against me. This affidavit was signed on March 23, 2014 by J. .- ~. __: - > -- • '' i ' · ······ · I ;• :c ·. · ··•. ''•'i I ·->'2. '' ·"······ •. ; STATE OF MINNESOTA - "· DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT CourtFileNo: 62-CR-15-4175 C. A. File No. 2139124 State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS E. RING v. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant EXHIBIT 9 RAMSEY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE INTERVIEW OF P. B OB On December 29, 2015 at approximately 08:05 hours, Investigator Eugene Leatherman, Assistant County Attomey_~hanie Wier-Assistant County Attorney Thomas Ring B t the Ramsey County Attorney's Office. The conducted an interview of~ interview was recorded. B~ated that he gre~e Diocese of New illm. Archbishop John Nienstedt was the Bishop of New IBm and B~ew hlm. B-attended St John Vianney Seminary (SN) from 2008 to 2010. Fr. William.Baer was the rector at that time. B-stated that he lived at the seminary. Also, a priest lived on each of the floors at the seminary residence dorm. The priest would run weekly meetings of the seminarians and be the formator for the students. Fr. John Klockmann was the forrnator for ~s floor. ~said that most seminarian candidates from the new Ulm Diocese attended St. Meinrad Seminary in Indiana. B - a i d tbat when Bp. Nienstedt was appointed Archbishop of the Archdiocese of St Paul and Minneapolis (ADSPM), the archbishop sent seminarians from New U1rn to study in Rome instead. B--ecalled that Fr. Matt Weiring and Fr. AaronJohanneck were among the first to go. B~ad written an article describing his experiences at St. John Vianney Seminary which he submitted and was published in the Commonweal Magazine. ~aid tbat everything he wrote in the article was truthful. B. .related that the seminarians attended a sexual ethics conference at the seminary early on in the program. B - a i d that he feels that it was to fulfill "Dallas Charter" requirements and directed more at formation issues. The '.:~as~ by the Theology of the Body Institute and was very strange according to ~~escribed it in detail in his article. - e l t uncomfortable with the sessions and met with Fr. Paul Gitter about his feelings. r. er informed at it may be that B-was being attacked by the Devil or demons and suggested discern which d~ tbat was tempting ~o distrust the priests conducting the program. ~aid tbat the same sexual ethics training with the same speakers is still being given at SN. VIRTUS training was the only formal tr••inin "ven or discussed at the seminary concerning aid that the VIRTUS training was really sexual attraction to children. However, directed at ethical action and professional oun ary issues. Pedophilia was only mentioned at the seminary as an extreme perversion and not really talked about or addressed as a formation issue. .. r 1 • ·c .-' .,, . : Fr. Baer had said that if a seminarian is a -rvert the seminary would know and find the aid that it seemed that fear and intimidation seminarian and get them out. Basically, B was used to deal with the issue of sexual abuse of minors in the Church. ~said that Abp. Nienstedt typically would come to St John Vianney Seminary late on Sunday for" Last Chance Mass" at 9:30 PM and ~sumed that Abp. Nienstedt stayed overnight in a guest room there. ~said that Fr. Baer ran the seminary through in~r. Baer would hand pick certain seminarians to be in charge of individual groups. ~aid that there was a sense that you could not ask for explanations or question what was done. B~aid that sometimes seminarians would discern that they were not interested in contin~the priesthood and leave. However, s6J'ne left unannounced with little explanation. B-described one such · · en a close friend or in an actual relationship with a p r i e s t - ho had been charged with sexual abuse of a minor. said that it was unclear if s seminarian had been involved also in the sexual abuse or hli:d to fostify~ugh further investigation, Inv. Leath=an has identified .· this pnest a s . . . . _ ~said that the phrase a "Vianney Man" was used to describe how the seminarian should act or look- physical and clothing wise. ~said that the body shape of being slim was the desired profile- being heavy or overweigh~egative. As a result, a munber of seminarians tried to lose weight. ~ought that one seminarian was even kicked out of the seminary for being overweight. B -said that he was confused by the blurred boundaries of ~ho would visit alone one on one with the seminarians at all hours- even late at night. ~aid that prior to Fr. Baer being the rector, he heard there were rumors concerning inappropriate relationships between priests and seminarians. ~aid that he was also troubled by Fr. Michael Keating. ~aid that Fr. Keating w~ charge of the men's group which consisted of seminari~ootball players interacting. The group's goal was to minister to football players as a means of influencing other students- since the football players were held in high regard on campus. B~ted that -::~~==~a~fri:·~e:nd~fr~o:m New Ulm, also studied at SJV. Fr. Keating was accused as an abuser of ~omplained to Fr. Baer questioning how Fr. Baer could place Fr. Keating in the group when there are allegations against Fr. Keating. Fr. Baer became angry at questioning Fr. Baer's decision and also supported the integrity of Fr. Keating. Several seminarians left after that semester over the incident. left the SJV se~ without going on to become a priest. B-said that a couple years back his brother was dating a college womannamed~ho stayed at a "Catholic Woman's House". The women of the house would invite guests for dinner. Fr. Keating was a regular dinner guest at this house after Fr. Keating had been removed from St. Thomas and the ADSPM had stated that his faculties had been suspended and restrictions placed. B~ought that it was not appropriate and disturbing for Fr. Keating to have access to college women- so ~ · contacted the ADSPM Director of Ministerial Standards.nvironment through the ADSPM website in approximately November of 2014. B as contacted and spoke by phone with this person who he thought was Timothy 0' ey to report what he learned about Fr. Keating. B~equested a brealc at approximately 924 hours. ~~ left the interview. ACA Wiersma and Inv. Leatherman resumed the interview of~ stated that 1-2 months prior to the interview he spoke again w i t h • • • • • • aid that after hearing some of the allegations in the press concerning Abp. Nienstedt he an questioned the appropriateness of some of the interactions they both had with the Abp. Nienstedt and boundary issues. and B - went to the Archbishop's residence in St Paul for dinner once or twice. B~oticed that and Abp. Nienstedt had a close relationship. B - said that~ him that had a close relationship since high shared with school with Nienstedt when he was Bishop of the New Ulm Diocese. B - that he woul~with Bp. Nienstedt at his residence in New Ulm while in high . school. told B - that he now questioned whether there was more behind this with Abp. Nienstedt- such as grooming him. ~went on the 2005 World Youth Day trip to Ulm and Cologne in G~with a group of high scho perones from the New Ulm Diocese. B - identified himself and a picture with Bp. Nienstedt talcen at the time. B were around 15-16 years old at the time and the only male stated that both he and high school students in their group on ~In Cologne, at the actual World Youth Day event, ickets to an event designated Bp. Nienstedt invited and gave only B~d for ~ans to attend a Mass and at ~y pe Benedict. Neither B nor - w e r e seminarians or priests and~ not sure why they received tickets. Bp. Nienstedt did not have a ticket for himself as a result. Afterward, B - a n d - - m e t up with Bp. Nienstedt outside the event. ~said that it was raining ~ee ran to a nearby pub and had lunch. After lunch, Bp. Nienstedt suggested that since they were done lunch and wet, they should go back to Nienstedt's hotel room. Neither B-nor had complained about being wet. ~aid that since Bp. Nienstedt was such an authrn~e he would not have been comfortable complaining or questioning Bp. Nienstedt. ~d were not staying at the same hotel as Bp. Nienstedt. All three walked to Bp. Nienstedt's hotel room which was nearby. Bp. Nienstedt took off his wet clothes and changed into dry ones in the main room in the presence of~ and B-said that Bp. Nienstedt' s dress shoes were soalcing wet and he put on tennis shoes. ~d also removed all their clothes in the presence of Bp. Nienstedt and put on hotel room robes. All were in the main room and no one changed in the room's bathroom. ~appeared troubled as he related the incident. B~oes not recall what they did while waiting for the clothes to be dried. ~ said that after a couple hours the clothes were brought back to Nienstedt' s room by the hotel staff. B - a n d changed into their clothes and went to meet up with the main group and said that he and ·d not talk eventually to where they were staying. B on the trip and about the incident afterwar~said that he had only met they were not that close. ~shared the incident in Nienstedt's room with his mother when he returned to Minnesota from the trip as he felt that it was ioappropriate and made him feel uncomfortable. ~ never spoken with Abp. Nienstedt again about the iocident. ~said that Abp. Nienstedt casually mentioned to B - s family about having to wear non dress shoes to an event at World Youth Day. B-said that his family was close to Bp. Nienstedt when he was in New Ulm. B - s a i d that he was aware from a friend of his from Joliet, Illinois who as a child in 2nd or 3rd grade would be taken to his priest's cabin to stay for a couple nights along with one or two other children of his same age group - without any other adults present. This friend related to ~t this priest would not act "priest like". The priest would tell inappropriate jokes and show the children "R" rated movies with sex scenes. The priest would rewiod the movie back to the sex scenes and replay them over for the children laughing and acting like a child. B. . told this friend that it needed to be reported- as the priest may very well be a pedophile. said that the priest was still a priest in the Diocese of Joliet, Illinois and told bis friend that if it happened to his friend it could be happening to other children. B - did not reveal the name of his friend nor know the naroe of the priest -but said that bis friend had reported the priest B-stated that as priests are held in a position of being like family members and allowed to interact freely with the family's chlldren. Thus it would not surprise ~others upon hearing of the clothes changiog incident or the taking of youth to a cabin unchaperoned would . not be troubled by it or recognize the inappropriateness. ~said that ioappropriate actions would be characterized by priests io general as "unwise". Inv. Leatherman thanked ~and ended the interview at approximately 1020 hours. Refer to the recording of the interview for further details concerning the conversation. ADDITIONAL After the interview, B-emailed Inv. Leatherman a copy of the handout for the sexual ethics workshop he spoke of entitled "Freedom and Victory Workshop". It is an attachment to this report STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT SECOND nJDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF RAMSEY Cou,rt File No: 62-CR-15-4175 C. A. File No. 2139124 State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS E. RING v. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. EXHIBIT 10 RAMSEY connrr arrosnar OFFICE nrvasrroaroats norss on THE aeronawr or On August 12, 2015 investigator Leatherrnan read the af?davit of BIT-and took the following notes from the document:- is a Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, ordained in 1972. Fr. states the following about his communications adth - "in early Spring 2011: FLT- indicated that a priest who had been on retreats for the past few years had eXpressed concerns about Archbishop Nienstedt?s frequent visits to the Seminary and his rather obvious and aWkWard relationships with those men who show promise for the future of the Church The primary question asked of Do you have any concerns about the Archbishop?s expressed and continued interes in Junior and senior men who are currently studying for this Archdiocese? Without any hesitation,- stated yes that he has concerns. elated two di?ferent incidents. The most signi?cant took place on the way to ?le Archbishop? surnrner house in Michigan. driving as he had less alcohol to drink than Nienstedt. Nienstedt reached over and began to massage -neck asking .how he felt. This continued until they arrived at the Archbishop?s summer house. When they had unpacked, -asked Nienstedt to drive him to the airport in the morning- as Wanted to ?y horns. Archbishop Nienstedt objected but later on the next day took -0 the airport. FLT-again spoke me ?after the incident was ?rst told. ?said that he wanted to consult with an attorney so as to not expose himself to any liability. Fr. stated that in his opinion there was more to the relationship than _Was {willing to share at the time. Fr. T-conducts annual retreats for St. John Vianney. Fr. T-Was aware of Archbishop Nienstedt?s particular and expressed interest in ?thronghout the past few years. Fr. T-now had deep concerns about the junior and senior class at St. John Vianney and the Archbishop?s ability to groom these young men for reasons that have a lot to do With_ personal history with Archbishop Nienstedt. This sworn statement was signed on April 9, 2014 by Fr. I iazi RAMSEY COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE mrsavraw or n- '03: On June 4, 2015, at approximately 0917 hours, Investigator Eugene Leathennan and Assistant County Attorney Stephanie Wiersma conducted an interview of E- '_at the Ramsey County Attorney?s Of?ce, St. Paul. The interview was recorded. Prior to the start of recording, Fr. indicated that he had a stroke in early 2010. Fr. said that he has made a mirac ous recovery. Fr. "I-indicated that he may pause during the interview or need a question repeated to ?nish his thought Fr. anted Inv. Leatherman and ACA Wiersnia to know about his stroke so that he not appear on tape as behig guarded in his response. lav. Leatherman asked Fr. it was okay to note that information on the recording. Fr. indicated that he was ?ne with that being done. E-T-is a Catholic riest ordained in 1972 into the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Mnneapolis (ADSPM). Fr. is currently the Associate Pastor at Fr. as been the Director of Senior Retreats at St. John Vianney Seminary for the past 25 years. Fr. st rnet Curtis Wehrneyer when Wehmayer was in pie?theology at St. John Vianney. Fr. said that this would have been about 4 years prior to Wehmeyer?s - ordination? which would place it in 1997. Fr. hared his feelings about Wehmeyer with Fr. Phillip Rask about six months prior to Wehrne er?s ordination. Fr. Rask was the St. Paul Seminary Rector at the time, and a classmate of Fr. at the Seminary. Fr. bserved Wehrne er was secretive, had anxiety and nervousness, and a past delicate fami 1s sue? which Fr. opined that Wehmeyer was sexually abused as a minor. Fr. aid that if you did not ask Wehmeyer the right question, Wehmeyer would not offer more. Fr. as not sure if Fr. Raslc knew a lot about Wehrneyer and ex ressed to Fr. Rash that Wehmeyer?s ordination would possibly result in issues later 011. Fr. said that there were a number of St. Paul seminary graduates in the 2-3 year range of Wehroeyer that he felt also should not have been ordained. Fr. ept track of Wehrneyer out of concern. At the request of Pr. Lee Piche?, Fr. Went an met with Fr. Piche? at St. Joseph?s, West St. Paul. Fr. Piche? shared with Fr. 1. Wehnreyer was utilizing the student boy?s bathroom at the school. 2. Wehraeyer?s anger issues. 3. Wehrneyer ignored what Fr. Piohe? directed him to do. 4. Wehmeyer selectively chose to do What Fr. Piche? asked Wehmeyer to do. 5. Wehrneyer would leave around 10:30 to 11:00 PM and not return until around 1:30 AM- and then fail to conduct the morning Mass. Fr. that in his opinion, Fr. Piche? is a mild person, hates adversity and was in?rm ate by Wehmeyer?s anger outbursts? and thus unable to correct Webmeyer. Fr. was asked why Fr. Piche? who was not a strong supervisor, hosen to be Wehme er assignment pastor. Fr. T-said he did not know why. 3% said that if Fr. as in Fr. Piche?s situation, Wehrneyer would have been sternly dealt tadth. Fr. T-said that he did not have any particular authority at that time. Fr. 1-wmte a memo to Archbishop and also met with Wehmeyer, and told him about what Fr. Piche? had revealed. Fr. Archbishop did with the memo. Fr. asked r. Piche? bathroom incident with Archbishop Fr. Piche? assured Fr. him concerning issues with does not know what onally share the boy?s that he would do so. Fr. _said that Fr. Piche? never quite put it together and had no capacity to interpret what was right in front of him concerning Wehmeyer. Fr. T-acknowledged that later on, Fr. Piche?, as Auxiliary Bishop, had all kinds of knowledge and evidence concerning Wehmeyer. Fr. T-becarne the Director of the ADSPM Of?ce of Priestly Life and Ministries in 2010. Fr. 17- feels that Wehmeyer became emboldened by being given a pastoral assignment and having his ministry af?rmed. Fr. maid that Wehmeyer never should have been made a pastor. Fr. I. had shared with ishop Nienstedt about Wehmeyer?s secretivcness- and eat and met with Wehrneyer a number of times at how that concerned Fr. Fr Blessed Sacrament. Fr. ked Wehmeyer directly if his life troubles had been resolved and if Wehrneyer had any prob ems. Wehmeyer assured Fr. T-that all was well. Fr. was concerned over Wehmeyer having the camper at Blessed Sacrament parking lot. Fr. learned about Wehmeyer going camping with children and sleeping with them ?to give em comfort?. Fr. is not sure who actually told him nor how it was phrased? as he characterized the information as being masked in conversation. . Fr. "[_took a phone call and the recording was stopped to allow him privacy. Fr. T-said that when there was a significant/high pro?le person in the ADSPM with allegations or issues, Archbishop Nienstedt would have Andrew Eisenzirnmer (AD SPM Chancellor of Civil Affairs) and Timothy Rourke (POMS) handle the case. Fr. tated that as Director, he would formulate a plan to deal with the priest, but was not allowed to advance it. Fr. ?stated that he mote ne ative memorande about Wehrneyer, hand delivered Archbis op Nienstedt. Fr. said that in the 3 to 4 years that he was Director, Fr. was allowed only a total of approxrmately 2 1/2 hours of time with ArchbishOp Nienstedt; concerning all the priests with issues. Fr. said that as Director he should have been able to spend as much time personally meeting with Archbishop Nienstedt as required to correct issues. Fr. T-requested a bathroom break and the recorder was paused for a short time. Fr. T-said that Archbishop Nienstedt stayed overnight at St. John Vienney Seminary- when he only lived a couple of miles away at the Chancery. Fr. T-said that this is not something that the Archbishop should be doing. Fr. T-said that when Wehrneyer was pending trial after his arrest concerning the sexual abuse of minors, Wehrneyer has invited to Archbishop Nienstedt?s attomey? home for dinner and cocktails with the Archbishop. Fr. feels that Archbishop Nienstedt and Wehmeyer both had alcohol abuse problems. Fr. aid that he himself had dealt with alcohol abuse issues years ago and recognized the signs. Fr. I- said that when he raised concerns over a priest?s conduct, Fr. Kevin McDonough characteristically would say that ?it is being taken care oi?. Fr. _said that ArchbishOp Nienstedt knew all the information about Wehtneyer. Prior to then Bishop Nienstedt coming in as the Archbishop, Fr. poke with - orn New Ulm. ?Was a former classmate of Pr. the St. Paul Seminary. motioned ?rom what he characterized as ?odd things? concerning Archbishop Nienstedt. Fr. T-share mformation which he had learned from -With Archbishop out of concern for the ADSPM. The information eventually leaked back to Archbishop Nienstedt. Fr. feels that Archbishop Nienstedt put Fr. T- in a position located in the Chancery so as to exert control. Fr. T-related that former aner priest _iid not petition for laicization until Archbishop Nienstedt was appointed Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis. had shared parts of his experiences concerning Archbishop Nienstedt directly with Fr. Inv. Leathennan thanked Fr. ended me interview at apprordrnately 1047 hours. The digital recording was downloaded to the Ramsey County Attorney?s Of?ce computer for storage. Refer to the recording for additional information concerning the interview. ADDITIONAL As Fr. was leaving, he said that Archbishop Nienstedt was fastidious about keeping paper: memorandums, documents and notes. The recorder was turned on again at approximately 1049 hours to record a statement made by Fr. T-hat Archbishop Nienstedt kept his own ?les on priests located in the Archbishop?s of?ce. Fr. Igreed to provide documents in which he had recorded his recollections and also memorande which Fr. ad sent. Inv. Leatherman met with Fr. 11 06/05/2015 at approximately 0830 hours an obtained the 9 documents. Fr. T-nitialed each as did Inv. Leathennan. They are as follow: 105% 1. Memorandum dated October 10, 2008 ?om Fr. I-to ArchbishOp Nienstedt consisting of 2 pages. 2. Memorandum dated January 14, 2010 from Fr. T-to Archbishop Nienstedt, Bishop Piche?, Fr. Peter Laird and Deacon Russ Shape consisting of 5 pages. 3. Memorandum dated March 5, 2010 ?tom Fr. .0 Archbishop Nienstedt consisting of 2 pages. 4. Memorandum dated January 9, 2012 ?om Fr. T-to ArchbishOp Nicnstedt consisting of 11 pages. 5. Memorandum undated from Fr. consisting of 2 pages. 6. Memorandum undated ?om Fr. T-titled ?My conversation with consisting of 5 pages. 7. A 3 page document undated and unsigned which starts with ?The silence of Archbishop John Nienstedt?. 8. A 1 page document undated and unsigned which starts ?Archbishop John Nienstedt?. 9. A 2 page document undated and unsigned which starts ?The Archbishop makes?. All the documents are attached to this report. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY SIate of Minnesota, Plaintiff, V. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Mi?neapolis, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. EXHIB IT 11 DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No: 1 5 4175 C. A. File No. 2139124 AFFIDAVIT 0F E. RING RAMSEY COUNTY OFFICE JNVESTIGATOKS NOTES OF AFFIDAWT or M-B- On August 12, 2015 Invastigator Leatherman read the af?davit of M- B-and took the following notes ?oor the document: - M-Mis an ordained priest in the Archdiocese of St Paul and Minneapolis and is the St. Paul, MN. a. M-B-aas a following: In 2013 I had a telephone conversation with The conversation concerned an intonation that .reported having had With Archbishop John Nienstedt. I'understood that the incident to which he was referring had occurred years before. _informed me that he had stayed as a guest at Archbishop Nienstedt?s home in Michigan. It was my sense horn that Archbishop Nienstedt owed the horne~ but I do not know that to be a fact. - said that Archbishop Nienstedt had said that he was. going to he at that home for a month that year and ?Was expected to stay there for a certain duration as well. - infonned me that while on the drive from one place to another in Michigan, Archbishop Nienstedt massaged his neck for a brief period of time and patted him on the head. -said that he was driving and Archbishop Nienstedt was in ?re passenger seat and that the touching made -feel uncomfortable. Prior to the touching, Archbishop Nienstedt had consumcd alcohol and was inehriated according to _reported to me that the Archbishop had made certain in?mations? but I do not recall what they were. I do recall ?rst aid that the reported intimations, coupled with the neck. massage that ?said he termmated, was a sexualized advance. I also recall that -attempted to let Archbishop Nienstedt know that the touching and sexual advances were unWanted hdid this primarily by confessing his sins to the Archbishop the next morning in which he purposely revealed the sin of heterosexual lust as opposed to homosexual lust so as to let the Archbishop know his true sexual orientation. It is my personal sense that as being honest with me about this account and I do not how: any reason to believe otherness. Archbishop Nienstedt met with me a month later and brought up the tepic of - telephone call. Archbishop Nienstedt stated that he felt the as motivated by revenge. _1ad spoken with Archbishop Timothy Dolan !orn1er rector in maj or seminary) about re?entering the priesthood in ArchbishOp Dolan?s diocese. Archbishop Dolan in turn had contacted Archbishop Nienstedt who had recommended against it. Archbishop Nienstedt also has testi?ed (although he stumbled when doing so) that he was of a heterosexual orientation. I do believe that is some measure he deals with same sex attraction. I have been asked if I have any discomfort with Archbishw Nienstedt?s interaction 1with seminarians and young priests. The answer is that do hate a concern?. I have not witnessed any clear boundary violations, but do observe his af?nity for the young men and some priests, . which has resulted at times with his spending excessive or special time with some, either into the late hours or early morning. I have been asked if any others inthe Archdiocese have expressed Views to me that Archbishop Nienstedt had unusual interae?ons or attractions to youni seminarians and ?ests. The answer is Wes?. Both Fr. E-T-and Fr. M- expressed a as Well. This was signed by Fr. M-B-on Apn?l 16, 2014. 2:342 I: - STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY State of Plaintiff, v. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DI STRICT Court File No: C. A. File No. 2139124 AFFIDAW OF THOMAS E. RING EXHIBITIZ ed- 05 - . Saint Paul Police Department age 1 SUFPLEMENTAL OFFENSE REPORT Complaint Number Reference ON Date and Time of Report 132254-91 05127i2015 16:53:00 Primary offense: RECORD . c: .. 353? Primary Reporting Of?cer." Skog_ Eric, Name of locationrbusiness: Primary squad: Location ofincident: 357 GROVE ST Secondary reporting o?'icer: ST PAUL, MN 55101 Approver: District Central Date 8; time of occurrence: 10/18/2013 ?1 1 :58100 to Site: 101'18120?13 11:58:00 Arrest made." Secondary offense: Poiice Of?cerAssauit-ed or injured: Po?ce OhioerAssistsd Suicide: Cn?me Scene Processed: NARRATNE On 5/2712015 sod 726 (Sgt. Skog) met with Archbishop NIENSTEDT, his attorney, and KUEPPERS at the chancery of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis (ASPM), 226 Summit AVE, Saint Paul, MN. The following is a summary of the interview: - NIENSTEDT recalled being toid by about the bathroom Incident involving WEHMEYER at St. Joseph?s perish, but it was after WEHMEYER was arrested in June 2012 - NIENSTEDT also was aware of the 2004 bookstore incident with WEHMEYER, but felt he Was evaluated properly for that - He said he had 3 dinners with WEHMEYER and one luncheon and that they were aiways professional in nature - NIENSTEDT said the ?rst dinner was after he conducted a "blessing of the altar" at Blessed Sacrament and WEHMEYER asked him to stay for dinner - the other two dinners were at Chianti grill and Green Mill and that both were wearing their "collars" when at dinner NJENSTEDT said one of the times WEHMEYER drank only Coca?Cola, but the other times he consumed alcohol - he didn't see the alcohol consumption as a problem as WEHMEYER was evaluated and was told his self reported alcohol consumption was not considered problematic NIENSTEDT said his reasons for meeting with WEHMEYER were due to the merger of Blessed Sacrament and St. Thomas he felt since he was asking WEHMEYER to take on such a task that he should be available to support him as for making WEHMEYER a pastor overseeing the merger, NIENSTEDT said he felt he had gone 4 years without an incident and there was nothing else that gave him reason to hold WEHMEYER back from the position - NIEN STEDT said he felt his evaiuaticn by St. Lukes was adequate and the only issue he saw as concerning was his temper tantrums that he was having over the merger said at one of the dinners he told WEHMEYER that the merger didn't need to happen if it was too stressful for WEHMEYER, but WEHMEYER assured him he was capable of it his"? 1L- Saint Paul Police Department Page 2 ?f2 SUPPLEMENTAL OFFENSE 2? lid?liil?iEi?lT REPORT Complaint Number Reference CN Date and Time of Report 13225491 05/27/2015 18:53:00 Primary o?'enss: RECQ RD umd? IENSTEDT also said it was not uncommon for him to meet privately with priests who are having struggles and he named Monsignor CALLAHAN. Father DEBURKER, and Father BAKATOS as examples - i asked about Father LAIRD's statement that WEHMEYER was not ?t for ministry and NIENSTEDT said he met weekly with LAle and every time name came up LAERD would roll his eyes, so he felt it was just a personal conflict said there was nothing he knew about WEHMEYER that indicated he was a dangerto children ended the interview with and asked KUEPPERS about the letter written by Green Espel that alleges to describe the relationship between NIENSTEDT and WEHMEYER, but KUEPPERS stated it was considered attorney?Client privileged information. I then informed KUEPPERS i had a search warrant for the letter. KUEPPERS indicated they did not want a warrant to be served as it would give the impression they are not cooperating. agreed to give him time to confer with his staff and get back to me. KUEPPERS contacted me a short time later and asked me to meet at the Chancery on 5128115. I went to the Chancery on 5/28/15 and met with KUEPPERS and PETER WOLD. WOLD stated he would provide me with a redacted copy of the letter, but that I ?rst needed to sign a con?dentiality agreement stating i would not disclose the contents. explained i could not sign the agreement, but that i would consult counsel and get back to them. i consulted a representative of the St. Paul City Attorney?s Of?ce who advised me not to sign the agreement. I contacted KUEPPERS and advised him i wilt not sign the agreement and we set up to meet on 6/1/15. I went to the Chancery on 611l15 along with Cmdr. Sass and met again with KUEPPERS and WOLD. They stated they would allow us to look at the redacted copy of the letter. but that it Could not leave the building. i then advised them i would be executing the search warrant at this time and provided them with their copy and receipt. agreed, however, to aiiow the letter to be seated in an envelope and presented to Judge Warner for in camera review. attempted to contact Judge Warner by phone, but she was unavailable. WOLD sealed the letter in an envelope provided and we both signed the seal. i then transported the envelope to SPPD Headquarters and placed it in the property room. was then contacted by Judge Warner and advised her of the situation and she agreed to meet in her chambers on i then contacted WOLD and KUEPPERS and advised them. On 812/15 retrieved the envelope from property and met at Judge Warmers chambers along with WOLD, KUEPPERS, STEPHANIE (ROAD), and TOM RING (RCAO). The matter was set for hearing on 614ii5. um {ii-TTu-?dll?u?x??JL?E ueLIc nwneanve STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY State. of Minnesota, Plaintiff, v. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, 21 Minnesota corporation, Defendant. ill?.? 13 DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No: C. A. File No. 2139124 AFFIDAVIT 0F THOMAS E. RING ?Exhi?ri STATE OF meson INDISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Personal Injury File No. Bee 1, Flame: OF V- JEWRM HASELBERGEE Archdiocese of Saint P2111 and I?v??nneapaliS, Diocese omeona, and Themes edema}, Defendante. STATE BF WSOTA ss. COUNTY OF WHY Jennifer M. Haselberger, JCL, being duly mm, on 021111, deposes and states as follows: 1. The statemenis made herein, unless stated o?aerwise, are only to be considered as re?ective of the siwa?on and Circumstances of the Archdiocese of Saint P3111 and Minneapo?s. These statements should net be understood to be Tepresenta?ve of the practices of other Catholic dioceses in the United States, of the mziversal Catholic C11th 0: of the Holy See. 2. I 8.111 a Canon Lawyer having received my licentiate (I.C.L.) from The Catholic University Leuven, Belgium, in 2604. I also have a Doctoraie in Philosophy (11133.) Eon: the University of London, England I have been a member of the Canon Law Society of report may not have been handled in a satisfactory way non: the victim's perspective, the latter Was as, if not more, important than the former, I have met with victims everywhere from militale bases to ?ee needle clinics, wherever they felt comfortable. I don?t recall eVer approaching a complainant exclusively by email. The way in which the Archdiocese sought information from potential complainants was one factor that led me to the ophiion, which I shared on several occasions with Chancery leadership, that when the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis ?investigsted? something, it was alt/trays done in such a way as to ensure that we concluded the investigation with less clarity than we began with. This opinion is based not only on my review of the investigations that had been conducted, but also based on conversations I had with Andy. In my experience, not only did Andy avoid looking in priest personnel ?les, as he testi?ed, he actively discouraged me from doing 3019. He always told me to ?stop looking under rooks?, knowing how upset it made one to see how things had been mishandled, not to mention because of the di?ieulties that often resulted from following through on a line of inquiryzo. For instance, Andy testi?ed that he thought that the Grieman matter had been reviewed by the Review Board?. That Was a misconception that I also had for a period of time- I believe there Was a. note in the Grieman ?le indicating that it had been sent for review, and based on that information other dioceses Were advised that the Review Board had been consulted and found no reason for concern. However}, to its credit, the Diocese of Phoenix was not satis?ed with this, but demanded dandy another'enjii?ession hEatd'o??n. Whatever it aroge involging??ethert?qbonongh, s?y' that the}: Was '00 point in n??g to malf? shhae-o?fitbceansezwid: Wanting}: event?zing Was? 1'sinolte had ?m?ii?rojzaf, 2? Eisenzimmer, p. 40. 21 1% conversatioos about the disclosures that had not been made which came to light after Father Wenthe?s arrest?. At that time, it Wee discovered that the Archdiocese had not done disclosure on Father Gallatih. put Gallatia?s personnel ?le, or documents from his personnel ?le, before Archdiocesan of?cials, especially Father Laird I can recall multiple occasions where I would raise the issue of Father Ga?atin with Father Laird (they Were olassra ates in seminaljr). I believe he testi?ed that he Was informed that it Was not a Charter violation, but my experience was the oppoaite?7. I'd-feet} helieqethat if a has resolved all the lnfortoatioh ?ora the Gallathl file. they willoote documents where the ;Mtemems regardmg-the-semal natore- of his odrrtactmd?l ?re boy 3'31 Virginiaarld his admitted attmo?oa to: as twehfe I highlighted those statements because Father Laird refused to read the Whole reports, sayng something to the e?eot that he did not have time to review past decisions, and that he had been assured by others that there Were no grounds for concern. I literally-followed father out ofthe huilch?ogone evoniugwith-those doohmehtsin my hands, saying that if he didn?t ?hatde time? to road ?le Whole doe-timeathanhe, coold at least read the h?ghlightedremarha. Herefused 33. I Went to such great to try and draw attention to this issue because I considered it to epitomize the Arohdiooese?s cavalier attitude toWards the Safety of other people?s children. Father Gallatin Was appointed as pastor of a parish, and also as canonical 3? When Father Christopher Wendie was arrested in February of 2m 1, complaints emerged ??om the Delano parishes where he was assigned because the Archdiocese had failed to disclose Father Wenthc?s history to the parishioners, and also had failed 12) alert the parishes that he. was made: investigation. This led to a review ofalf cases requiring disclosures, to determine in which other cages we had been negligent. Wehmeyer and Gallatin are two obvious examples that Were identi?ed as part of?aat re?ew. 3'7 Laird, p. 75. 31 l3 monitoring pregranzs with which I Was familiar, Father MoDonough?s program was based on a ?probaiionary? model?, and involved infrequent; often quarterly or less, meetings with the priests?. Instead of making an effort to limit or track the moVernents of the POMS priests, Father McDonough?s program relied heavily on the selfareports of the priests enrolled in POMS, with very little effort made to Verify if those reports were accurate. Ifthe priest was enrolled in a BA program (Sea Addicts Anonymous), the monitor might Ven'fy that he Was attending meetings, and the monitor generally. verified that the priest was meeting with a spiritual director, although no effort Was made to establish the credentials of the director or to flame the nature of the direction. Outside from; that, nothing much was done to keep tabs on the priests in POMS. Hence Father Kapoun is technically enrolled in the monitoring program, but no active monitoring takes place? during the whiter months Whom heresides in Florida. Beginning in 2008 I had discussionswith Tim Rourke regarding the lack of any appropriate means of monitoring internet osage within the POMS program to which Tim agreed In fact, he told me that he had also raised this issue, only to disconn- that the Archdiocese ms unwilling to provide additional ?nding to allow. for more sephistieated monitoring technologyr to be employed. Tim?s work was further complicated by the ?relationships? that waisted heme-en Father MoDonough and the priests being monitored. A review of the documents from the beginning of the program should show a number of memos from Tim Rourke in which he attempted to take some action against a monitored priest, only to have the priest complain to Father MoDonough, following which 5? I believe that other deoonents discussed alcoholism in relation to the POMS program. However, no one W35 ever assigned to the POW program because he Was an alcoholic. Priests identi?ed for POMS had all engaged in 3mm: . misconduct. They might also su??er ?ora alcoholisrn or a tone of mental illness, but mat would not be the precipitating reason for them to be incorporated into the program. I should also note that the POMS program was not employed for priests who had engaged in ?nancial misconduct or exploita?m. 47 thai in the lots 199 Us the Archdiooeso received a report that Fathor Moudry had inappmp?atsly touched male high school. Sail?fnnl Seminary, ho WES teaching in the Saint Cloud public schools. Father MoDonough?s opinion Was that tho was a hoax, but since we had an abundance of information in our 5163 demonstrating that Falhor Was Unable to control his seminal mgos, I didn?t think that report or othor concoms should be dismissed so easily. Andy?s concerns, which I included in my memo to Father Laird, centered around reports of inappropriate conduct taking place in 2008, which had led to a moo?mcndation being made that Fatal? Moudxy nndergo a comprehensiVe assessment. Ibis was never dono, and Andy was uncomfortable with the ?les In?oc?ng thai such a had boon mado without any action being taken?. Again? Fathor Laird Was fully informed of those concerns via my memo. I recall his exact response: Father Laird didn?t think an or thorapjr Was usoful in the case ofFathor Mondry, because he didn?t think there was anything for troannont to ?stiok to? (moaning that he didn?t feel that Father Moudxy had the intelligence to bene?t from treatment) Fathor Moudry apparently tools: a voluntary leave of absonce in Nowmber of 2013. lwas snip?sed that tho Archdiocese stated in its public announcement ?I?Iis decision is as a result of prior misconduct which occurred. many years ago and did not involve members of any parish in which Fr. Mondry has served. This misconduct did not involve a violation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young Pooplc? . It should be noted that Fathor was idonti?od by Father McDonough as requiring monitoring in the ?5 It is a principle of the Catholic Church that no one can be forced to undergo a cvalua?on. Hence Article 7 of the .Emsrz?alNarm states, ?The alleged offs!) dor may be requened to soak, and may be urged voluntarily to comply with, an approp?aie medical and evaluation at a. facility mutually acceptable to diocesdeparchy and. to the accused?. Since this principle is based on the ?mlamentnl dignity of all persons, the right to rafuse such an smluation ls not limited to Clergy. 75 theta POMS program in 2005, but Father Moudry refused to participate and so Father McDonough and Archbishop exempted him from the ptograca. . 69- Eating the laet'few ?io??th?ofmy employment in- thebtatehdiocese, I sent}; Very highijwolnme of .Emails' to Father MoDonoogh anal memos to athei Laird and Belch rehashing the cletails of that, had heentaken regarding clergy: miseondnet, ofteg . with a. signi?cant amotint of tietail' often with doo?tfineiits Themenios about Father Laitzi?s involvement in the Shelley and Wehmeyer decisions are one example of this, Father McDonongh?s statements about Father MeConv?le and the tnonitoting program are another, as are the emails behaveen Father McDonoagh, Father Laird, and myself regarding the death of Monsignor Jerome Boxleihaer. Since the latter demonstrates where; the Archdiocese was at in terms of ?best practices? and ?constant innovation? in March of 2013 twill describe What occurred at some length 70. The situation limfolviog Monsignor Bealeitnet was something that I had been imrolved in almost from the beginning of my tenure as Chancellor, since Boxleitner generally attended the annual Saint Mcholas Ball of Catholic Charities held each December, and his presence at this event always resulted in complaints to the Chanoenr. ?le complaints stemniea Emil the 'iz'aot 'Eogleihler in acts of sexual miscondttet with young who were?s eminarians, and this. taxider Jmown. Therefore, there Was justi?ed resistance in some circles to the hagiology of Bo?eihaer?s work with Catholic Charities. In some cases, Boxleitaer?s critics Were succeas??- I believe the new housing facility Higher Ground was at one point going to be nethed after Boadeitner, but his critics were success?? in detailing that plan. In general1 however, I found Chanceijr of?cials 76 adult men timing Archbishop Monstede time as a priest in the Archdiocese of Detroit, as Bishop of New Ulm, mad while Archbishop of Saint Paul and Weapo?s. When I was interviewed by the a?omeys at Greene and Espol 011 Ap?l 16, 2014, I was shown the document ?om The Archbishop arriborizirrg the ?ves?ga?oo (dated Rover}? 351= 2014) and also an email engaging to Father Daniel Will the reoponsibilitjf for liaising with the attorneys. I was told that one of the issues under investigation by (Emma and Espel is Whether the Archbishop had a personal and Improfossionzl relationship Father Wehmeyer that may have in?uenced the Archbishop?s decision to my warnings about Father Wehmeyer?s prior conduct and the risk he posad. 95. My opinion has also changed. as a result of siziomonrs that either he or his agents have made since leis October of 2013. I believe I ?rst come to doubt that ?le ArchbishoP and his sta?" were being honest regarding ?leir knowledge and handling of sexual abuse around October (as a result of cornme 31: a public event for clergy) and that conclusion was only strcog?lonecl by the email announcement from the Archdiocese regarding the Thurber lamuit ?led on October 29,_ 2013 (the Arohdiooese?s announoomon't implied that it was aware of only one previous victim), and December Moments made in Court by attorneys for tho Archdiocese who stated that there had only boon. one case of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest since 20041?. The ?nal Show for me was when the Archbishop himself stated in. December of 2013 tbai' he bene?ted that ?ne issue of clergy sexual abuse had been taken care of when he beware Archbishop in 2093, and the: he was ?4 I would not: that after seeing This statement, as wall as the Archdiocese? sham-cuts about their inability to produce information wi??n the time?nes established by the Court, and in response to pressure I was receiving ?nm p?ests who feItI needed in do more ?xanjustto idcn?iy tho-problem, but noededto help 5011:: it as well, In?ated to rattan to my former position for the pro-pose ofaseis?ng them in compiling the necessary ba?jrma?on. My o?'br was declined, although the Archdiocese did express an interest in learning v??x which priests I was 5611 in contact. 106 1327 RAMSEY COUNTY OFFICE- PHONE CONVERSATION WITH JENNIFER HASELBERGER On March 18, 2016 at approximately 103 0 hours, Investigator Eugene Leatherman spoke by phone with Jennifer Haselberger to confirm details of information learned earlier. The conversation was not recorded. Haselberger was asked concerning Archbishop John Nienstedt attempting to visit with Curtis Wehmeyer after he plead guilty and had voluntarily entered an inpatient sex offender treatment program. Haselberger stated that she remembers that Wehmeyer pled guilty in November of 2012. On the advice of his lawyer, Wehrneyer voluntarily Cheoked himself into an inpatient sen o?ender treatment program prior to being sentenced in February of 2013. Haselberger stated that Andrew Eisenzimmer, the Chancellor for Civil A?airs of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis (AD SPM) shared with Haselberger that Abp. Nienstedt asked Eisenzimmer to arrange for Abp. Nienstedt to visit with Wehmeyer While he was at the treatment program. Haselberger was told this around the time that Eisenzimmer was leaving his position at the ADSPM, approximately January of 2013. Eisenzirnmer eXpressed to Haselberger that he Was upset with Abp. Nienstedt over this. Eisenzirnmer stated that the ADSPM was in settlement negotiations with the family of Wehmeyer?s victims and Abp. Nienstedt had not visited with them- yet wanted to visit Wehmeyer. Haselberger does not believe that Eisenzimmer facilitated this for Abp. Nienstedt. . Haselberger added that Abp. Nienstedt never made an effort to go and visit Christopher Wenthe after he was convicted and in prison. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY ru- State of Minnesota Plaintiff, V. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Mmeapolis, a Minnesota amputation, Defendant. DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No: C. A. File No. 2139124 AFFIDAVIT 0F THOMAS E. RING l4 RAMSEY COUNTY OFFICE CONFIDENTIAL MERVIEW T- REDACTED REDACTED 1H ?3 RBDACTED _re1eted that he would be at the church at many different times and days due to his interest in keeping up the garden and grounds. W-said that about 15? to 20 times between 2009 and 2012, he saw Archbishop Nienstedt, in civilian clothes, at Blessed Sacrament with Wehmeyer. saw the Archbisho come out of the rectory and go to his car at 0630 when ived to work. Wham the Archbisho around the garden with Wehmeyer in the evening and with Wehrneyer at lunch ?me- said this was in addition to normal parish functions such as Mass and meetings. At the time1 did not think much about it. . REDACTED REDACTED, $24 1? gig/Cf? \j STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, V. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Muncsota corporation, Defendant. 15 DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No: 626151454175 C. A. File No. 2139124 AFFIDAVIT 0F THONIAS E. RING RAMSEY COUNTY OFFICE CO FED ENTIAL INTERVIEW OF REDACTED ?EK'l/x. L521 .1 i i "3i Wehmeyer told \A-that he was close with Archbishop Nienstedt and that the Archbishop was "very fond? of Wehmeyer. W-sa'ld that he witnessed the Archbishop there at time? With only Wehmeyer. At other times, Archbishop Nienstedt would be there to attend meetings and church services. REDACTED '37-'13 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY nun-nu.- n- Statc of Minnesota, Plaintiff, V. DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No: 62-CR-1 5-41 75 C. A. File No. 2139124 AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS E. RING The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a lVlinnesota, corporation, Defendant. EXHIBIT l6 RAIVESEY COUNTY OFFICE CONFEENTIAL MTERVIBW OF H-DOB: . REDAQTED- FEDACTED 115:5 REDACTED REDACTED aid that Archbishop Nienstedt had Wehmeyer over to the Archbishop?s residence for dinner and Archbishop Nienstedt came to Wehmeyer?s rectoryr for dinner. B. said that none of the priests she had worked with before had been invited for dinner with the Archbishop nor had the Arohbishop come to their rectory for dinner. Wehrneyer said that Archbishop Nienstedt really liked him. I-l-said ?oat she, as well as the other sta?, had receiVed calls ?orn Archbishop Nienstedt?s o?ce setting 11p dinner plans. E_-and noticed the amount of attention Wehnaeyer Was getting from the Archbishop and. discussed that Wehrneyer was possibly being groomed for a. position downtown in the Archdiocese. REDACTED 1153:; I It . (E1. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, v. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, 3. Minnesota corporation Defendant. EHHBIT l7 DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No: C. A. File No. 2139124 AFFIDAVIT 0F E. RING {shill RAMSEY COUNTY ATTORNEYES OFFICE mrnavraw OF C- DOB: On May 28, 2015, at approximately 0920 hours, Investigator Eugene Leathennan met with C- W- in an interview room at the MN Department of Corrections Lino Lakes facility Where incarcerated luv. Leatherman had arrived at the facility at approximately 0905 hours. luv. Leatherman wanted to start recording initially. W- wanted clari?cation first as to what the interview concerned. Inv. Leatherman explained to at the interview was part of the investigation by the Ramsey County Attorney?s Of?ce and St. Paul Police Degtl i0 3 the Archdiocese response to abuse of minors by priests. lnv. Leatherman said that was being interviewed as a vdtness and shonld want to tell in his cum wor impressions and knowledge it would become a pu 0 record; Wm indicated that he was tired of news reporters putting his face on TV as it created issues or in prison with other inmates- and also re??ctimized the children. expressed sadness toward the children he had abused. Inv. Leatherman told was? there was information that must be released to the public and the interview would be at some point. Inv. Leatherman informed W-that he would put on the record a statement that the interview concerned as a ?duress. W?agreed to be recorded. The interview recording was started at approximately 0930 hours. said that he was ordained a Catholic priest in 2001 into the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis (ADSPM). said that he had returned to the Church after alcohol abuse issues and being sober for sever years. ill-said that he became involved in approximately 1994 with the Little Brothers of Carmel at St. Michael?s Church. Fr. Gerald Dvorak formed the group. aid that he met Archbishop Harry at a number of Catholic events and expresse an crest in the priesthood. Vt-then met With Archbishop for about a year discussing the priesthood. KEV?then applied to the Seminary. W?said that on the application for the Seminary, he listed one prior DWI in Mchigan, marijuana use and experimenting with other drugs such as cocaine. Did not consider alcohol to he an issue for him. _pent one year in the minor Seminary. W-leamed that there were two Vocation Directors at that time. W-said that one of the Vocation Directors was concerned about V-ntering the Seminary. However, Wehmeyer said he was accepted arid entered the Seminary. aid that the teaching staff at the Seminary were extremely and said he had some differences with them. was ?rst assigned to St. Joseph?s West St Paul and lived with the pastor Fr. Lee Piche? at the rectory. Concerning con?icts udth Fr. Piche?, W-acknowledged that he had come in late once and was drinking alcohol (mainly in the rectory). W-said that there was mainly a. personality di??erence between himself and Fr. Piche?. W-stated that he was arrested for loitering at Crosby Park. W-stated that the ticket was dropped due to insuf?cient evidence. W-said that he did not give his father3 name when he was ticketed. _cknowledged that he was at the location open to meeting up with another male for sex. Fr. McDonough found out about the citation and met with him. told Pr. McDonou at he was at the park to check his phone messages and played off the ornosexual aspect. Weed he feels that Pr. McDonoagh suspected that W-was at the park for other reasons. W-said that his personal policy was to never go into the school bathrooms at St. Joseph?s. One day he wont in to wash his hands and some boys were in there. aid that a female staff member made a big deal about it, and was the driving force be issue. said that there were no thoughts in his mind concerning minors then. met with and talked to chbishop about the bathroom incidents. Archbishop told . _that annot make that mistake again W-said that he had witnesses at the time who would haVe spoken out for him on the issue. explained his side of the Barnes and Noble bookstore incident. Vii-new that the bookstore was a place to meet other homosexuals and was there for that reason. said that he met with Archbishop and Fr. McDonough over the incident. ent to St. Luke?s Institute for an evaluation at Archbishop request. sai it was explained that sending him really was an effort to show something had been followed through. did not know that there had been any youth restrictions placed on him. did not meet with D- and (I B?egarding the lifting of youth restrictions. so do es not recall a meeting with Fr. McDonough, Fr. Piche?, School Principal MIN-and himself concerning any issues. said that he knew he was homosexual? but was ?conflicted?. V-lari?ed that the ?Ico!!hction? began when statements were put out by the Roman Catholic Church that same sex attraction was an internal bothered by this and tried to keep his sexuality secret. W-stated that he tried to deal with his sexual identity through being celibate. _said that after being an assistant to a pastor, priests routinely are reviewed for moving up to a pastor. said that was his case. said that he was never before the Clergy Review Board. aid that because of his behavior in the bookstore and Crosby Park he was put on POMS monitoring. said that many priest on POMS had computer monitoring. VJ?lmew he was on computer monitoring as part of POMS and Watched Timo?iy Rourke put a USB into his com uter at the o?ce. W-does not know what the process was that Rourke utilized. admitted that the POMS did not keep him ?om doing anything. W-admitted that he had pornography and was looking at pornography at me time he was being POMS monitored. W-acknowledged that he was on POMS right up until he was arrested. eventually, Fr. Sirba did discuss the issue with and said that his relationship with Archbisho Nienstedt was basically professional. said that Archbishop Nienstedt liked Wh ministry style. met with Vi car eneral Fr. Paul Sirba and Archbishop Nienstedt concerning the DWI arrest in 09. lnv. Leathennan asked what _bad told to Archbishop Nienstedt about hireself. said that he had also told Archbishop Nienstedt abou DWI in Michigan. paused and asked for the recorder to be off. aid that he had to use the bathroom. The time was approximately 1014 hours. . as in the bathroom for a noticeably long period of time with g. When came out he acted differently- as if he had ?steeled himself?. rought up that he he charges pending in Wisconsin, and inferred that he wanted to try and obtain some consideration concerning information about Archbishop Nienstedt. lav. Leatherman told no consideration would be given for any information. agreedto continue and the recorder was restarted. at approximately 1024 hours. aid that he cooked a dinner for Archbishop Nienstedt at the Blessed Sacrament rectory. said that he had dinner with the Archbishop at ArchbishOp Nienstedt?s residence in the Chancery. said that he and Archbishop Nienstedt did consume alcohol together. W-said that he and ArchbishOp Nienstedt also went out to restaurants and had dinner and drinks together. enied that Archbishop Nienstedt had ever stayed overnight or arrived very early inthe morning at the Blessed Sacrament rectory. W-s aid that he had gone to the Chancery without clerical clothes to meet with Archbishop Nienstedt. said that also Archbishop Nienstedt had gone to visit the Blessed Sacrament rectory without clerical clothes. . W- said that the staff at Bless ed Sacrament would have known about him camping alone with the children. Neither Fr. Piche? nor Fr. Sirba ever spoke with him abo ue. D. P-had told him that he should not be campin alone with children. said that said that looking back in hindsight the ADSPM could haVc done things differently. admitted that there was a lot that was overlooked. aid that Archbishop Nienstedt appreciated his work and saw his leadership potential- but does not feel the he was treated special. said that the ADSPM could have sent him for inpatient treatment which would have been helpful. aware that inpatient treatment had been re commended for him by St. Luke?s Instinrte if 'd not follow the program directions. admitted that he did not follow the treatment an. If inpatient treatment program would ve eon offered to him in the net, W- said that possibly the victimization would not have occurred. . W-Dsaid that the current sex offender treatment program was working for him at Lino Lakes. Inv. Leather-man thanked the interview at approximately 1055 hours. As soon as the recorder was torn off, aid in aloud and lamenting voice-?They Murphy came to escort Deal: to the secure area. In front of luv. Murphy, aid? ?So this won?t be shared with the news will it?? luv. Leatherman stated to ?as had been exPlairied before, the release of information was required by law, and at some point the recorded intendew would be made public.? nodded and left. luv. Leatherroaa left the facility at approximately 1105 hours. abandoned me?. Investi ator The digital recording was. downloaded to the RCAO computer for safekeeping. Refer to the recording for additional information concerning the conversation. 3/ :f '1 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY State of Minnesota, V. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and h?nneapolis, a Mime-3012a corporation, Defendant. DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No: 62-CR-15-4175 C. A. File No. 2139124 AFFIDAVIT 0F THOMAS E. RJNG EXHIBIT 18 . RAMSEY COUNTY OFFICE mm m- On July 7, 2015 at a proximately 1120 hours, Investigator Leatherrnan RCAO met with and interviewed Mi Vl- at a common room in her apartment building. The interview Was not recorded. Whats been a congregation member at Blessed Sacrament for 55 yous. The churc is ?hisically now located at the former site of the Church of St. Thomas the Apostle. In 2004 took the position of Pastoral Ministry Coordinator and the Adoration Chaiel Coordinator. ad an of?ce at the original Blessed Sacrament location. tated that she was at the office itself only on W- cocrdinated the ministry or the homebound parishioners. so monitored and kept up the Adoration Chapel at Blessed Sacrament. would go to the chapel on Mondays from 8 to 9 PM to perform her duties there. at in the summer of 2007 or 2008 she was at Blessed Sacrament with another parishioner They were leaving the Adoration Chapel at about 915 PM and noticed Curtis Wehrneyer an Archbishop John Nienstedt coming out of ry. She belieVes they were Wearin their black clothing. Wehnteyer noticed W-an -Wehn1eyer only introduced Wind i no 0 the Arch Wehrneyer told at he and the'Archbishop had dinner together. W-and eft. Vl-stated that she was not aware that Welnneyer had a handgun at Blessed Sacrament. aid that since she is only at the of?ce on Thursdays, she feels that she missed a lot of what other staff saw and knew. was present on the Thursday morning when she took a call from Fr. Kevin McDonough who asked if Wehme there. old Fr. McDonongh that she thought Wehrneyer was away on vacation. was not aware that Wehrneyer had returned. Later that morning Fr. McDonongh accom anied bi Deacon Vomastek came to Blessed Sacrament and met with Wehmeyer. said the as crying and Wehme er went into her of?ce and spoke with her. WFwas not aware what was happening. as shaken by the incident and went home car 111 the afternoon. lnv. Leathennan thanked W-ltld ended the interview at apprordmately 1215 hours. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTYHOF RAMSEY u? State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, v. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. EEGHBIT 19 DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No: C. A. File No. 2139124 AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS E. RING i I i .i Church of the Blessod Sacrament 1801 LaCrosso Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55119-4807 April 23?: 2009 Archdiocese of Saint Paul 35 Minneapolis Archbishop John C. Nienstedt I 226 Summit Avenue Saint Paul, h?nnesofa 55102?2197 Dear Archbishop Nienstedt, Thank i011 so much for joining me at Chianti?s Grill for a wonderful meal and conversation mess It is always a pleasure to visit with you and I 001: orward to preparing ameal with you for ?ndhis family During our conversa?on 1 had mentioned that Bishop Fates came to the parish on Saturday, December 2007 to install me as the parish?s pastor and you requested that I send you a letter that you may look irdo this matter. Since the time of the event in December there has been confusion around his intention aodfor the recording ofthe event a: the chancery. The language he used doling the Mass was speci?cally around roe as The newly installed pastor. Fo?oodng the homily we stood before the congregation and I reoponded to speci?c questions he asked me pertaining to the role of pastor. . Our Business Administrator, Trustees and I, just attended the Parish Task Force seminar and found it to be verywe? presented and truly an inspiration and motiva?on to begin doing some serious work in getting a. better handle on the stewardship of our'?nances and our commoner}: to the Archdiocese with ?nances. Thank you for providing such a focused and means of helping us with this task. I sensed very strongly an excitement and enthusiasm from both my Trustees and Business in beginning the good work of a deeper spirit of stewardship. Sincerely, in Clrrisf, Rev. Curtis C. Wehroeyer Pastor Tel: (651) 735-3707 Fax: (651) 573-1125 a. STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT . Court File No: C. A. File No. 2139124 State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT 0F v. THOMAS E. RING The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, 21 Minncsota corporation, Defendant. 20 Exh 71:1: .1 1 1 I STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT 2 COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOHD JUDICIAL DISTRICT Plaintiff, 7 vs. 8 ARCHDIOCESE OF ST, PRUL AND MINNEAPOLIS, DIOCESE OF WINONA 9 an? THOMAS ADAMSON, 10 Defeodants?13" Videotape depositith?f?ANDREW"' 14 EISEHZIMMER, taken pursuant to Notice of. 15 Taking Deposition, and taken before Gary W. 16 Hermes, a Notary Public in and for the County 17 of?amseyr State of=MinnesotaMay, 2014, at 366 Jackson Street, St. Paul, 19 Minnesota, commencing at approximately 10:01 20 o'clock a.m. 21 22 23 24 AFFILIATED COURT REPORTERS 2935 OLD HIGHWAY '8 25 ST. PAUL, ME 55113 (612)338?4348 10 ll 12 13179 hasn't anybody ever sat down to prepare a list for anyone of the incoming archbishops newly appointed to this geographical area of those priests who have been accused, so that that incoming archbishop, be it Nienstedt, can know who it is they have to be aware of? The only mm the only experience I had was when Archbishop Nienstedt came in and I?m not aware whether anybody prepared a list for him. I never saw a list. And nobody asked you, as far as you know, asked you to do that or, as far as you know, done? Nobody ever asked me to prepare any kind of list. And l?m not aware of Archbishop Nienstedt asking anybody for such a list. Did Archbishop Nienstedt ever ask you, given your history, both as the chancellor and your history with this archdiocese, to brief him fully on who the priests were that had been accused of offenses and who may pose a risk of harm? No. He never asked me for that information. Do you know if he asked anybody? ?wanted to find'o?t fifSt.? 180 WellF I we I I?m aware that in his deposition testimony he Well, now I don?t want you to go to his deposition. I?m talking about your personal experience now. No. So let?s get the question mu Okay. ?4 so we get on the same page. Okay. I just want to clarify that.? He said I was in such a meeting with him and I was not. Okay. Well, I was going to go there but I No. I?m not aware of he ever asking anybody to brief him. Let me ask the question and then I'll let you answer it. Okay. My question is this, to your knowledger has any official of the archdiocese, including yourself, at Archbishop Nienstedt?s request or for any reason, ever set down with him and identified for him who the notential risks areI inolnding those accused of sexual abuse of minorsr including those credibly accused of gag" -.- 'And then the next QUeStiOn?iS} 181 sexual abuse of minors or anything like that, to your knowledge? MR. Hews: Object to the formF it?s multiple, involves all kinds of people.r other than Mr. Eisenzimmer. I think he can testify to his knowledge. Let me see if I can respond to it in a responsive manner. I?m not aware of anyone doing that with him and I'm not aware of him ever requesting that somebody do that with him. BY MR. ANDERSON: because-I think you answered it, but I want to get it in question and answer form, next question is, did Archbishop Nienstedt ever sit down with you shortly after his installation here and ask yon to identify for him the potential risks in the archdiocese of priests sexually abusing kids and who had a history or anything like that? No. (Discussion out of the hearing of the court reporter) BY MR. ANDERSON: 182 What is Archbishop Nienstedtis management style? Is he a he?s been described by a number of folks as very hands?on, misto manager?type. How would you haVe described we how do you describe his management style of the archdiocese? I wouldn?t describe him as a micro manager nor would I necessarily describe him as hands?on. In his View, he is the archdiocese. You worked with him largely by written memorandum. If he wanted some information, he would write you a memorandum, you would be expected to respond in semofahdum.? "m At least with my workr be largely let me do my work in an unfettered fashion,- but he certainly had high expectations for the work I would do for him and that I would keep him briefed.- And it was also clear that Archbishop Nienstedt was a guy that you didn?t want to hear him sayr ?Nobody ever told me that,? or, "You never told me that." So I would always try to keep him abreast of matters of particular importance that he was seeking from me. Is sexual abuse by the clerics in the 61315165,?" that?"onl?y?Eather -s-he1-:L sy?h-a-a -- 247 BY MR. ANDERSON: Are you aware that the police determined and that Setter determined that Shelley was the only one that had exclusive use of that computerthat?s not true. never heard the police say that and that wasn't Setter?s position, either. So that?s news to you, if it?s true? Wellr I think Mr. Johnson expressed a View about that, I don?t know that Mr. Setter did. What was Johnson?s View?? access to some of those sites because he had a password. Okay. I?m going to turn to Keating and we'Ve made some reference to that earlier. (Discussion out of the hearing of the court reporter) BY MR. ANDERSON: Before I do, there?s some reference somewhere to the arohbishop?s council and that was not a term that I had seen before. What was the archbishop's council? Well, it's the archbishop and some of his . a (0 10 ll 12 248 advisors, the Chancellorsr the vicar general. The council has also included at times the regional vioars, the finance officer, auxiliary bishops, I think that's it. Is that something that was constituted by Archbishop Nienstedt under his There was also an archbishop?s council under Archbishop as well. I just haven?t Seen that term before. Do you know what the council is used for? Are they like consulters or any Specific purpose, do you knowdon't think so. Well, we sEartwo?t??it?_a?song?and?a prayel ~mm we- and then the archbishop normally reports on certain matters. And then anybody elsef if they've put something on an agenda, can raise an issue that would be helpful for the council to hear or know about or some of it?s FYI stuff. Is there anything in the arohbishop's council meetings that have been discussed by those in attendance pertinent to the whole question of sexual abuse of minors by the clerics in or out of ministry and we I don?t recall a meeting ?up 249 1 ever discussing that subject. 2 Q. Is that something that gets recorded by 3 minutes or notes or is it H- 4 E. The council meeting? 5 Yes. 6 There's at times there was an agenda that 7 if you wanted something.to ?w to be brought up 8 at council they wanted you to put it on an 9 agenda, but there?s no minutes of the 10 meetings, as far as I know. 11 Q. Okay. I'm going to go to Keating, and we?ll 12 talk about the girl, I refer to her as Doe 20. ""13 Ail Yeah. 14 Qt Do you know if anybody from the archdiocese 15 ever asked Father Heating his account of the 16 events pertaining other possible encounters? 18 Al The clergy review board did. I don?t know 19 about anybody else. 20 The clergy review board is constituted by the 21 archbishop to help make a determination He 22- help the archbishop make a determination about 23 Whether Keating should be continued in 24 ministry, correct? 25 A. Well, the clergy review board exists fox two STATE OF MTNNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT h- Court File No: C. A. File No. 2139124 State of Minnesota, Plajn?ff, AFHDAWT OF V. THOMAS E. RING The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, - a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. EXHIBIT 21 .~mu -- ,5 ee.-iw - a, em?, .?Zi :l 3 1 EHQEE 1 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. Awoeasowi..,o.u,i.moe 1 sewn: or awesome 11! pinkie: coda? - 3 ZIICq-tnuonu-nII-tqeltt-t7i doom! oe- aoamssx secoso soinzctan DIETRICT a BEGINNING OF TAPE 3 noodles DEPOSITION EXHIBIT ..151 DEPOSITION EXHIBIF "170 7 SE, a DEPOSITION EXHIBIT ..136 Eifi?i?ifom?f? ?i ?m 9 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 19 nefandencs. 31 ..uqu a - 4-biav?a?J g: ?2 12 3.5 Depaeition of measures Join! to monsoon, cote-11 pageant. to Rani-:6 of Taking 13 15 Deposition, and taken hainxe Guy 3. iluweu; a 14' is Notary Public in and for the county all Home}, state of momenta, on the 2nd day a: hpzu, 16 251d, at 3D 3351: 1th oueut, 5t. . 17 13 Harlin-53o?, commencmg- at approximately 9:05 o'clock em. EL '19 c: I 24 AEZIIJMED cooks! WERE 25 51. 3:153:93; O?liiqnjziz?335?43iJEFFREY R. ANDERSON, ESQ, MICHAEL r3. 2 a a 3 FINNEGAN, ESQ, SARAH ODEGAARD, and ELIN 3 MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Let?s start I 4 ESQ, Attorneys at Law, 366 Jackson al- the record for purposes of the deposition, and 5 Street, Suite ion, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, 5 before we begin the actual deposition of the 6 appeared for Plaintiff. 6 archbishop, there are a few matters that We 7 DANIEL A. HAWS, ESQ, Attorney at need to out on the record. 3 Law, 30 East 7th Street, Suite 3200-, St. Paul, 3 The ?rst pertains to the disclosure ?3 Minnesota 55101, appeared for Archdiocese of 9 or, more accurately, the lack of disclosure as 10 St. Paul and Minneapolis. we interpret the order of the court. It was 11 THOMAS E. WIESER, ESQ, Attorney at ?11 our understanding and belief that Judge Van de 12 Law, 2200 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, 12 North ordered the archdiocese to produce the 13 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, appeared for '13 documents and the ?les that we requested, at 14 Archdiocese of St, Paul and Minneapolis. '14 least for purposes of Archbishop Nienstedt?s 15 THOMAS R. BRAUN, ESQ, Attorney at .15 deposition, and we did not receive anything 16 Law, 11? East Center Street, Rochester, 16 until 5:45 pan. on Monday. When we did, it ?17 Minnesota 55904, appeared for Diocese of 17 was formatted, I think, in disk and 1B Winona. 18 MR. FINNEGAN: USB drive. 19 JOSEPH F. KUEPPERS, ESQ, Chancellor 19 MR. ANDERSON: or a zip drive, 2.0 for Civil A?'airs, 101 East 5th Street, Suite 20 and contained in that were some materials, but 2'1 800, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, appeared for - 21 far from what had been requested, for From 22 Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, 22 what had been required, in our view. It was 23 ALE: PRESENT: 23 not only thus incomplete, there wore 24 Dean Hibben, videographer 24 redactioos and deletions and omissions that we 25 a: a: ?25 believe are not in compliance with the order of 51 sheets Page 1 to 4 of 202 0410352314. 3753,37 AM 1-. xii 425 ?l besides yoursalf and Father made a 1 had been dropped before he left the country. 2 party to such a practice of not recording 2 0.. Did you not know that until you reviewed the 3 sensitive meetings such as that? 3 summary? 4- A. Plot: to my knowledge. 4 A. That a that happened before I became 5 MR. HAWS: Same objections. 5 archbishop. 6 {Discussion out of the hearing of (1. Had Montero eyer been on your radar as a the court reporter) ?i priest who had been accused of attending and BY MR. ANDERSON: 8 had left the country and the archdiocese? 9 Cl. Archbishop, did you review any materials in A. Yes, I was aware of that. 113 preparation for your deposition today? in How did you become aware of that? 'l '1 A. I did. 11 A. I believe at the time that -- at the time that i2 What? '12 he had left and a letter Was sent from Bishop '33 A. 3: reviewed the: Charter for the Protection of 13 Fates to the bishop in Mexico, explaining to 14 Children and Young People. I reviewed a '14 him the situation that we had experienced 15 summary of the Adar-risen case. And I reviewed 16 here. do the case of Father Montere. is Did you, yourself, eyer request or demand that 17? (11. Anything else? 17 any of your subordinates and those in the 'i a A. No, sir. . 'iB inner circle, the chancellor's or the vicar 19 Q. Okay. When you're saying you reviewed a 13 generals or bishops, ever retrieve summary of the Adamson case, what was that 20 any ?les of those who had been accused so 21 that you looked at? 21 that you Could make an independent decision summary of his particular ?le 22 review those ?les yoursel? that We. had. 23 A. Could you repeat the question? 24 Q. Frepared by whom? 211. Had you ever reviewed any of the ?les, accept a .25 -- A.- By Mr. Kueppers--_ just described involving Adamson 4g . 44 1 Q. And when was it prepared and was it for your 1 and Montana prepared for you, have you, 2 review in this deposition? 2 yourself, over reviewed any of the priest 3 A. I beg your pardon? 3 files personally so that you could be 4 Q. When was it prepared? 4 satis?ed that you were making the right 5 A. I believe it was in the last two to three 5 decisions concerning that priest? Ei weeks. 5 A. Well Q. And for this deposition to help you? 7 MR. HAWS: Object to the form, it?s 3 A. Yes. 8 compound and 9 Q. And was the same kind of thing prepared for 9 A. We?ve had in since December a complete 10 Montero, that you reviewed? 18 review of the files by an outside company '11 A. hlo. It wasn?t as extensive. 11 called Kinsele. 12 0.. But was that also prepared by Mr. Kueppers for 12 BY MR. ANGERSON: '13 you in preparation for this deposition? ?13 0. Okay. That's something you delegated, though, '14 A. Correct. 14 isn?t it, to somebody else? 15 Q. Anything else that you reviewed? 15 A. Something that we hired a group, outside '13 A. No, sir. I did review the names of the 43 13 company for, yes. 17 priests that are on our website. 17 Cl. Now, I'm asking you personally. Have you ever 18 0.. That's it in terms of review? 13 said, want to review the ?le of Father 19 A. Correct. 13 and have that file produced to you in its 20 Q. Did you learn anything in your review ofthe 2i} entirety so you could make a fully informed 2?1 Montero summary prepared for you In this 21 decision about what to do or not to do? Have 22 deposition ln preparation for this 22 you personally ever done that? 23 deposition that you had not known before about 23 A. don?t recall that I have. 24 Montero and his history? 24 Q. And until recently, you had delegated that 25 A. I did. I learned {go} the charges against him 25 responsibility, then, to whom? 1,1. of 53. sheets Page 411:0 44 of 202 0410312014 07:53:37 AM Page 117 to 120 of 202 '11? 113 'i general, yourself and the monitors, correct? *i BY MR. ANDERSON: - 2 A. At the time I don't believe so. If that were 2 Q. Did Father Laird Warn you against making him 3 to happen today, we would disclose to the 3 pastor? 4 trustees. 4 A. He did. 5 Cl. We?re taiidng about in 2009 now, okay? 5 Q. And he told you that there were questions 5 A. Uh huh. 6 about his ?mess to be in ministry, much less i? Q. Is that correctpastor, didn?t he? 8 A. Correct. 8 A. He thought he was somewhat unstable. 9 0.. In ?bril of 2009, do you recall receiving 5 Q. And in was that a yes? '18 information from Haselberger about concerns '19 A. That?s what hetoid me. I he said he had 11 about a change in Wehmeyer?s status from being 11' an unstable personality, but Father Laird 12 the business administrator to being the 12 clearly didn?t like Father Wehmeyer and there '13 pastor? 13 was a I thinka bias there. 44 A. ?Weli, that would - would have happened, I '14 C1. So you thought it was a personality con?ict 15 think, in if I'm not mistaken. '15 behueen Laird and Wehrneyer? 16 Yeah, but she raised concern in 2809 to you is 16 A. I thought to a certain extent, yes. if my question. Do you remember, you know, you Q. And so you didn?t think about the fact that is made that decision in 2003? i8 Laird was speaking for the safety of the 19 A. I thought I had. Could have been 2009. 19 potential children where he was serving as 20 61. Okay. Let?s assume, then, that you made the 20 pastor? 21 decision in 2008, do you recall Haseiherger 21 A. Well, there was no indication that he had 22 bringing the concern to you about why that was 22 interest in ?h in sexually ab using child ran, 23 done? 23 there was no indication at all. 24 A. She brought the concern to me that he about 24- (Discussion out of the hearing of 25 the incident that I toliyou about in the book 25 the court reporter) 113 120 1 store and that he was so roe?sex attracted. 1 BY MR. ANDERSON: 2 (Discussion out of the hearing of 2 Q. When you read the St. Luke?s report and 3 the court reporter) 3 received the other information you?re 4 BY MR. ANDERSON: 4 described at the time you made him pastor and 5 Q. And she also raised with you the concerns 5 continUed him in ministry, did you tail 6 about the St. Luke's ?ndings'that had been anybody at the parish what you imew about his 7 made and in the ?le, correct? 7 history as reported in St. Luke?s, as raised 8 A. She may have. I don?t recall that. 8 by Father Laird or as raised by 3ennifer 9 Q. You recall that he had been diagnosed with 9 Haselberger?? in having sexual compulsion or sexual addiction in A At the time I believed that that was the 11 and unable to control his sexuality? 11 responsibility of Father Mono nough. I found 12 A. No. I don't remember that at all. '12 out subsequently that he did not inform the . '13 Did you read the St. Luke's report? 13 normally in those situations at 14 A. I_helieve I did, yes. 14 that time we would have info mod the trustees 15 Q. When? 15 of the parish. is A. At that time before I. made him pastor. 15 So when did you learn that McDonough had not 17 Q. When you made him pastor and changed his 17 done what - 18 statua from business administrator to pastor, '18 A. I think it was in the last week of September. 19 did you know that he was a risk of harm? 19 Q. Of what year? an A. I did not know. I would have not have made 23 A. 01' 2.113. 21 him pastor if I'd known. 21 Cl. Did anyone ever tell you or did you ever learn 22 Cl. He proved to be, didn't he? 22 from review of the ?le that Curtis Wehmeyer 23 A. Unfortunater (Mods head). '23 had been reshicted'from working with youth in 24 (Discussion out of the hearing of 24 2004?? 25 the court reporter) 25 A. No. newsroom (37:53:37 AM so of 51. sheets . 121 123 'i (3.. Had you ever heard that before I made that i didn't know 2 assertion today? 2 Ft. No. I didn't know he was on mon?rtoring. 3 A. i had not. 3 Cit. I said you didn?t know that, you didn?t know (Discussion out of the hearing of 4 about the other things. At that time after 5 the court reporter) 5 the DWI, did you call Curtis Wehmeyer and say, 3 BY MR. ANDERSON: 6 need to get to the bottom of this," and ask 0.. Did you learn that Curtis Wehmeyer had gotten 7 him 1? he had been engaging in inappropriate 8 a DUI in 2009? a sexual contact of any kind with anybody? 9 ii. I did. 9 A- During that time period, I called him in four '10 How? 113 times from reports that I had gotten in the 11 A. It was reported to us. It Was after I had *l'l parish about his anger management or 12 made him pastor and it was reported to us, I 12 mismanagement, I would say, but I didkn't have '33 think, through Father McDonough. ?13 the knowledge at that time to question him on ?14 Q. And did you also loam that as a part of that 14 his on any sexual activity. 15 arrest relating to the DUI, he had been trying 15 Cl. Well, you knew about the St. Luke?s report, he is to solicit some young people to a party with '15 was a sexual addict, you knee: that? 'ii' him? 1? A. But that I hadn?t had any but that had ?18- I don't recall that as part of the DUI. 18 been ?ve years before and he had been in ?19 Q. What do you recall as a part of the DUI, is therapy and he had been in spiritual direction either what you were told or learned? and St. Luke?s report indicated that he was 21 A. I learn ed that he was on a camping trip and 2i ?t to go back into ministry. 22 that he went into kind of a Til?type place 22 C1. Well, if you had reason to call him in on four 23 and they noticed that he was unstable in his 23 different times and ask him about certain 24 wall: and someone called the police and they 24 things not pertaining to his sexuality, why 25 came and and stopped him from driving and 25 didn't you ask about his sexual conduct or 122 . 124 1 gave him the citation. '1 possible misconduct? Didn?t you want to knee? 2 Cl. Were you aware that when he was arrested for 2 A. Well, those. were not things that had been 3 the DUI, that he called Joe Kueppers as his 3 reported to me. There's nothing of a sexual 4 criminal lawyer? 4 nature that had been reported to me exaapt the 5 A. I was not aware of that. I knew that he was 5 St. Luke's remarks and the report of the 2804 6 friendly with the Kueppers, so it doesn't 6 incident. surprise me. 7 Q. But sometimes the way you get information, 8 Q. Were you aware that at line time of that he was 3 Archbishop, is to ask; and why didn?t you ask 8 still on monitozing? 9 him? 113 A. I was aware of that, yes. '10 15.. Base use there was no reason to. '11 0.. Bid you ever see the report or get informed by 11 Q. The St. Luke?s report gave you reason, dldn't 12 any of your any of your of?cials that the 12 it? 13 report says that he was trying to pick up 13 A. It: did, but that had already been a matter of 1 a teenagers to go back to the campground to 14 at least a year and -- that I had received 15? party? 15 that report -- no. That would that we old 16 A. No, sir. '16 have been in 1904. I?m getting confused here. 17 0. Having heard that, is that the ?rst ?rms 1? And I had to deal with the situation of what 13 you?ve heard that? "is was current in his administration and that 19 A. I believe so, yes. I didn?t know that. is happened to be the question of his getting 2t! Does that alarm you? ?21} along with staff, his anger mismanagement, 21 A. It does. those were the the topics that were on the 22 Q. And would it have alarmed you if you had been 22 table. 23 toid that back than? 23 Q. Scerbo was urging you tonal: continue him in 24 A. Ceztainly would have, yes. 24 ministry because of his sexual issues, wasn?t 25 0.. You did know he was on monitoring, you 25 he? "5t.1._nf sheets Page 121 to 124 of 202 ailment: 14 07:53:37 AM STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, V. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. DISTRICT COURT SECOND IUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No: 62-CR-15-4175 C. A. File No. 2139124 AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS E. RING EXHIBIT 22 ûurtis Page: comp;artl'lo :- 2L136tr6'1 Court File No': Co. iTVehm I of9 DISTRTCT COURT STATE OF MINNESOTA ffiHru/htrgffig} COT]NTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUD]CIAL DISTRICT COURTFILENO.: PROSECTI- OR FTLE NO. : ?1-1"3626 State of Minnesota, ptaintiff¡ FSLÖNY CRIMII-{A], COMPLAINT X Sum*oos Ü IVarant I Order of Detention v- Curtis ìffehmeYer (r)ûB: 1912 Granite,{vÊ. N. ' orkdal*, MN Á.m.enüeel 551-1?' Certifred Juvenile EJJ .: i , i Defenela^nt. anci states thatthere is makes comprainrlo the above-named court i The comprainan! being duly swolu th" following offense(s): . orobable caus€ t;b"1it; tnut tn* Deiendant "od*itt"d COUNT 1 of AugusÇ 2010, in Ramsey Cormty, Minnesota' fhe on or abarrt the 1st day- of Jrme, 20]"0 to the 21st day Wpmfin'geúid",¡'¿\r{ñÍ1'engage insexual contactwithanotherpersoq defe¿rda* CUXTIS yeot, an¿ t¡* ¿"ten¿ant ïras more thÊi136 montls older than the under thr ær ), victim. . **u acts co:rstitrding "Fii the second Degree ín violation of the ofrense of criminar sexual conduct in MN Stah¡te: 5609-343-l(a); 609'34]'2(a)- - fiae' or both' Maximum Sentence: ï5 y"*"or $35,000'00 COIINT 2 of August" 2010, inRam.sey County, Minnesot4 the on or aboutthe 1st day of Jrme,2Û10 to îÍc lewd exhibition of wErilvlET.E& didudarnrfrrily engage in masturbationor ã"?*¿*t, 21st day cunms of 16 genitals in the pressnÊe of a minor imder the age reason to know the minor is present' years' ( tb'e ., knowing or having of MN statrrte: sexuar conduct in the Fifth Degree in violation said acts constit*ting the offense of criminat 4st'2 $60e.3451'1 (2); 609-3 fine' or botb' Maximum Sentence: L year or $3,000'00 v-8t07 ,17 'þ4¿'ùE 1-i-: Curtis ':-; WehmeYer Cq,4!!Y' Comp.ã ilirilt ffillillfi fitr ililr ffi illH Ifr illlil No .; ?i113626:l- Cou¡t File No-: Page:2 of9 ffil fl!il C0t['{"f 3 2Û10, in Ramsey county' Minnesot4 the on or about tlre lst day of June,20i0 tn the 21st day of Augus! defeadant,C{IRT'[S-u¡EffiVffiYER,¿i¿uoru*n'uvEngagoinnastrrrbationolieü¡dexhibitionofthe (d'o'b' genitalsinthepresenceofaminorunder,n reasoÎIto lmowth.e minor is presenl "*of 16yeafs' ' )'knowingothaving sexuar conduct in tbe Fifth Degree inviolation of MN statute: said.acts corstituting the offense of crÍ¡ainar. $609.34s 1. 1 (2); 609.3 4sLz tvl*l-u* Sentence"- 1 year or $3,000'00 fine, orboth' ftffi#.1äü3æffi v.8/07 .7 t : 24 ,2 &å*-¿ Curtis lt[[ il{n WehmeYer [lil illll äfir Co- À!!Y ilfi ill[ lilllßili ffil llll Co*Ñt Page:3 no.: 2113626-1' Corut File No': of9 ffiH*,å.ilr'Hä3 ST¿,TEi\{ENT OF' PROBÁBLE CATTSE establishprobable cause: fhe Complainant states that the followirg facts políce Deparbrent and he your complainarrt is a:r investigafor with the st. paüI reyiew of ieports and uponhis oiilll invesfigation' bases tris complaint upon boy' identiñed as a a l4-year-old Zl,zIlz,lhe st Paul Police took a report Êom th*g mother of that an adult male, identified as the That moth.er fuformedponå t¡at s If. disclosed 'w'ehmeyer d.o-b. Ûn June ; " 'wEmyfEJrER, haq been sexually abusinghimdefendarf, in stBlessed. sacrame¡t,locatod. at 1081 Lacrosse Avenue was the family,s parishprrest at The cn*ãortu" fs 6 wentoü.to repornthaf the defendanthad ocompanyhirn paur,Ramsey couafy, that camper' the defendant defendant and farked in qigqrcn parking lot' le camper trailer o*o"ã Ly also st¿ted onhis *hjl." displayed ponrographic vid-eos dwing these visits fo ths camperuana flat the defendrot wJuld provide ulcodüo beverages and marij Ð-O-8. ctrRTrs Minnesota *" hetouched to 3tt-:g;tt peûis' of Jtme in tunr coatacted the police- Durixg tke morning hours The mother contacted- church authorities, who Church of the Blessed Sacrament and advised the at zL,Zul;.,church authoriti", we¡rt to thaiectory The duties and he was instructed to leave the premises- Upon his defeudaff that he was immediately ."tiro*¿ of n* Thc defendanttold the departure, the defend¿nt weat ,¿o"* t lie, I intend' to plead g..}iity ancl spare you faniiy the embarrassaent'' nrother, ,, was leaviag the premises on Jtme 21,2t12,he spoke with Fwther investigation revealed rlat as the d.efendsnt '.p., He apologized to her for disappointing her d.o.b -ia"otfied as D. another church "mpffi", fhe'rui4 "Yoo o"ed to how there was nothing oral that happened and and for the peopLe dri n" uu¿ hurr He I ,no *. penehationhaPPened-' FauI for an furterview. Dwing that went to Midwest Childreds Resowce Center in St began inthe sulTuaer of 2010 and reported tb¿t the *."o¿ contactwiththe defendanf Tvitb beet and marijuana and' he .. ,uid tåut th" defendant pr*id+ hitll continued througþout the saidtlat laptop computer inthe camper showed_ . pollLogfaphic images *d ùdeos on a pants then touched defendant The and uuderwear. refrove hís r¡¡hile dbing so, th. deîen-dant penis and touched his oum penis during the his aJso øpose9 s penis with his hâfld. The defendant v¡ouldno stated tLut tu" defendanttoldhi- if he told aryone he viewing ofthe pornographic that he wonied' about also said w.ould fail apart without longer be able to be a priesË and the pffiså '' d'oå' reporrld that his older íf h. rep#ed the bis mother losing bailer' during some ofthese vísits to the defendant's cãmfet on Juns zZ,Z0Iz, interview, summer. trailer' h¿ð *naqes. , ** i.;ñ abrse' him' brother' pr"rårt weekbefore his 1:ft birthday- Ire stated thaf dwing th"at reported that the last incideut occurred one ' a hug s penis, the defendant also ha'"'d- touching episode, in addition to the defendanf s ,'s .whüe his pants and underwear were ,till ¿o*o. p*i"g that hug the defendant reached and butt u¡ithhis hand- - gave grabbed , During that interview stated that he and hís on Jnty 5,20!z,this investigator interviewed churohparkinglot- Ite statedthatthe defendant brother ôid go to the defendant,s "*p*iturL,ran<9{inpe defendant would try to get him to take his pants off- He did show thein pornographic images. He statedihe pants and that he He did siafe that the d,efendant removed bis own stated he would not take bis pants dovm. statedthathe sawthe during the pomographíc movies. would touch his own penis andmastr.*bate v.8/07 F :-1 .;"u" Curtis--"--Wehmeyet'Io':2113626-lCor:¡tFileNo':Page:4of9 i eies*Jvî;ãqu**i"'*tv' ïir$rtri"#ffiå: ftHirilluruuffilllllliffiïiltl. &J.j alslyn-ortedgoingonacampinghipwirhthederendanrand Minnesot4 r¡r fulr or aãd cigareues and off.eredfhenpot' He statedthatthe August2'r.', tn" ¿"rro¿*tîrovi¿"¿tr.å*fuu"t wh"nhis bro-ther was measuringhis ownpenis the defendant lefendanttoldthemto measuretheirp*i*;. that tl* defend¿nt beganto- n+;4sure"his.brothet's penis' During told him he was doing it iucorrectly *¿ m"o share a bed penis- Heitarca thar during the niehts hç would hi"ï;rh;t's toorí.¿ ruoJ ¿"r.o¿#t the incident himseif from the p"irp u""r".ø" of pirlorxrs p.q bbrk"F to separate with the defenda¡r He ,tur*¿ ¡. *oor¿ and the defendant's " n" ïorc up he *out¿ Ënd thè bar¡icade removeddefcnitant whle they slopt He said *nå arms andhands placed across his chest' duri¡e one camping rip n¡ar statedtÍat he would wake up during Resource center, hr a subsequent interview at Midwest children's i*l the defendant's hands touching him on his privafe parrs. the nieJrf oa this "åp*; "d;; he asked to for rbis offeuso on June zz,zalz- At f]at time, The defendant was initia[y anested anô booked occu¡red' formal i¡ferview with the defendant *;;ññ ;p"ä;htr Kffiffi,'qtTHffi v.8/07 JI L7.:5 Curtis Ùiilr $lll illll \ffehmeYer Cg' 4,!!Y CompËnt ffi $[ lHl lfilt ffiil lfr lTliil No .:2L13626-t Page:5 Court File No' of9 l[l llil or condítions of release' be: complainæri requests that Defendanf subject to bail appearance in court or (1) arrested cr that ot¡"t f"",.ntl steps betaken to obtainDefendant's and fhat said Defendant otherwise be dealt bending fi¡riher proceedings; (2) detained, ir dr"ady i" "orto¿y, with according to law,S COMPT.,Á.TNANT'S NAJ\ffi : Wiiliam Gillet this Subscribed and. swom to before the undersigned ûM+, of 20 MARIE¡NDER$üN Notary Fublic-fif innesota Gommbsloí Being Jan 2d5 autJ1anzeÅto proseeute tþo offenses charged Date: 09nAlZ012 I approvethis complaint' PROSECUTtr'lG'Á. Name: StevenR Pfaffe Assislant R-mseY 1 50 WestKellogg Blvd, St Paul, MN55102 65I-266-32221dr. #169274 ffitrffiJqC?E# v.810? S SIGI{ATIJRE: LL"þ Curtis VehmeYer ffiffi üril ffill fillt llff llffi Tffll Co- Page: 6 AttY Comfr*ãtlo .: 2L13626-I Court FileNo-: lil ilffilffi lrll FINDn{G OF' of9 PROBABLE CAUSE swom testimonl', I, the IssuÍng Officer, have dets¡mined From tbe above sworn facts, ard any zupporting affi.davits or supplemental to ¡"it or conditions of release where applicable, Defendanf s arresf or other lawfil steps thatprcbable cause exists to suppori, detentioq if already in custody, pending fi:rther proceedings. be þken to obtain Þefe¡rd*t'rïpp***"e in cou4 or Defendant's Defendant is tl¡erefore charged with the above-stated ofünse' *iiot K srnrorons yOU, TTIE ABOVE-NAMED DETENDANT, ARE I{EREBY SUMMONBD to appear on the l-0th day of oetober' .. TIIER_EFORE sL Pauì,lVlIoI 1¡nat 1:20 pM before fåe abov+named cout at Ramsey county Law Enforcement center, 425 Grove Street, i 551û1 to answetthis comPlaÍnt tr' ïöIi r¿dïo 'WARRAN FoR YOUR -å3REST shall be issucd ' to this SUMMONS, a ¿rpefR j" response n Execute r/ÁRRÄN"T ín MN OnlY J F'xec afeNøtiowuíd.e ] hæcwte in B oriler Støtes county; or other persoa authorized to execüte this wa¡¡atü I he,reþ oréer, in Îüe name of fte State delay md brought promptly before the aboveofMínnesot4 tlat the above-named Defendant be appretended and arreste d wiihorÉ af such court without rnnecossary delay, and in anf event not nametl court'(if in session)" andifnol before aJudge orJudicial Offi.cer Officer is available to be dealt with açca¡¿ling to law. latertåan 36 hours afrer the ar¡est or as soon as such Judge or Judicial Tothe Sheriffof the above-named I in onnnnor DETENTToN custody, I hereby order, subject to bail or conditions of release, tbat the above-named since the above-named. Defendant is already Defendant cortinue to be deøined pendÍng fixther ¡noceedings' Bail: ConditÍons of Release: No contactwith ürsutrtervised contact Ì{ith ì.fl in ors- S .) and E L. ..H- i rmdersignod Iudicial Off-cer this This complain! duly subscdbed aud swom to, is issued.bythe _- il(' day of 2t s.tGNÂTUREi JUDICTÁJ, OHHTCER: N,ållfE: TffLE: Sworn witnesses: before the Judiciai Officer hasbeen COT'NTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OT'MINNESOTÄ PIaintiff, vs. CT]RTTS WEHI4EYER Clerk's Signatura or FiÍe StantP:. RËÏUKN OF SERWCE I høve serted a copy of thís COMPIJIINT tqon the Døfutdmt herein nøtned- I hereby CertíÍy qnd Retwn thn Signatrre of Arfhorized Service Àgent Defçndaat ffiffiffiAÜTffiffi .;j.,i v.8i07 i &'1 CurÉis Fíle No': lWehmeYer Co' AttY' Compi^.ntNo -: 2113676-L Couri lliin mrmllullr ffiil i{ll[ffilffiilllll Probable Êause ilfr ïlll Page: 7 FÏ.lprNGS gÐF'É.çr fouui that defendant commifted the offenses charged' Ordered. defend¿nt's motion to dismiss denied' Plea ofnot grflry to all counts entered' Trial andhearing oa all issues set' Ðated: JIJDGE OF DISTKICT COIIRT ffiffiffi,q#gÐ# v.8i07 of9 -.,'l ,i 1\ irint nrn nru arffirm ililTtH íil ffi ;; ilfiUffiH;; ÐEFENÐÄI{T NA1\48: CURTIS 7L:g :JI Page:8 of9 - ATT/,.CH1\ffii'q-f Ä DOB: \áEH]\tr'YER AliasDOB(s): D efendaüt alias naoe(s): 1912 Gra¡ftP Ave- NOakdale,MN 55112 Defendant la¡tloosm address: MNO9CF4882 291997 StateJD: FingerprintlD: 96696sgD8 FBI ÏD: St- PaulPD IÐ: OffenderID: ÛTffiRDEN'ENDANT I CÁSE trÐE'NTIFTER,S: No FingetPrinted? ÜNo IlandguuPermit? Yes Dt*u (IssrriugAgencY: ) Locaric¡n of violafion: IF,'ÐRrvl:rc 0FIFENSE: Issuhg State: License Number: LicenseFlate Number: D¡ivet's Type: Ü apply f] Aocide,rrt checþ all thæ Issuing State: f, No injuy/no damage penonallnþry PropertYÐam¿ge Ir*tity BloodAlcohol Coucent:¿fion RffiffiÂTT=Hæ v.8Í07 I /1 -t'û L -¿-' r ffiill lilll ffiil iltil TELONY Page;9 of9 TVebmeYer Co. AttY- Compi.rrit No .:2L736?"6-L Court File No': Curtis uru ffi ilIfr lff llllllffiillll SUVûVI ONS C OMPI,AIIET CT OFFENSE ÐATB STATUTE DESCRIPTION STATUTE STATUTE NBR TYPB MOC LEVEL AGM{CY C} o ORÍ C CNNBR F{.}NCTION 1 06/01/2,û10 Criminal Sex Conduct-2nd Degree-Victim Under 13Okl ÄefÐr > 36m ¡Ì'r .,,;.¡...,.".,. Crimin¿t Sexual Conduct- Charge 6093a3J(a) to fiqrzlnú.t Penalty J o6t0w0t0 "¡"""' eOg-E¿St'z Charge 609.3451.1(2) Crimin¿l Sex Conduct-Sth I'T SL PaulPolice oRI- M¡.I062û900 cN- u14s585 Charging to û8/21f2010 609.3¿-5I-2 G ¡ -..-.Under " ""i"'¡ cN- 16 Present----"--- egree-Lewd Exhib itionIJuder lf Presenf Ç¡imí¡al Sex Conil-5Éh Deg-Nonconseusual Sexual 1?f.45s85 Chargirg Criminal Sex Cond-Sth Ileg-Nonconsensual Sexual Crimi¡a I Sex Condtct-5th LACA? N St?aulPolíee oRI-MN0620900 Degre+.I,ewil Exhib itio n- D PenaltY L31Á, 2nd D egreaPena ltY-Stat ivtåx. S6i0112010 Charge 609,34s1.1{2) to 0S/2fr2010 -'-î;"ãifl' 3 609.343.2(a) F c L^ACÄ4 N StPaulPolice oRI-MN062û900 cÎ'I- 12145585 Charging ffiffiffiÅffTHffi v. 8/07 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND IUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No: C. A. File No. 2139124 State of Iv?nnesota, Plaimiff, AFFIDAVIT V. THOMAS E. RING The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant State it. Bussmann, Not Reported in (2009) 2009 WL 2:315416 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. NOTICE: TEES OPINION IS DESIGNATED AS UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE EXCEPT AS PROVEED BY LENN. ST. SEC. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. John J. BUSSMANN, Appellant. No. 1 July 14, 2009. Review Denied Sept. 29, 2009, West KeySummary 1 Criminal Law It: Letters and telegrams Rape as Personal relations ofparties Love letters written by a woman to a priest were not relevant to the issue being tried. The priest was convicted of third degree sexual conduct because he intentionally seXHally penetrated the woman while he was amember of the clergy and they were not married. While the letters showed that the two had a consensual scrotal relationship, they were not relevant to any other fact of cons equence or element ofthe charge being tried . It was undislauted that the We had a sexual relationship, and the letters did nothing to provo or disprove that semi penetration occurred. Cases that cite this headncte Hennepin County District Court, File No. . Attorneys and Law Firms Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Thomas A. Weist, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent. John G. Westriok, Wash-lei: McDowell-Nix, St. Paul, MN, for appellant. Considered and decided by MENGE, Presiding Judge; WORKE, Judge; and COLLINS, Judge. UNFUB LISEIED OPINION COLLINS, Judge. *1 Appellant challenges his conviction of third-degree criminal Sexual conduct, arguing thatthe district court abused its discretion by permitting testimony that unnecessarily entangled church doctrine with civil law; (2) excluding letters written by the complainant to appellant; and (3) denying appellant?s proposed modi?cations and supplements to 10 Minnesota Practise, CRJMIIG 12.35 (1999) when instructing the jury on the elements of the offense Appellant also challenges the suf?ciency of the evidence to support his conviction and asserts that the prosecutor committed misconduct by imp crmissibly shifting the burden of proof on an element of the offense to appellant. We a?rm. FACT In the fall of 2001, then?Father Iohn Bussmann (appellant) was assigned as the pastor of St. Walhurga's Catholic Church in Hassan and St. Martin's Catholic Church in Rogers. 1 Appellant?s responsibilities included sacramental duties at both churches and counseling parishioners. It was by virtue of his counseling role that appellant met and began a relationship with DJ. In early 2002, after returning from a spiritual retreat, D1. discussed with appellant what she believed was her calling from God to teach. Appellant encouraged 13.1. to pursue this calling, and shortly thereafter he employed 53.1. as the director of youth ministries at St. Martin's cyan though she had no training, education, or experience in youth ministries. Although 13.1. and appellant worked together in close proximity, initially they had minimal interaction. But after her mother became ill, DI. consulted with appellant more frequently. to?; ?211118 Thomson R?s-titers, claim to original 1.5.8. Government Vale-$5: snag State v. Bussmann, Not Reported in (2009) D1. sought counsel ?om appellant when, after her mother's death, she became Very lonely, depressed, and scared. Dl. testi?ed that she went to appellant because a friend suggested that she speak with a ?spiritual director.? Between Noyember 2002 and March 2003, D1. and appellant met regularly to discuss emotional Well-being and her mother's death. Over time, appellant and relationship intensi?ed and included sexual activities. It Was not until March 2004 that DJ. reported the sexual incidents. On March 18, 2004, 1the state charged appellant with multiple counts of offenses. The original complaint was amended several times, and appellant moxied to sever the counts for separate trials. The district court granted appellant?s motion in part, and in May 2005, appellant was tried for and convicted of theft by swindle over $500, thett over $500, and ?fth- degree criminal sexual conduct. In July 2005, appellant was tried for and convicted of the remaining two counts of third~ degree criminal sexual conduct. Appealing his convictions from the July 2005 trial, appellant argued in part that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence that entangled religious doctrine with civil law. In September 2006, this court af?rmed appellant?s conviction. State v. Bmsmann, ADS-1752, 2006 WL 2673294 NinnAprllO?), review granted (Dec. 12, 2006). On review, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the clergy criminal sexual conduct statute, as applied, violated the Establishment Clause, revsrsed appellant's convictions, and remanded the case to the district court for a new trial. State v. Bussmozm, 741 79, 94-95 (Min?ll??) (Summons I In February 2008, appellant Was retried and convicted of one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.2 Appellant was sentenced to 48 months of imprisonment, and he appeals. DECISION I. *2 The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed appellant?s ?rst conviction because the state introduced excessiVe testimony relating directly to Catholic Church doctrine, Roman Catholic duties, and Archiodicesan procedure, which violated the Establishment Clause. Basra:an i, 741 at 94. On remand, the district court was conscious of the supreme court's excessiveentanglement ruling and made a diligent effort to avoid permitting the introduction of any evidence that may run afoul of that ruling. Father Kevin McDonough from the St. Paul Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church had testi?ed as a state's witness in I. in response to appellant's pretrial motion in limine to exclude ?any andall religious or non-secular evidence and testimony from being presented [on retri the district court stated: Reading the Supreme Court Opinion, they are very, very, cautious about having anything of a religious nature seem[ing] to impinge into the secular question of the guilt or innocence under Minnesota stands. Pretty clearly Father McDonough can testify as to whether or not [appellant] was a member of .the clergy at the time, [and] what his assignment was. . .. Once he starts getting into, as he did, as I understand in the ?rst trial, of the religious nature, how the Church reviews the relationships, the actions that the diocese took at the time, their investigation, their concerns and their conclusion pretty clearly that would not be allowod. At trial, the district court signi?cantly limited the scope of Father McDouough?s testimony, allowing him to only testify about his role and responsibilities within the church, the process of assigning priests to parishes, appellant?s employment with the church, and generally about the con?dential nature of clergy?parishioner counseling, the formalities and locations of counseling sessions, and the process by which parishioners can report problems, concerns, or belieVed abuses. Despite the signi?cantly reduced scope of religion-related testimony, appellant contends that the district court erred by permitting evidence of ?Catholic belieiis, including the relationship betWeen apriest and parishioner in the View of the Catholic Church.? The Establishment Clause provides that ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religionEJ? U.S. Const amend. 1. Whether a government action violates the Establishment Clause is controlled by the three factors set out in Lemon 403 U.S. 602, 612?13L.l3d.2d 745 (1971). The state action must have a secular purpose, must neither inhibit nor advance WESTLAW 2016 Thom-son Renters. No claim to original US. Government Enforce. 2 State v. Bussmano, Not Reported in (2009) 25:1? religion in its primary effect, and ?must not foster excessiva governmental entanglement with religion.? Catawba} v. Minn. Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, 649 426, 435 (Minn .2002). Unlike the ?rst trial, on retrial there was no testimony regarding Catholic Church doctrine, the powver that priests have traditionally had over parishioners, or internal church procedures regarding allegations of abuse. Because the charging statute requires proof of certain elements that directly touch and concern religious practices, it is impossible to prove the charged offense without some religion-related testimony. After reviewing the limited religion-related testimony from Father McDonough, we are satis?ed that the district court carefully adhered to the Bussmann I admo nitions and admitted only such religion-related testimony as was necessary for the state to prove the charged o?'ense. We conclude that the religion-related testimony did not cXCessively entangle church doctrine with civil law. II. *3 Appellant next asserts that the district court erred by excluding love letters written byD.I. to appellant, arguing that the letters Were relevant to show the jury ?the one nature of their relationship" and the ?depth of emotion, intimacy and passion? in their ?deeply personal sexual affair.? We will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion, and the appellant has the burden to show that he was prejudiced by such an abuse of discretion. State v. Amos, 658 201, 203 (Minn,2003). Under this standard, ?[r]cversal is warranted only when the error . substantially in?uences the lury?s decision.? State Neon, 561 902, 907 We will reverse when I there is a reasonable possibility that, had the erroneously excluded evidence been admitted, the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant. State v. Post. 512 99, 102 (Mhm.l994). The harmless?error analysis, however, applies when evidence is cxoluded in violation of a defendant's constiwtional right to present a defense. State v. 320m, 682 578, 622 {Minn.2004); see also Post, 512 at 102 (holding that in determining whether district court?s exclusion of defense evidence constituted prejudicial error, this court must evaluate whether error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). We will a?inn the conviction if there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence would hate changed the verdict. Elem. 682 at 623. .n?wu Evidence must be relevant to be admissible. Stare v. Quick, 659 7?01, 'i'13 ReleVant evidence is ?evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it Would be without the evidence.? Minn. R. Evid. 40}. However, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded by other rules or statutes, Minn. R. Evid. 402; see also, cg, Minn. R. Evid. 403 (stating that ?evidence may be excluded if its probativo value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by, considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulativo To convict appellant of third?degree criminal sexual conduct, it was the state?s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) appellant intentionally sexually penetrated (2) at the time of the sexual penetration, appellant was a member of the clergy; (3) at the time of the sexual peneb'ation, appellant and DI. Were not married; and (4) the sexual penetration occurred during a period of time in which D1. was meeting with appellant on an ongoing basis for the primary purpose of seeking or receiving religious or spiritual advice, aid or comfort, in private. Minn.3tat. 609.3440) (2002). Cons cut is not a defense. Id. Therefore, relevant evidence must address, directly or indirectly, one of these elements. And because it is undisputed that appellant and D1. had a sexual relationship while appellant was amernber of the clergy and that the We were not married, the issue before us is whether the district court abused its discretion by ruling that the letters were not releVant to prove or disprove that sexual penetration occurred during a time in which 13.1. was meeting with appellant on an ongoing basis for the primary pm?pose of seeking or receiving religious or spiritual advice, aid or comfort, in private. *4 The letters written by DJ. during the course of her relationship with appellant clearly establish that a sexual relationship existed and that the relationship was consensual. But it is undisputed that a sexual relationship existed and, as a matter of law, consent is not a defense. The letters are not relevantto any other fact of consequence or element of the charge being tried; thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding thorn. cesium 2:016 Thomson Reuters. No clear: to original U.S. Gonernmem Works :3 State v. Busemann, Not Reported in sawed (2009) Appellant proposed jury instructions on the elements of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, modifying and supplementing CRIMJIG 12.35 with language drawn ?'orn Bussmann I. The state opposed the proposed instructions, and the district court ultimately rejected them and instructed the jury on the elements of the offense strictly pursuant to CRJIVIJIG 12.35. Appellant contends that the district court thereby abused its discretion. The district court has broad discretion in crafting jury instructions. State v. Brown?s 606 64, 68 {Minn.2000). The instructions must define the elements of the crime charged, and ?it is desirable for the court to explain the elements of the offense rather than simply to read statutes.? State v. Kahuna. 622 552, 556 jury instruction is erroneous if it materially misstates the law. State Moore, 699 733, 736 (Minn.2005); see also States v. Peon, 579 471, 475 (Mirm.1998) (holding that if jury instructions correctly state the law in language that can be understood by the jury, there is no revorsible error). Jury instructions are viewed in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately informed thejury on the law of the case. State v. Fierce, 418 150, 155 ?We evaluate the erroneous omission of a jury instruction under a harmless error analysis.? State v. Lee, 683 309, 316 {h?nnZOM}. In doing so, we ?examine all relevant factors to determine whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error did not have a signi?cant irnpact on the verdict." State v. Sheep, 441 475 481 (Minn.l 989). If the error might have prompted the jery to reach a harsher verdict than it might otherwise have reached, the defendant is entitled to a new trial. Id The jury instruction at issue was the same instruction on the elements of the offense given at the ?rst trial, and the law has not changed. While the modifying and supplemental language proposed by appellant was drawn from Busrmann I, the supreme court did not disapproirc of CRIMJIG 12.35 or change the law in any way in relation to the pattern instruction. See Bream, 741 at 90?92. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on MEG-12.35 when it instructed the jury on the elements of the offense. 23:15} Although appellant concedes that he had a sexual relationship with D.I., he contends that there is insuf?cient evidence to establish criminal liability, arguing: *5 This sexual penetration did not take place either during a session where the primary purpose of the session was religious or spiritual aid, advice or comfort. Nor did the penetration take place while he was providing continuing religious or Spiritual [And] many of the alleged counseling sessions took place in public places, and do not fall within the purview of the statute's ?private? requirement. When we review a claim of insuf?ciency of the evidence, our review is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was suf?cient to permit the jury to reach its Verdict. State v. Webb. 440 426, 430 (Minn.1939). On appeal, we assume that the jury believed the evidence supporting the verdict and disbelievad any contrary evidence. State 12. Moore, 438 101, 108 (Minn.1989). The jury determines the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of their testimony, and we assume that the jury belieyed the state?s witneSSes and disbelieved the defendantis Witnesses. State V. Belated 636 531, 539 (Minn.2004). The verdict will not he overhuncd if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury reasonably could have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense. Id Appellant appears to argue that in order to violate the stance, sexual penetration must occur during or immediately following a private meeting in which the primary purpose was religious or Spiritual aid, advice or comfort. However, the statute does not impose such a constrained requirement. The statute prescribes a sexual relationship between a member of the clergy and a parishioner if ?the sexual penetration occmred carrng a period of?me in which the parishioner- and the member of the clergy were meeting on an ongoing basis and the parishioner was seeking or receiving religious or spiritual advice, aid or comfort. Minn.Stat. 609.344, subd. 1(1 (ii) (2002) (emphasis added). Moreovar, if the purpose of the statute is to protect vulnerable parishioners, allowing a sexual relationship to occur during the same Titorrason Premiers. No claim to magical LLB. ?atworms-oi Fritters . a I State v. Bussmano, Not Reported in (2009) I 51.: 3* a-i-i? period in time, evon if not at the same moment in time, as counseling, is contrary to that purpose. EVen if not every contact between a clergymember and a parishioner involVes counseling, it is up to the jury to decide whether the facts in this case support ?nding an ongoing clergy-counselee relationship. Bussmann I. 741 at 83 (?Whether a I clergy-counselor: relationship established, whether an established clergy-counselee relationship actually continued, and whether the proscribed sexual conduct Occurred during that ongoing clergy-counselee relationship are factual matters for the jury to On this record, there is abundant evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that 13.1. and appellant had an ongoing relationship. The two otten discussed how she Was dealing with her mother's death, her fear of death, and the stresses of her new job within the church. D.I. relied on appellant when she needed comfort and support and when she had questions about her faith and her new calling to teach. Even if, as appellant contends, the statute requires each meeting to have some counseling aspect, a reasonablequ could ?nd that each time D1. and appellant were together, he provided comfort and guidance, which is the very cornerstone of the clergy- counselce relationship. *6 Appellant also argues that there is insuf?cient evidence to prove that any clergy?counseiee relationship was in private. Bussmarm I does not de?ne ?in private.? But the dictionary de?nes ?priva as or con?ned to the individual; Undertaken on an individual basis." The American Heritage Dictionary 1442 (3d ed.1992). Therefore, the ?in private? requirement is intended to ensure the con?dentiality or privacy of conduct or communications; ?in private? is not synonymous with ?in secret." Here, DJ. testi?ed that her ?rst meeting with appellant after her mother?s death was in private at the church and then the two of them, privately, went to her mother's gratis-site- DJ. testi?ed that after that ?rst meeting, the two continued to meet privately to discuss the grieving process and how she was coping. The ?rst time appellant kissed D1. was as she was leaving his private quarters after she had consulted with him because she was havinga bad day. Other sexual contact occurred in a private room at the church, in appellant?s private home, and in his private living quarters in the church rectory. This is suf?cient for a. reasonable jury to conclude that the ?in private? element of the statute was satis?ed. V. Although appellant did not object at trial, he now contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct by imp ennissihly shifting the burden of proof to him on the issue of whether the clergy?counselee relationship had been terminated prior to the occurrence of any sexual activity. Unobjecteddo prosecutorial misconduct is waived, but we may review an alleged error according to the plain-error standard. State v. Romey, 721 294, 797, 299 CMinnlOOd). Plain error exists if there is an error that is plain and that affects the defendant's substantial rights. State v. Washington. 725 125, 133 (MinnAprOOS), review denied (Minn. Mar. 20, 2007). An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law. Johnson v. United States, 520 US. 461, 467, 17 1544,1549, 137 L.Ed.2d 718(1997). An error is clear or obvious if it ?contraVenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.? Romey, 721 at 302. An alleged error does not contraVcne caselaw unless the issue is ?conciusivoly resolved." State ones, 753 677, 689 (Minn.2008). If misconduct is found, a conviction will be reversed only if the misconduct impaired the defendant's right to a fair trial. State v. Pct-vars, 654 66?, 673 (Minu2003). The defendant hears the initial burden of demonstrating plain error, but upon satisfying this obligation, the burden shifts to the state to show that the error did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. Ramey, 721 at 302. If the defendant satis?es his burden of proving that ?the prosecutor's actions constitute plain error, and the state is unable to meet the burden of showing that there is no reasonable likelihood of a signi?cant effect, the appellate courts then assess Whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.? Washington, 725 at 133-34 (quotation omitted). I *7 ?The prosecutor is an of?cer ofth a court charged with the a?'irmative obligation to achieve justice and fair adjudication, not merely convictions.? State v. idols, 730 7?7, 782 (Minn.2807). A prosecutor commits misconduct when he or she engages in acts that ?undermin[e] the fairness of a trial,? or ?violat[e] clear or established standards of conduct, rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state?s case law.? Id. Throughout a criminal trial, the state has the burden to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden 2018 Titonmon Haulers hie am an origina? 8. Government Works 5 State v. Bussman r1, Not: Reported in {2009) of proving innocence cannot be shilted to an accused. State v. Race, 383 656, 654 (blindl?l??); see also, ag ., State v. Coleman. 373 777, 782 (stating that ?misstatements of the burden of proof are highly improper and constitute prosecutorial misconduct?); State v. memos. 307 Minn. 229, 231, 239 455, 45? (1976} (condemning prosecutor?s suggestion that burden of proof is meant to protect the innocent, not shield the guilty); State v. Trimble, 371 921, 926 (Minc?ppJ985) (holding that prosecutor's argument suggesting that presumption of innocence disappears when large amount of evidence of guilt exists is improper), review denied (Minn. Oct. 11, 1985). But in the context of comments made during closing argument that may operate to shift the burden of proof, courts will also consider any mitigating statements that correctly lay the burden on the prosecution. State v. Tote. 682 169, 17849 (Mino.App.2004), revisit) denied (Minn Sept. 29, 2004). For example, when the district court properly instructs the jury after the prosecution misstates the burden of proof, the misconduct will typically not require reversal. See id; State v. ria?cDonough, 631 373, 38911. 2 (lviinn.2001); Race, 333 at 664; Coleman, 373 at 782-83. Here, the ?rst two instanccs?of alleged misconduct are similar. First, the prosecutor argued: ?Ifthe victim was meeting on an ongoing basis with the defendant to seek or receive religious or spiritual advice unless and until that pastoral counseling relationship ended, it was a crime for the defendant to have sex with the victim[ Seco nd, the prosecutor argued: ?When a parishioner has met with a member of the clergy and a pastoral [counseling] relationship has been established, then that relationship, th? pastoral counseling relationship, must be terminated. It must be terminated before a sexual relationship can begin.? Neither of these statements misstates the law. See Minn.Stat. 609.344, subd. 1(a) (requiring that sexual conduct occur during ?period of time? when counseling meetings were occurring ?on an ongoing basis?). Appellant next contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct when she asserted that [t]he [counseling] relationship that [Di] established with the defendant was never tenninated. continued to seek and pastoral [counseling] ?'orn the defendant with regard to these issues all during the time period the defendant Was having sex with her. This relationship was never terminated. The defendant never receive told [Di] that he had to terminate their [counseling] relationship because he wanted to hate sex with her. The defendant never told she should seek or receive spiritual [counseling] from another priest since he was having sexual relations with her and the defendant never told that he could no longer hear her confession because he wanted to have a sexual relationship with her and she never did. She never went to anyone else. That [counseling] relationship was nevor terminated. continued to meet with the defendant on an ongoing basis to seelc or receive religious spiritual advice aid or comfort from her priest, her counselor. The defendant. *8 This argument does not shift any burden of proof to appellant, it simply reiterates the state's theory of the case that a clergy?counselors relationship existed, (2) the relationship needs to be terminated before a sexual relationship can legally occur, and (3) the relationship was never terminated. The prosecutor made a similar plea during her rebuttal argument, stating: submit that We have prover: that there was [a clergy?counselor: relationship] [and] if there was, that relationship has to be terminated. That has to end before there can be a sexual relationship under the law and it simply did not terminate.? A prosecutor must be reasonable latitude in arguing the state's case before the jury. Finally, appellant complains of another part of the prosecutor?s rebuttal argument in which she stated: And once that relationship was set up he is [counseling] her with regard to her mother's death with regard to her fear of death, regard to heaven, regard to Once that relationship was set up, when did it terminate? It did That relationship never terminated and for that reason, it was illegal. Again, this statement does not argue that it is appellants burden to prove that the clergy-parishioner relationship had been timely terminated, the argument is simply that it had not. Nothing in this record leads us to conclude that the prosecutor WESTLAW 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original 1.1.8. Essen-amen: Works 6 a .- . a z. I ads State v. Bussmann, Hot Reported in (2009) impermissiny shifted any burden of proof from the state to All Citations Affirmed. Not Reported in 2909 WL 201541 6 Footnotes Retired judge ofthe district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court oprpeels by appoh'itment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. Vt, it). 1 In 2002, the two churches were consolidated to become St Mary Queen of Peace Catholic Church at the Rogers location. 2 Appellant was acquitted on the charge ofthird?degree criminal sexual conduct stemming from his reia?donship with another individual. End of Document to 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U5, Govamment Works. .4 @r 2016 Tinorrascn Liters. No claim to original L18. Government Works.