Preliminary Statement for those not familiar with the Wuerlgate Series
If anyone asks if whether Cardinal Donald Wuerl is either the divine model of
godlike zero tolerance or a lying cover-up artist, the definitive answer is:
1} Robert "I-was-ordained-with-Wuerl" Wolk,
2} Francis "Statute-of-Limitations" Pucci,
3} Richard "the-Marquis-de-Sade-is-my-role-model" Zula,
4} John S. Hoehl, until Wuerl played hot potato with him
and instantly ousted him from the ministry as soon as
Wolk was indicted.
5} Huff, in a STL to PGH musical chairs game
that resulted in Huff's indictment,
6} allegedly the John Wellinger whose name did
appear in a class action lawsuit, but who was a
person of interest even in the 1980s
7} allegedly Fr. Donald "Knockout Punch" Sotak,
8} Fr. James "North Park" Torquato, in the
most evidence-supported of the accusations.
In the negligence department add ... 9} Krawczyk.
For those not familiar: Greetings, for starts.
For those new to this site, know that it contains jpegs of hard copy ev-
idence and jpegs mainstream newspaper articles, along with links to
yet more newspaper articles which prove that Cardinal Donald Wuerl
is NOT the model of zero tolerance that he was made out to be by the
pathologically bland ittsburgh Post Gazette writer, Ann Rodgers. In
addition, the statistical information within this site shows that both
Wuerl and the archbishop of New York City are deceivers.
The accused priest:
Donald J. Sotak. His assignments included headmaster posts at South
Side Catholic and Canevin High Schools, as well as the pastor posts of
Saint Francis Xavier in the North Side of Pittsburgh and Saint Joseph's
Parish in Natrona Heights. This also included an assistant pastor post in
Mckeesport.
Sotak died in 2004. During the celebration of the 40th anniversary of
his ordination, in 2002, the parish church that was to hold the celebra-
tion was ever so coincidentally vandalized. Were the vandals, by any
chance, making a deliberate statement in the vandalizing?
Accusation: Full blown physical assault, to the tune of either attempted
invasive contact or successful invasive contact. The accuser alleged that
he was knocked unconscious during the conflagration which, according
to him, was an intense altercation. He wasn't sure what actually happened
while he was unconscious.
The alleged circumstance surrounding alleged assault: Donald Sotak's
accuser alleges that the assault took place after a dinner outing. The pur-
pose of the dinner was to talk about the young man chances of achieving
a vocation to the priesthood. The alleged assault took place after Fr. Sotak
allegedly asked the gentleman very personal preference questions.
In review:
The accuser originally asked Sotak for vocational guidance, in the hope
to receive assistance in entering a seminary, should he finally decide to
pursue a vocation to the priesthood. They went to dinner, to discuss
the matter. After dinner came the alleged altercation.
Age of Accuser at the time of the alleged assault: 19, 20, or so.
____________________________________________________
The following is alleged by Fr. Donald Sotak's credible accuser:
- The alleged assault took place during the tenure of Pittsburgh dioce-
san bishop, Vincent Leonard, in the mid 1970s.
- Sotak was immediately reported to Pittsburgh diocesan personnel,
and the response was to quickly move Sotak to a new domicile.
- The accuser joined the Pittsburgh seminary in the 1980s, eventually
being ordained a deacon. Donald Wuerl was the rector of the dioce-
san seminary at the time. Then Wuerl was ordained a bishop. In the
beginning of 1988 Wuerl was assigned to Pittsburgh.
- Sotak's accuser made his way to the diaconate, one step away from
the priesthood. Yet, he was instructed by a vocation director that
he was to tell people that he voluntarily delayed his ordination.
Sotak's accuser stated that the vocation director told him that he
was to either sign that he voluntarily delayed his ordination or
else "they" would dig-up some excuse to have his ordination
delayed. Thus is described typical whistle blower retaliation.
- The accuser had a window view to the parking garage, where he
would allegedly see Wuerl and a certain young man here and a
certain young man there leave alone with Wuerl and later come
back ... mostly after classes which were held at the nearby Cath-
olic University. That university is called Duquesne.
- A note of fact: Donald Wuerl became an auxiliary bishop in 1986
and was eventually sent to Seattle Washington, concerning the Hunt-
hausen controversy. He was next assigned to the Pittsburgh diocese
in 1988.
- It was under Wuerl when Sotak's accuser was allegedly sent to a Phila-
delphia clinic for a psychological assessment. The alleged diagnosis
was that the deacon was credible and suffering from Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder. Being diagnosed with PTSD augmented an accuser's
credibility.
- The Pittsburgh diocesan personnel refused to accept the final assessment
of the Philadelphia clinic. They were apparently in search of an official
sheet of paper which would state something differently about Sotak's ac-
cuser. So, they demanded that Sotak's accuser go for yet another psycho-
logical assessment in St. Louis or Maryland.
- Sotak's accuser assumed that Wuerl was controlling his personnel on pup-
pet strings and was the person who ultimately wanted an official sheet of
paper stating something other than what was stated by the Philly clinic.
This would mean that Wuerl was allegedly looking to play a game with
loaded dice and a stacked deck of cards.
- It was at that point in time when Fr. Sotak's accuser departed from dio-
cesan ministry. Things had gotten far too Orwellian for him. He stated
that he literally feared that he was going to be drugged into a catatonic
state. He remembers his time of exit being 1994. This was during the
musical chairs cover-up of a Fr Edward Huff. This was also the time
when the Cipolla case was underway at the highest court of the Vatican.
This was also shortly before James Torquato became Wuerl's personal
secretary. Incidentally, Sotak's accuser remembers Torquato at the sem-
inary. According to him, Torquato cow-towed to authority, as if to be
seeking promotion points. The actual expression used to describe Tor-
quato was "brown noser."
- The Sotak case, being that it was allegedly covered-up from the middle
1970's to the end of 2011, would easily qualify as Cardinal Wuerl's sixth
simultaneous cover-up during the same year; the year being 1988. Now,
this was an inherited cover-up, but it can be filed with the Wolk, Zula,
Pucci, Hoehl, and Wellinger cases. The cases involving those priests,
except for the Fr. Wellinger case, are outlined at:
http://www.donaldwuerl.com.
The Wellinger case is outlined at:
http://www.awuerlofhurt.com/2011/11/evidence-of-5th-cover-up.html
As a brief review, The Wolk, Zula, and Pucci cases were the Triple
Cover-up. The Hoehl case was the Hot Potato Cover-up, where he
was placed in chaplaincy ministry in July of 1988, but was dismissed
by Wuerl shortly after Frs. Wolk, Zula, and Pucci were indicted. The
Huff case is the Musical Chairs Cover-up involving the priest who was
reported three times to Wuerl, by more than one person. The Wellinger
case was the one originally ignored, allegedly.
The Torquato case was the Retaliation and Endangerment Cover-up,
where someone could have gotten seriously injured during the initial
phase of retaliations. You see, Torquato terminated all the business
accounts of his accuser's uncle, after someone enlisted that uncle to
play role of surrogate harasser. This means that family members of
James Torquato's accuser feared further retaliations upon the family.
Therefore, someone was determined to get Torquato's accuser to re-
tract his allegations. Torquato's accuser never retracted any allega-
tion. The U.S. Supreme Court documents pertaining to the Torquato
Retaliations, among other things were docketed in Case #01-10392
and were filed in DC in 2002.
The appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Year 2002 was another
motive for Wuerl and Post Gazette writer Ann Rodgers to toot Wuerl's
horn throughout the same year. The contrived bumper sticker slogan
that Rodgers fabricated, along with all the other horn-tooting tactics,
was a diversionary tactic. People who had no personnel encounters
with Wuerl and his Pittsburgh diocese fell for the con game. This in-
cluded a few writers who produced zero documentation or first hand
witnesses to support their claims of greatness in the tiny cover-up art-
ist. They merely mimicked Rodgers, as if to be mindless myna birds.
The Wuerl/Rodgers con game was like the Weapons of Indiscriminate
Destruction con game that George Bush II played in 2002 and 2003.
Ironically, the hoax about Wuerl being this model of zero tolerance,
despite District Attorney John Pettit's bitter complaint about Wuerl,
occurred at the same time. In Bush's con game, the majority of Amer-
icans assumed that Bush had evidence from high tech photo recons.
In Ann Rodger's con game about Wuerl, Americans assumed that
she had incontrovertible evidence, in terms of legal records. How-
ever, she allegedly knew about the Torquato retaliations years prior
and kept it secret. This means that she was part of the cover-up.
Additionally alleged by the accuser was that:
- The diocese's Fr. Charles Bober, STD, sent a letter to Sotak's accus-
er, notifying him that he would get no stipend from the diocese. The
accuser then had recourse to a Fr. Bob Guay, and according to him, he
has been getting his $700 monthly stipend, even into the Year 2012.
He stated that he didn't get a check for January 2013. S.uch checks
read, "For services rendered," incidentally
- The accuser also stated that the letter from the previously mentioned
former vocation director of the Diocese of Pittsburgh sounded almost
like a damning excommunication letter. There was no Peace of Christ
within it, to say the least . . . at least according to Sotak's accuser.
- During a meeting, diocesan personnel bragged to Sotak's accuser that
they had an excellent policy for handling clergy abuse victims. Yet, they
said that the policy did NOT apply to Sotak's accuser, because he was a
deacon. HOWEVER, the alleged assault took place when Fr. Sotak's
accuser was a layman - civilian - parishioner.
- Even in 2002, when Wuerl finally suspended several priests who had
long since been attached to credible sex abuse allegations, he permit-
ted Sotak to stay at his post.
- Years later, Sotak's accuser was interviewed by Randy Engel. The subject
matter was to be kept from the public, out of fear of retaliation against the
accuser. This is important to note, because it shows that the accusations
against Sotak is not something recently conjured. The accusation has been
longstanding. I knew of the fact that there was a Father Sotak accused of
having assaulted a certain person, by name, for years. Thus, these accusa-
tions are NOT new inventions.
- In fact, while Sotak's accuser was at another seminary, he was allegedly
told by one of the faculty priests that Sotak alleged had other complaints
against him. Then, suddenly, the complaints of other young men was no
longer in the record ... allegedly.
We continue with the recent time line which resulted
in the interview with Sotak's accuser, written in the
third person singular, as if to be a scorecard:
- Autumn 2011: The Sandusky Scandal makes headline news. This gives
confidence to alleged victims and/or accusers in Pennsylvania who previ-
ously elected to stay in the shadows, out of fear of retaliation.
- December 2011: A communication from a Chicago individual is initiated
with me, simply because I'm the host of the two Wuerlgate sites.
The Chicago gentleman originally intended to report the matter to the Arch-
bishop of Chicago, but concluded that he would probably be ignored. He
expressly stated, "but after reading your website I realized Wuerl has got-
ten away with too much for anyone to listen in the Catholic church hier-
archy." That is to say, the hierarchy fell on deaf ears when Cardinal Wuerl
was reported in the past. So, the Chicago gentleman figured thatanything he
would say would fall on deaf ears.
- December 2011 continued: The same Chicago liaison arranges for me to
make contact with Father Sotak's accuser. Sotak's accuser spoke in a matter
of fact, easy going, and fluid tone. He volunteered observations. At no time
did Sotak's accuser hesitate by interjecting an "Uhmmm." However, there was
one point he had an elongated moment of silent, followed by saying , "I don't
know. I was unconscious." The question that triggered the moment of silence
was, "Were you raped?"
- December 2011 continued further: I was granted permission to make the
account of Sotak's accuser known, provided that the name of the accuser is
kept in confidence. Of course, the Pittsburgh diocesan personnel know who
he is.
- Autumn 2012: A follow-up conversation, from the Atlantic coastline.
- January 2013: I contacted Sotak's accuser, asking him to confirm certain
allegations make about Wuerl by others. His accusations about Sotak did
not vary in the least.
In addition:
- The Chicago liaison stated the following about Fr. Sotak's accuser:
"I have always said and continue to believe that of the hundred
guys in seminary with me at the time, that {Sotak's accuser}
should of been a priest above all others."
- I concur. Sotak's accuser would be the quintessential confessional priest.
____________________________________________________________
Sotak's accuser furthermore alleged/averred the following:
It seemed to him that Donald Wuerl had a new teacher's pet every se-
mester, while he was the rector of the Pittsburgh diocesan seminary.
However, none of Wuerl's pets were ever ordained, according to the
even tempered gentleman. Sotak's accuser even saw one of Wuerl's
seminary pets leave in anger, never to return.
Now, Randy Engel did establish Wuerl's nexus with Pittsburgh's homo-
sexual world, and according to other sources, Wuerl really was called
Donna Wuerl while in the Pittsburgh area. It is alleged that Donna is
what seminarians called him ... alleged to me. Now, Wuerl carrying an
effeminate demeanor off camera, with stereotypical effeminate manner-
isms, was alleged by more than one person.
Now, there were other things about Wuerl alleged to me between 1999
and 2012. I have not made the allegations publicly known, as of yet.
While bishop of Pittsburgh, Wuerl would hold a soireé at his Warwick
Terrace manor house twice a year, where he would play host to the in-
fluential and wealthy. Seminarians and deacons would dress in blazers,
park the cars of the influential guests and serve them hors d'oeuvres.
This means that Wuerl had men dedicated to the service of God play
the role of secular valets and waiters. It was very worldly, to say the
least. None the less, Wuerl would meet the influential people at the
door, according to one of my two sources in this matter.
The bi-annual Warwick Terrace event was surmised/presumed as hav-
ing been Wuerl's way of getting the rich and powerful to protect him in
every aspect of life. I personally witnessed how protected Wuerl was
when Fr. Torquato's accuser and I attempted to file Summary Offense
charges against Wuerl and Torquato. Shortly after, we found ourselves
caught in the midst of the second wave of the Torquato Retaliations.
See: http://www.donaldwuerl.com/JamesTorquato.html
According to Sotak's accuser, Wuerl would give inordinate attention to
the rich and powerful, while treating the common citizen with dismissive
elitist contempt. That is to say, Donald Wuerl cow-towed to the powerful
in society. I personally witnessed this Haughty Elitist Contempt Syndrome.
While it was occurring, Wuerl resembled a certain theater major at a college
I attended who was found to have been engaged in an affair with a certain
lieutenant governor's son ... NOT ofthe State of Pennsylvania, though.
Only moments prior did Wuerl remind me of a 14 year old adolescent with
jet gray hair. In a matter of seconds, he went into the Mr. Hyde mode, in a
stone cold huffy elitist fashion, thereof. At the time, I was trying to get him
to approve an apostolate designed to counter sweatshop labor profiteering.
Others tried the same. Wuerl ignored us all.
David Zubik (present bishop of Pittsburgh) was involved in the Sotak
case, and Sotak's accuser alleged that Zubik expressly told him that he
regarded both "the assailed victim and the {predatory} priest as victims."
Father Sotak's accuser mentioned that a John Sweeney told him that he
"better not tell anyone" about his accusations against Sotak or the dio-
cese in general. Now, a Master of Divinity recipient named Fr. John
Sweeney is stationed at the same parish where James Torquato was
stationed when he was reported to Wuerl in 1998. The same Sweeney
was also stationed at Aliquippa Pennsylvania, hometown of NFL greats
Mike Ditka and Tony Dorsett. Sotak's accuser simply stated the name
John Sweeney, and it was assumed by me that he was referring to the
Aliquippa Sweeney. I failed to ask him to confirm if this was the same
Sweeney.
The Sandusky revelations seems to have given a number of abuse vic-
tims a sense of freedom in the State of Pennsylvania. The sense of in-
timidation imposed upon Pennsylvania victims/accusers departed like
wheat chaff in a wind storm, as soon as the Penn State Scandal came
to the fore.
Keep in mind that the allegations about Sotak do NOT involve seduc-
tion. Nor do they involve a closet affair. They involve a physical at-
tack upon someone who decided to resist physically, resulting in the
attacked person going unconscious for a while.
Fr. Sotak's accuser stated that Wuerl megaphoned the Anthony Cipolla
case throughout the Western World, to conceal the various Pittsburgh
diocesan cover-ups. He assessed that the publicity given to the Cipolla
case was Wuerl's diversionary tactic. Sotak's accuser did NOT mention
if whether he thought that Cipolla were guilty or innocent. He only con-
cluded that the Cipolla Case was Wuerl's publicity stunt & simultaneous
diversionary tactic.
Thus is the testimony of Father Donald Sotak's accuser.
________________________________________________________
