Carr Letter to Archabbot Nowicki

I want my day in court with you. By the way absolutely make sure you have the CONSENT (Douglas, I know this will be difficult because you normally act unilaterally) of the small chapter before you proceed to litigate with me, if you are going to litigation on behalf of the “Benedictine Society”. Did you seek the approval of the small chapter before calling in Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney about the e-mails? What was their professional fee with respect to reviewing the e-mail correspondence, and for sending the e-mail? No need to tell me, but please do inform the community. – James Carr

Letter to Archabbot Nowicki from James Carr

Dear Archabbot Nowicki,

Upon receipt of the e-mail from your retained attorneys Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney in Pittsburgh, now is the opportune moment to address you directly.

Flattered that you went to the trouble of instructing attorneys, as a result of the communication that members of the monastic community at St Vincent Archabbey in Latrobe, and other members of the American Cassinese Congregation have been receiving. This is an extremely expensive, profligate form of sabre rattling, and a contumacious refusal by you to engage with the substantive issues. In due course the record will show, you have a consistently acted litigiously, with the deeply un-edifying spectacle associated with Annette Brownfield estate, one example among many.

The E-Mail Correspondence

Said e-mail correspondence highlighted your consistent failure since the 04 April 1996 (the day Fr. Becket G. Senchur[1] purchased his house) to exercise your abbatial authority in accordance to the law contained within the Constitutions of the American Cassinese Congregation, promulgated by a Decree [Prot. n. B 111 – 1/86] of the Congregation for Religious and for Secular Institutes on October 2, 1988 in Rome, which in a court of law will be asseverated by me.

Undoubtedly, you will be familiar with the contents of previous e-mail correspondence. Very happy leave the choice of venue to your attorneys. Westmoreland County Court or the High Court in London will suit me. In fact, the opportunity to give evidence, and be cross-examined by a Queen’s Counsel before Mr. Justice Tugendhat, one of the High Court judges in London normally assigned to preside over defamation cases, will be relished.

But thinking about it, all of your significant failures have occurred within Westmoreland County, so the case should be heard there. What do you think? Douglas, don’t think about that option, follow the sagacious counsel given to you by your expensive law firm. That’s why you are paying them thousands of dollars. Either venue will be convenient for me.

Witnesses to Be Called.

Nothing will give me greater pleasure than to call the following as witnesses, here is a sample (dragging them all the way to London would not be fair):

§ John Doe, the person discussed by the election chapter scrutinium that re-elected you as Archabbot, and who has made serious allegations of sexual harassment against you, with said allegations being presented to the Dicastery for Religious, and the Cardinal Secretary of State, His Eminence, Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone;

§ the attorney who represented the John Doe complainant discussed by the scrutinium;

§ Fr. Becket G. Senchur, (he will welcome the opportunity to respond to the contents of the affidavit made by a former alumnus of St Vincent College);

§ Br. William D. Benthall,[2] lots of interesting questions to ask him;

§ Those charged with the ecclesiastical governance of the respective Dioceses where Br. William D. Benthall was a gyrovague with your permission, from the places where he is recorded as being resident: H.E. Cardinal Egan, H.E. Cardinal Dolan, H.E. Wuerl, Most Rev. David A. Zubik, (have you studied the letter sent by the auxiliary Bishop of Pittsburgh?);

§ Paul Homick, (remember him Douglas);

§ H. James Towey, former President of St Vincent College, (got lots of interesting questions to ask him about his eight hour deposition during his time as President, his voluminous this e-mail correspondence, and why was he was made a party to a divorce case in Florida?);

§ Bishop Colman from the Diocese of Fall, got some questions to ask him about Fr. Senchur;

§ the Academic Dean at the time of the New Directions initiative at St Vincent College,

§ the TWO writers of the anonymous letter sent to the St Vincent College Board of Directors, whose identities are known to me: Fr. Robert Doe & Mr. Michael Doe (one is a priest);

§ All previous members of the Board of Directors of St Vincent College, when New Directions was functioning as a program under the auspices of St Vincent College, that will include you;

§ Various other people who will regale the presiding judge with detailed accounts of your other misfeasance;

§ the incumbent Abbot President of the American Cassinese Benedictine Congregation. A detailed cross-examination of Abbot Hugh Anderson under oath, would have to feature questions about Fr. Luke Travers; and was the failure to exercise appropriate oversight over this recidivist, yet another demonstrable example of HIS failure of leadership; and I would just HAVE to ask him all about those allegations levied against YOU.

Venue for Litigation

Douglas, thinking about it, please DO have the case in Westmoreland County. It will be convenient for everybody to attend the court. Fr. Senchur can fly down from his a half a million dollar home located in Cape Cod, Massachusetts; Br. Benthall can drive across from Pittsburgh, (Benthall, can bring his penitential hair shirts, the judge might like one, he can then go to evening prayer at the Archabbey Church, the community would love to see him it’s been MANY years, since he has seen them). All these witnesses will be required to give videotaped depositions under oath. Please be assured, I am extremely happy to give evidence under oath. Videotaped depositions do not really feature in civil cases here in the jurisdiction of England and Wales; so you may prefer to have the case in London.

Location aside, let’s make this case as open and transparent as possible. Let’s get on with spending a few million dollars belonging the Archabbey; as youhave a long history of engaging in pugilistic, and most unnecessary litigation. Our case will ultimately expose you, as a corrupt, duplicitous, harassing individual, who has exercised a Hitlerian regime at St Vincent Archabbey for far too long. Law firms must absolutely love getting instruction from you. An instruction from Archabbot Nowicki is a licence to print money. Now, let us address your most high-profile litigation to date, the one involving Fr. Mark Gruber, I am sure you can’t fail to recall it.

Cost of the Fr. Mark Gruber Litigation

Archabbot Nowicki, could you explain exactly where the funds to pay the legal bill estimated to be several million of dollars presented by Reed Smith LLP and Ballard Spahr LLP, were obtained to mendaciously manufacture the canonical case against Fr. Mark Gruber, when two police reports from the Pennsylvania State Police were completely exculpatory.

With four attorneys plus legal support staff: was W. Thomas McGough, Jr. billing around $900 per hour for his time, perhaps even more, given his reputation; what was the hourly billable rate for the other three attorneys; what was the final legal bill? Did you have to pay a separate invoice for the forensic examination of THE computer?

So the assertion that the total legal bill in the Gruber case was several million dollars based on the fee schedule levied by Reed Smith LLP; is in fact, a deeply inconvenient but very harsh truth, you cannot ignore.

This conservative [Gruber litigation] figure has been confirmed by a legal consultant, hugely experienced in these matters. The figure does not appear in the audited accounts of St Vincent College; nor was the consent of the monastic chapter sought, nor approval given by the chapter for this expenditure; so where did the money come from?

Unless the invoices are produced with an explanation of the accounting principles utilised to justify this level of expenditure, should we presume irregular accounting, until the contrary is proven. Should we write and ask the Archabbey/College auditors? Presumably, the current chairman of the Board of Directors of St Vincent College, will be happy to provide the detailed minutes taken, showing the deliberation of the board with respect to this litigation, which was potentially ruinous to the reputation of the College.

His Eminence, William Cardinal Levada, Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will take an extremely close interest in the legal costs associated with the preparation of the votum submitted to that Dicastery with respect to the Gruber charade, as will the Feria IV of said Dicastery, should matter come to that. Obviously, if the cost was completely disproportionate, with the only way to establish this, is for you to produce the invoices. These invoices then will become a significant matter of interest for the Dicastery for Religious. Excessive expenditure would also be indicative of procedural unfairness, and would be contrary to natural justice.

Incidentally, one could not help but notice reviewing the accounts of St Vincent College, no reference is made to the cost of the Gruber litigation, which begets the question, who picked Gruber’s legal bill? More than likely friends and family. Article 29 § 2 of Norms found in the Motu Proprio Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela is unambiguous that the Ordinary (legalese for Archabbot) is responsible for the fee’s associated in the preparation of the defence associated with Fr. Mark Gruber. How much money was spent on Gruber’s defence, so shall I write to his attorney Sharon Smith to ascertain her final invoice?

All this cost associated with litigation will be of significant concern to benefactors of St Vincent Archabbey, that their donations, given in good faith, are being used in the most profligate manner imaginable, to aggressively pursue, by abusing the due process of Canon Law, an atavistic campaign of mendacious allegations against Fr. Gruber. Your motive in the Gruber case was to cover up your serious and persistent misconduct.

But let us both submit our respective evidence either to a civil court either in Westmoreland County or the High Court in London, and/or an ecclesiastical court or even perhaps both. Once you commence your litigation either in Westmoreland County or at the High Court in London, we will both be subject to DISCOVERY.

Please be advised, I have no problem in submitting to the jurisdiction of the court, letters, setting out the extremely dark deeds associated with your misconduct with demonstrable evidence, submitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine Of The Faith; the Congregation for Religious; the Congregation for Catholic Education (competent because of the seminary at St Vincent); and the Cardinal Secretary of State, all which were produced, and with my signature authenticated by priest. What will be of particular interest to the presiding judge will be the contents of the letter sent to the Apostolic Nuncio in London, a copy of which was sent to the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington for the attention of His Excellency, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.

Once the civil case has been settled, which I am supremely confident of winning, all the evidence that has been obtained under oath, depositions, and from those called as witnesses can be utilised in the ecclesiastical court.

Monsignor Charles J. Scicluna the Promoter of Justice at the CDF has spoken extremely positively about the utilisation of civil evidence within a judicial penal processes. At a symposium in Rome participants learned that the CDF are prepared to place into abeyance deliberations in penal cases, until the outcome of civil proceedings are resolved. Would you like the reference for that talk, but I am sure you can get it from your retained canonical adviser Bishop Mark L. Bartchak.

In fact, Bishop Bartchak knows exactly who I am. During his ad limina visit to Rome, last year, when he was leaving a meeting at certain Dicastery, coming down the stairs, wearing a black cassock, I called out his name and startled him. Said Bishop, will tell you I am a charming fellow. Now Douglas this begets a more significant question, why would I be seated outside the Dicastery for Religious? Bet you would love to know. Please don’t take my word for it ring Bishop Bartchak immediately to confirm this. (Thinking about it, we should also make him a witness in OUR planned/forthcoming litigation).

Dennis O’ Brien.

The aforesaid does not consider the legal costs associated with the Dennis O’ Brien litigation, which is still ongoing; and now subject to appeal. The O’Brien litigation was easily avoided, but resulted from your contumacious refusal to allow Mr. O’ Brien to address the Archabbey Review Board. Mr. O’ Brien has acknowledged that he would not have been forced to seek redress through the courts, if he had been granted access to the Archabbey Review Board; with Mr. O’Brien positively affirming that the first ‘positive’ interaction from the ‘Church’ was a response from the Dicastery for Religious, which he was extremely grateful for at that time.

Moreover, Mr. O’ Brien estimates that Reed Smith LLP spent an estimated 450 hours, as an absolute minimum preparing a response to his lawsuit. This case involved hearing in both California and Pennsylvania. Given the seniority of the Partner representing The Benedictine Society, we can assume the billing was in the region of $900 per hour, resulting in the legal fees charged for the Partner being somewhere in the region of $405,000, and that does NOT include associated expenses, which could bring the legal bill for the O’Brien case to half a million dollars.

What You Need to Do.

When you given a detailed explanation to the monastic community at St Vincent Archabbey about the matters raised concerning Becket Senchur, and your old favourite Br. William D. Benthall, then feel free to commence litigation. Please make sure you have the invoices for both Gruber and O’Brien to hand when you are explaining to the community.

I want my day in court with you. By the way absolutely make sure you have the CONSENT (Douglas, I know this will be difficult because you normally act unilaterally) of the small chapter before you proceed to litigate with me, if you are going to litigation on behalf of the “Benedictine Society”. Did you seek the approval of the small chapter before calling in Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney about the e-mails? What was their professional fee with respect to reviewing the e-mail correspondence, and for sending the e-mail? No need to tell me, but please do inform the community.

If you were going to litigation on behalf of St Vincent College, make sure you have the permission of the Board of Directors to proceed with the litigation. Inform them by setting out a detailed cost schedule for the Board to consider, and more importantly the likelihood of success. Do make sure as Chancellor of the College, this meeting of the Board of Directors is properly recorded with details written minutes, and signed off by the current President of the Board of Directors with a copy of said minutes given to the small chapter of the Archabbey; after all it is part of their fiduciary duties.

If you have the consent of your chapter and the Board of Directors: SEE YOU IN COURT. Or maybe when Mr. John Peck, Esq. District Attorney of Westmoreland County reveals to me the identity of Randall Flag in writing, I can launch a counter lawsuit seeking punitive damages of several million. Ask John (Bonaventure) Curtis all about the legalities associated with that.


James Carr

P.S. Douglas, ask your attorneys to advise on the following: is unlawful interception of e-mail correspondence a FEDERAL OFFENCE, and have you called Pennsylvania State Police about New Directions?

[1] American Cassinese Ordo 2011, entry 51, p. 239.
[2] American Cassinese Ordo 2012, entry 118, page 248.