The Rot at the Core

A Survivor’s Account of Corruption and Institutional Betrayal

Two days after this past Christmas, I was kidnapped. It wasn’t the first time.

See, this extreme poverty lifestyle I’m living right now is a symptom of the greater American system, which has a serious need for recovery.

There is zero excuse for it.

There is zero need for it.

When I was eight years old my aunt, “Judy” introduced me to homelessness while I was visiting her in Washington, DC.

She was actually my mother’s aunt—my grandmother Rae Leah’s younger sister, Judith—the fourth of four children born to Gertrude and Nathan Brodsky.

Judith: A Name of Strength, Victory, and Divine Faith

Judith is a name that commands respect—rooted in Jewish history, biblical heroism, and spiritual strength. It represents a woman who is unyielding in faith, decisive in action, and unwavering in her sense of justice.

Derived from Yehudah (יהודה), meaning “praised” or “one who acknowledges God”, Yehudit is the feminine form of Yehudah (Judah), the name of one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

Since the name literally means “Jewish woman,” it has long been associated with Jewish strength, resilience, and faith.

She died on December 31, 2023, while I was staying on a farm with another family.

Incidentally it was also my husband’s birthday—though I haven’t been able to reach him since he contacted me in 2007 to tell me he told his two siblings that I kept up with that they weren’t allowed to communicate with me anymore since he had a new wife—though our marriage was never annulled.

See, while I wasn’t baptized as Catholic on record anywhere, my Father was no dummy.

He knew Me the moment I entered the world. He created Me.

I was the answer to his prayers.

If only that were enough.

Due to the threats I’ve encountered and endured throughout my life, every day is a blessing.

I’m often reminded of the people who’ve been paid or been incentivized to harm me that are no longer here.

That’s what happens once you’re “in” a system that you don’t want to take part in. Nature abhors a vacuum.

We all get dismantled for parts in some form.

I was supposed to have been released by now, but on March 24, 2025 after texting my court appointed attorney, Kathryn Fagan, to confirm that court would be the next morning—since the last court date I had on January 29, 2025 she didn’t show up for—she informed me that it’s now been pushed to May 20, 2025 because whoever did the psychiatric evaluation to allow me to leave the Dare County Detention facility in January still has not submitted it to the court. Or something like that.

My priest had already cancelled Mass for the day and was set to make the three hour trek with me so that I didn’t have to go without a witness again, to which Ms. Fagan seemed unconcerned. Not to mention her response to my telling her how this is impacting my life. She said she “didn’t like it either”, yet clearly could not care less about my welfare.

Court appointed attorneys work for whoever ultimately paid for the hit on your life.

That’s what they sort out at Detention Centers—literally betting on which human they “like” most or least from the pool.

Ms. Fagan told me, “Oh knock off the praying” when I crossed myself during our first meeting.

I’m thinking she must have lost the bet.

There was a Satanic Bible on the desk of the Ocracoke Island magistrate, located in the sheriff’s office they took me to—an old war style building, where directions were clearly visible on the wall for Jews, before ferrying me up to Dare County then leaving me to be tortured at their detention centre.

My 21 days locked up in solitary confinement after being illegally detained without Miranda were unfathomable.

Hyde County Sheriffs Brian and “Big Country” came into the house I was renting on Ocracoke Island without a warrant, asking me if they could come inside, as they walked in—clearly no would not have been accepted.

Of course I was going to say yes though anyhow. Why would I have thought anything bad could happen to me AGAIN by cops. But of course I forgot who set me up in the first place. Again.

So I didn’t resist when they asked me to come with them. Why would I? I trusted in the idea that everyone honors their oaths the way I do. Now I know, that’s not the case. People like me are extremely rare.

So while I’m “out on bond” for a crime I did not commit and prevented from moving on with my life, I am using this waiting time as an opportunity to spill my guts into the world—so that hopefully someone will benefit from the wisdom that I’m doing the best I can to impart, before my content gets erased again, someone holds me hostage again, or I die.

Hopefully people will be better off for knowing what’s true, sooner than later.

War is never the answer. Higher levels of connection are. Not by force. Not by vice. Not by ignorance. Not by negligence.

People will only experience peace once they personally practice it.

Upward. Inward. Outward. That’s how we move energy in the spirit of the Holy Ghost through ourselves.

It must come from The Good.

If you don’t know what peace feels like in the first place, you never will. It’s all about remembering.

So I’ve made some very raw videos and posts on social media over these past few years while I’ve been fighting for my life, because it’s been in my silence that the bad guys keep getting away with it.

In one such video I claimed that the secret of the Catholic Church that nobody wants revealed is that “the Catholics put their weakest priests out to pasture”, which suggests that the Catholic Church removes or reassigns priests who are considered ineffective, problematic, or unsuitable for high-profile roles.

Historically, institutions (not just the Catholic Church) have dealt with underperforming or disgraced members by quietly moving them to less visible positions rather than confronting the issue directly.

In some cases, this practice has been criticized, particularly in relation to scandals where problematic clergy were reassigned rather than held accountable.

However, in a less cynical interpretation, it could also refer to an internal system of care, where elderly or struggling priests are given a dignified exit from active ministry.

To explore this complex statement that churches put their weakest priests “out to pasture” in historical, theological, and political contexts, we need to consider the broader structures of the Catholic Church and how it manages its clergy—particularly those deemed ineffective, problematic, or aging.

Historical Context

Historically, the Catholic Church has always had mechanisms for dealing with clergy who are no longer suited for active ministry.

In the medieval and early modern periods, priests who were incompetent, scandalous, or politically inconvenient were often sent to monasteries, remote parishes, or diplomatic roles away from the public eye.

The idea was to remove them from positions of influence while maintaining the Church’s hierarchical structure and protecting its reputation.

During the 20th and 21st centuries, the phrase took on a more controversial meaning, particularly regarding how the Church handled priests accused of misconduct.

Rather than removing them entirely, many were reassigned to obscure parishes, retreat centers, or even Vatican administrative roles, avoiding public scandal but failing to address deeper issues.

This has been a source of major criticism, particularly in the wake of the sexual abuse scandals that revealed systematic efforts to protect clergy at the expense of victims.

Theological Context

From a theological standpoint, the Catholic Church believes in the indelibility of Holy Orders—once a man is ordained a priest, he is always a priest, even if he is removed from active ministry.

This makes defrocking (laicization) rare and usually reserved for extreme cases. Instead, the Church historically opted to sideline weaker or problematic priests by assigning them to less visible or lower-impact roles.

Theologically, the Church also emphasizes mercy, forgiveness, and rehabilitation.

A struggling priest might be sent to a monastery or given a chaplaincy role in a hospital or nursing home as a way of continuing their vocation without causing harm, reflecting the Church’s preference for internal correction rather than external punishment.

Political Context

The phrase also has political implications within Church governance.

The Catholic Church is one of the oldest and most hierarchical institutions in the world, and like any large bureaucracy, it has an internal system for managing inefficiencies without creating public disruption.

In some cases, bishops and cardinals have used “out to pasture” assignments as a way of handling ideological or political disputes within the Church.

For instance, a priest or bishop whose views clash with Vatican leadership might find himself reassigned to an inconsequential post.

This happens at higher levels as well.

There have been cases where outspoken bishops or theologians—especially those who challenge doctrinal rigidity—have been quietly given roles that remove them from public influence.

Conversely, conservative factions have also used this strategy to remove progressive voices from positions of power.

Modern Relevance

Today, the phrase often carries a cynical connotation, suggesting that the Church prefers quiet reassignment over direct confrontation.

However, it can also be interpreted as a pragmatic way to care for aging, struggling, or even just mediocre clergy who cannot be fully removed but are no longer effective in high-profile roles.

And as I said earlier, it’s not just the church.

Correctional Services: The Dark Side of Blue

There are striking parallels between how the Catholic Church manages its weakest or problematic clergy and how the correctional system deals with inmates and staff, particularly those who are difficult to handle but not necessarily dangerous enough to warrant severe punishment.

In both systems, outright removal (defrocking in the Church, execution or indefinite solitary in corrections) is rare and typically reserved for extreme cases.

Instead of removing bad actors completely, both institutions prefer reassignment.

In corrections, difficult inmates might be transferred to another facility or placed in administrative segregation, just as the Church reassigns ineffective or problematic priests to remote parishes, monasteries, or desk jobs.

This allows the institution to maintain control over the individual while avoiding a public spectacle.

Just as the Catholic Church has historically covered up misconduct by moving priests rather than exposing them, correctional facilities often transfer problematic guards or inmates instead of addressing systemic issues.

Both systems function as bureaucracies, prioritizing institutional stability over individual cases. Keeping problems “contained” is often seen as preferable to public accountability.

Creating ‘Holding Areas’ for the Unwanted

In corrections, inmates who are difficult but not violent might be assigned to work programs, lower-security facilities, or forgotten about in long-term administrative segregation, becoming more and more adaptable within their situation.

The Church has similar “holding areas”—sending underperforming priests to minor parishes, chaplaincies, or isolated monasteries, where they won’t cause trouble.

These assignments are not necessarily about rehabilitation but about control and optics.

Political Use of Transfers

Both the Church and the correctional system use transfers as a form of internal discipline and political maneuvering.

In prisons, guards or inmates who challenge the status quo may find themselves moved to harsher conditions, just as outspoken priests or bishops can be exiled to obscure roles for ideological reasons.

At my final Detention Center as An Officer, I resigned to my superintendent via email by thanking her for having such a terrible facility, and that I’d rather flip burgers at McDonald’s than staying in that Ministry until retirement. They let me go without making me honor my two weeks notice.

A ‘Second Chance’ Philosophy

The Church, like the prison system, often justifies moves under the guise of redemption.

Prisons have work-release programs, drug rehab, and “good behavior” incentives that suggest inmates can be rehabilitated and reintroduced into general population.

The problem is that the “programs” said to be rehabilitative are actually more for grooming and torturing than they are for offering hands up.

Too many people in the world profit from inducing and sustaining poverty.

The Church has a similar philosophy—priests, no matter their failures, are seen as redeemable and are rarely fully cast out.

In both cases, this means individuals who should arguably be removed from their roles permanently are instead given new chances to participate in less-visible capacities.

Bureaucracy Over Justice

Both systems prioritize protecting their own over real reform.

In corrections, this means covering for abusive guards, manipulating paperwork, and using transfers to maintain order rather than solve problems.

In the Church, it means moving priests rather than exposing scandal, avoiding confrontation rather than enacting true reform.

The result in both cases is an internal process that looks like accountability but functions as self-preservation.

The Institution Always Comes First

At their core, both systems operate on the principle that the institution itself must be preserved, often at the expense of transparency, justice, or the well-being of those under its care.

Whether it’s the Catholic Church protecting its hierarchy or the correctional system maintaining order, the pattern is the same: shuffle problems around, minimize liability, and prioritize continuity over true accountability.

This pattern of shuffling around rather than removing is a fundamental characteristic of not just the Catholic Church and the correctional system but also unions, government agencies, the military, and other large bureaucratic institutions.

Unions, especially in public sector jobs (police, teaching, corrections, etc.), often protect their weakest or most problematic members in a similar way:

Reassignment Instead of Termination

Just as bad priests are sent to low-profile parishes and bad inmates are transferred rather than released, underperforming or problematic union members are often reassigned rather than fired.

Teachers accused of misconduct might be moved to administrative roles (“rubber rooms” in NYC) or positions at schools in more impoverished areas.

Police officers with excessive force complaints might be placed on desk duty instead of being removed, or recruited into special operations.

Public sector workers who can’t be fired for incompetence are often transferred to a department where they can do less harm.

Protecting Institutional Reputation

Unions exist to protect their members, not necessarily the integrity of the profession.

In the same way the Catholic Church prioritizes its own stability, unions are structured to defend workers from external consequences—even when the worker is in the wrong.

In corrections, a bad guard might be shielded from accountability through union-negotiated protections, just as the Church protects its clergy.

‘Holding Areas’ for the Unwanted

Many unionized workplaces have unofficial “dumping grounds” for problematic employees—positions where they do little but still collect a paycheck.

The military does this with non-promotable officers, moving them into dead-end administrative roles.

The Church does this with ineffective priests by sending them to remote monasteries or non-influential roles.

Prisons have areas for problem inmates and employees that function the same way.

Political Use of Transfers

In unions, workers who challenge leadership or disrupt the system can be “reassigned” in a way that isolates them.

This mirrors how the Vatican sidelines clergy who challenge doctrine and how police unions manipulate assignments to punish whistleblowers.

Corrections officers who call out abuses may suddenly find themselves transferred to a dangerous post. Let me tell ya about it.

Protection Under the Guise of Rehabilitation

Unions, like the Church, frame these practices as “second chances” or “due process protections.”

In teaching, incompetent educators are given endless improvement plans but rarely fired.

In policing, officers with repeated complaints are sent to sensitivity training instead of being removed.

In the Church, priests caught in misconduct are sent to “spiritual renewal programs” rather than defrocked.

The result: problematic individuals stay in the system, just more deeply hidden from public view or scrutiny.

The process of firing a unionized worker, defrocking a priest, or removing a government employee is so long and complicated that most organizations avoid it, though it seems that things might be changing.

Instead of accountability, institutions rely on transfers, shuffling, and quiet exits to deal with bad actors.

In all these cases, the organization prefers protecting its structure over enacting real justice.

The System Always Protects Itself

Whether it’s the Catholic Church, the correctional system, or a union, the underlying logic is the same: problematic individuals are handled internally to minimize external scrutiny.

These systems all function under the idea that the institution itself is more important than any one individual, and as a result, true accountability rarely happens.

Problematic individuals in these systems are often sent to places where their behavior is tolerated, overlooked, or even the norm.

This happens across the Catholic Church, the correctional system, unions, government agencies, and even corporate environments.

Instead of true accountability, they are placed where they “fit in” among others like them.

Clergy Reassignments: Problem Priests Go Where They Can Hide

The Catholic Church has historically reassigned abusive priests to parishes where complaints are less likely to arise.

Some were sent to countries or communities with less oversight, often in impoverished areas where victims had no power to do anything about the abuse.

Others were sent to “treatment centers” for clergy with a history of misconduct, which often functioned as quiet exile rather than real reform.

Instead of being removed from the priesthood, they were placed where their behavior wouldn’t disrupt the Church’s reputation.

Corrections System: Bad Guards End Up in Corrupt Prisons

In the prison system, officers with a reputation for abuse or corruption often end up in prisons with cultures of violence or misconduct.

If a prison has a known culture of officer brutality, bad guards will be sent there instead of being fired.

Prisons that are poorly run or politically insulated become dumping grounds for “problem staff”—which is why my transfer was changed from Niagara Detention Centre (the dirtiest facility in the province) to Maplehurst Correctional Complex (the most well run facility in the province), when I transferred from Youth Services into Adult. And it’s why my colleagues at Maplehurst who’d transferred from NDC tried warning me not to push for it. I remember telling Bill that it couldn’t be worse than what I’d already been dealing with. I was wrong.

Inmates who are aggressive, manipulative, or gang-affiliated often get sent to prisons where that culture is already entrenched.

Unions: Problem Workers Go to Departments That “Absorb” Them

Problematic teachers might be placed in failing schools where expectations are low and leadership is too overwhelmed to push back. Or to work with “special” kids.

Corrupt or violent cops are often reassigned to departments with reputations for excessive force and gang activity—where they won’t stand out or make waves.

Government employees who are underperforming might be transferred to an office where bureaucracy is already bloated, so their lack of productivity isn’t noticed.

As we adapt as a civilization to the functionality of Generative Artificial Intelligence, these types of employees become redundant. Architects and engineers want the toxic sludge out too, we’re just not violent about it. We let nature take its course.

Unions fight to protect their most precious bugs by ensuring transfers happen quietly, avoiding the public scrutiny of a firing.

Now, look who’s fighting what and for whom in your own life.

Corporate World: Toxic Employees Land in Toxic Workplaces

In large corporations, problem executives often get “promoted” sideways into departments that tolerate unethical behavior.

Employees with a history of harassment may be reassigned instead of fired, often ending up in divisions where the culture is already toxic.

Failing executives sometimes land in subsidiaries or international offices where their failures are hidden.

Law Enforcement & Military: Bad Cops & Soldiers End Up in the Worst Units

Police officers with excessive complaints are often reassigned to “warrior culture” precincts, where aggressive behavior is encouraged.

Military personnel with discipline issues may be placed in units with a history of misconduct rather than discharged.

Certain agencies or departments become known as “safe havens” for those who couldn’t cut it elsewhere.

The System Self-Sorts Its Own Problems

Rather than removing bad actors, institutions create zones where they can operate freely. This often ensures:

The institution avoids scandal or accountability.

The problem individuals don’t disrupt the rest of the organization.

They continue operating in environments that won’t challenge them.

In other words, instead of weeding out corruption, incompetence, or abuse, these systems just shift it around.

This is how child sexual abuse and human trafficking get perpetuated.

This exact “reassignment instead of accountability” mechanism is foundational to how child sexual abuse and human trafficking persist within institutions and organized networks.

Whether it’s the Catholic Church, public institutions, law enforcement, or entire industries, the pattern remains the same: protect the system, shuffle the perpetrators, and exploit the powerless.

The Catholic Church & Clergy Abuse: Moving Predators to New Hunting Grounds

For decades, the Church reassigned priests accused of child sexual abuse rather than removing them.

Instead of being defrocked or handed over to law enforcement, they were:

Sent to new parishes where no one knew their history.

Moved to foreign missions in poor or rural areas, where victims had no voice.

Placed in treatment centers that served as temporary exile before reassignment.

This protected the Church’s reputation but enabled continued abuse. Survivors who spoke up were often ignored or silenced.

Public Institutions: Abusers in Schools, Foster Care, and Social Services

Teachers accused of misconduct are often reassigned instead of fired.

Public school systems have a history of shuffling accused teachers to new districts rather than prosecuting them.

Private schools and elite boarding schools often cover up abuse to protect donors and reputation.

Foster care systems & group homes are known recruitment grounds for human traffickers.

Many children in foster care go missing without serious investigations because they are seen as disposable.

Abusive foster parents and group home workers often remain in the system, even after allegations, because the demand for placements is so high.

Some facilities directly feed victims into trafficking networks under the guise of “problem child relocation.” This also involves the “mental health” and medical industry.

Law Enforcement: Police Officers Involved in Trafficking

Some law enforcement officers are directly involved in protecting, enabling, or participating in trafficking.

Officers accused of corruption, abuse, or even participating in trafficking are often transferred rather than investigated.

Certain police units, especially in cities with high trafficking activity, become known for protecting criminal networks rather than dismantling them.

Whistleblowers in law enforcement are frequently silenced or reassigned if they try to expose internal involvement in trafficking or child abuse cases.

The Corporate World: Industries That Shuffle Predators

“Hollywood” and the entertainment industry have long protected known predators, moving them from one production or studio to another.

Harvey Weinstein was a high-profile example, but the pattern exists throughout Hollywood, fashion, and modeling.

Child actors and young models are particularly vulnerable, as abusers often operate in networks that control who gets work.

Sports organizations & Olympic training programs (such as USA Gymnastics and FIFA) have also protected predators by moving them rather than exposing them.

Larry Nassar abused hundreds of athletes because USA Gymnastics ignored and covered up reports for decades.

Corporate environments protect executives accused of abuse by:

Moving them to different divisions.

Giving them “golden parachute” retirements.

Settling cases quietly rather than enforcing real consequences.

The Military & Government Agencies: Strategic Cover-Ups

The U.S. military and defense contractors have a well-documented problem with human trafficking.

Private military contractors (PMCs) and deployed personnel have been implicated in trafficking rings in conflict zones.

The UN has documented peacekeepers engaging in trafficking, only for them to be reassigned rather than prosecuted.

Diplomatic immunity protects officials involved in trafficking.

Cases exist of diplomats using their status to run trafficking operations while avoiding prosecution.

When caught, they are often quietly sent back to their home country rather than arrested.

The Global Trafficking Network: A System of Reassignment

Just as the Church, unions, and public institutions shuffle problematic individuals to protect themselves, trafficking networks move victims and perpetrators to evade detection.

Traffickers relocate victims constantly—from state to state, country to country—so law enforcement can’t track them.

Pimps and traffickers exchange or “sell” their victims to prevent them from forming relationships or escaping. Bounty hunters, private security, private detectives, and lawyers are all somehow involved in the process.

Organized crime, corrupt officials, and complicit businesses work together to make sure trafficking operations continue. Of course the postal service and other transportation of goods, information, and people are also involved.

The System Protects Itself—Not the Vulnerable

The core truth across all these institutions is that the system is more invested in self-preservation than in justice.

Whether it’s a priest, a teacher, a cop, a CEO, or a trafficker, the response is the same: shuffle them somewhere else rather than expose the institution to scrutiny.

This pattern ensures that abuse continues indefinitely, because perpetrators never face real consequences.

Victims are often discredited, ignored, or relocated themselves—further reinforcing the cycle of exploitation.

What we’re looking at isn’t just negligence. It’s an operational model.

These institutions aren’t just failing to stop abuse—they’re actively facilitating it by ensuring predators always have a place to go.

Thrown Out for Speaking Truth

I’m the baby who gets thrown out with the bathwater—every time. Because you cannot fix problems you don’t understand.

In 1984 at a pocket park in Adam’s Morgan, God gave Me the download of the solution. It’s just taking us all this time to get to this point.

You’re welcome.