The Main Accusation Against LifeSite's John Henry Westen Was Fraud and Nepotism

On 16 July, Christine Harrington, an enemy of John Henry Westen, published what seemed to be an authentic recording of the 2 July LifeSiteNews.com board meeting at which he was kicked out. During the meeting, Patrick Fabian, Director of Administration and Controller for nearly four years, read out a prepared statement about alleged "fraudulent behaviour" of Westen.

- Fabian accused Westen of charity fraud, soliciting funds from donors under false pretences, unlawful employment, conflicts of interest, and nepotism, among other things.

- Fabian: "I once attributed these actions to ignorance, naivety or a certain disconnect. However, over time, I have observed a pattern and come to believe that they are quite calculated and wilful."

- According to Fabian, Westen placed a studio purchased by LifeSite under the title of an Ontario corporation, with himself listed as the sole member.

- The building purchased was completely unfit for use as a studio. Instead of the usual legal councillor in Canada, Westen took legal services from the son of the realtor who brokered the property. He then appointed the realtor's son as construction manager to oversee the renovation of the building. The son also handled the accounting, finance and payroll operations.

- Another accusation by Fabian: "I am aware of several instances of John Henry soliciting funds from major donors for dedicated projects where the cost has been grossly exaggerated to elicit a much higher gift from the donor in question. There is no other definition for this than misrepresentation and fraud."

- And: "I remember one specific instance where the costs were perhaps $10,000 at most, but it was decided to approach the donor for $80,000."

- On the subject of nepotism and personal interests, Fabian adds that Westen employed people loyal to him, regardless of their poor working performance.

- Westen arranged better salaries and compensation for his family members and those with whom he had personal relationships and sympathies.

- Fabian: "I can recall two members of staff in leadership positions who, by every objective measure, had what could be deemed no-show jobs. Both Robert Hoover COO and I presented extensive documentary evidence that they were working at most two hours a day and in one case we found that the individual had outside employment. In the case of the individual with director status, they received a five-figure pay rise amidst this."

- "Nowhere is nepotism more apparent than in regard to the employment and compensation of Westen’s children: Hannah and Mary Catherine are currently employed in the development department. [...] Despite Mary Catherine receiving a marginal annual performance review from her director, he insisted on increasing her pay."

- Westen recently wanted a full-time job for his son Joseph, despite there being no open position.

- Fabian: "Over the past several years, I have consistently received a call from John Henry every few months, taking exception to the hourly rates and salaries of individuals he favours, and seeking to increase them."

#newsHhilcxxjei

Like238 3.2K

eva333Jul 18

Whatever it is, Westen has done a prodigious job in favor of the truth. The more you harm the devil, the more he tempts you.

SeabassJul 18

I dropped Lifesite during Covid.

DefendTruthJul 18

Why? Weren't they correct about criticing the vaccination?

SeabassJul 19

@DefendTruth They 'played pandemic' just as much as everyone else, didn't question the stupidity of bishops cancelling masses while party stores were open, and were waaay late on their vaccination criticizing.

De ProfundisJul 18

This is on the survey

Frauenthemen und VanitasJul 18

Maybe, LifeSite got money from Russia? There is something strange about 60 employees from small donations...

DefendTruthJul 18

One accusation against Westen is absurd: Why is it offensive to ask an interview candidate whether or not they’re Catholic, as the hiring company is *Catholic*?

DefendTruth shares this

Jul 18

Lifesite will cease to exist after all of this. RIP.
And for leaking this audio, they are digging their own grave.

1Share1 265

Wilma LopezJul 18

LifeSite’s emergency board meeting will take place at 11am today

Wilma LopezJul 18edited

It seems that Westin allowed many of his enemies and liberal Catholics on staff - but this does not explain his financial troubles

Sandy Barrett shares this

Jul 18

We heard the report of illegal activity from one person who wanted JH Westen to resign? Shouldn’t an investigation be opened at that point?

LikeShare2 350

De ProfundisJul 18

Francis earned and deserved every bit of criticism that he got.

Wilma LopezJul 18edited

Another aspect, a different angle: At the board meeting: They discuss how there should be no discrimination against Protestants, yet then state that Sedevacantists should not be employed because it damages the 'brand'.

petrus100452Jul 18

If these allegations are not true, then John Henry Westen should go to court for slander and defamation. That is the only way to clear his name. If he does not and continues to refuse to make any comment himself on the reasons for his dismissal, then I fear his name will remain tarnished forever.

Patricia McKeeverJul 18

That is exactly right - an innocent person, in these circumstances, must publicly correct any false allegations, for the record. Not to do so, causes scandal.

SonoftheChurchJul 17

Bishop Strickland used the EXACT SAME knife to stab John-Henry in the back, as was used by the Vatican to stab him in the back in removing him as Ordinary of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas. This is so very sad.

petrus100452Jul 18

@SonoftheChurch Unless the accusations are true. Not easy to accept, but it is up to John Henry to disprove them. Possibly through the court.

Patricia McKeeverJul 18

@SonoftheChurch
My memory of Bishop Strickland's statement is that it was very positive about JHW - I didn't see him in any way "stabbing JHW in the back" so would you mind quoting anything which you interpret in that way.

SonoftheChurchJul 18

@Patricia McKeever Clearly you have not listened to the recording of the Board of Directors meeting during which they removed John Henry. Go find and listen to that, and then come back and we’ll discuss my “interpretation” of Bishop Strickland’s words and actions in this matter.

Patricia McKeeverJul 18

I did not know any recording existed when I made my comment, I had only read the published statement from Bp S.

Novena - OremusJul 17

There was at the meeting also criticism of the many "private revelations" that Westen presented uncritical as true.

Novena - OremusJul 17

Strickland said that "opinions" have taken over LifeSite instead of facts.

P. O'BJul 17

Every time John Henry spoke about another private revelation, I became less interested in LifeSiteNews.

Ave CruxJul 17

@P. O'B I have to agree I, too, became increasingly concerned about his seemingly unqualified support for emerging "private revelations". Whereas, it has always been the solid Catholic position to exercise prudence, reticence and circumspection in such matters, especially in such a high-profile position such as the one he held.

Patricia McKeeverJul 18

@P. O'B So true - that was exactly my own position. I couldn't believe how easily he accepted any and every claim to a vision or "prophecy".
@Ave Crux - absolutely correct. The Catholic position has always been to be sceptical of claims of private revelation and then wait for the formal pronouncement from the bishop before accepting the claim - if we chose to accept it - there is no obligation to believe any private revelation.

Sally DormanJul 17

Before Westen was kicked out, there was a survey among LifeSite’s 60 employees. The participants harshly criticised John Henry Westen cultivating a “culture of fear”, calling him “vindictive and retaliatory” and worse.

Patricia McKeeverJul 18

@Sally Dorman
Thank you for that information - I knew there had been a claim of a culture of fear but it hadn't registered with me that there had been a survey of the employees. Is that survey published anywhere?

Wilma LopezJul 17

An employee called Anne manages a department that has 14 employees for marketing and videos. When she took over a year ago, she found underperforming stuff and a disorganized office. She says:
“When I asked the two videographers what responsibilities the former director had, neither could tell me what he actually did.”
“The majority of my team do not use or read LifeSite.”
“John Henry refused to take any responsibility for any of his decisions or policies, especially regarding content. Instead, his course of action was to blame others.”

Patricia McKeeverJul 18

@Wilma Lopez
Many thanks for that detailed comment - things are certainly becoming clearer now.

Wilma LopezJul 18

To add about Anne: She said that John Henry Westen was "twisting" Francis' words. However, Francis was criticised a lot, even by Cardinals, and truly so. This was not "twisting Pope Francis's words."

Wilma LopezJul 17

Strickland against Westen:
The recording begins with Westen himself. At the meeting, he said that he had been given a text by Bishop Joseph Strickland which essentially said: 'You're not fit for leadership.' The prewritten resignation letter demanded that he leave his position on the board and any leadership role at LifeSite, while retaining his job. Bishop Strickland, who was present at the meeting as an advisor, said: 'We gave you the chance to find out about this devastating survey. I know it's hard to hear, and you basically dismissed it.' Strickland said that LifeSite needs to get back to proclaiming the truth: 'It doesn't need the slants and opinions that have taken over.' Strickland also said: ‘For John Henry to set this up as some sort of ambush by me is totally inaccurate and unfair, because we could have just let him deal with it without our knowledge.’

SonoftheChurchJul 17

Ironically, the Vatican said the same thing about Strickland and accused him of similar offenses.

Patricia McKeeverJul 18

@Wilma Lopez
Again, thank you for those details.

Patricia McKeeverJul 18edited

@SonoftheChurch
You seem to be of the opinion that if a person has been unjustly treated, as Bishop Strickland was, that he should always assume that any other person with an allegation(s) against him, is being unjustly treated. That is unclear thinking, to say the least, with all due respect.
Some years ago, I was unjustly forced out of a job. Doesn't mean I think everyone with an allegation against them is being unjustly treated. The facts matter - that's what makes the difference.

SonoftheChurchJul 18

@Patricia McKeever You are correct, "facts matter," a principle whose concept only establishes and substantiates my comment. Because, I fear my dear, that it is enormously clear you are not fully abreast of the facts as it regards this matter; as is often the case when you go spouting-off half-cocked and misinformed in the content of your varied and copious comments. Get all of the facts in hand, and THEN come back and we'll see who is actually "unclear" in their "thinking" about Bishop Strickland's participation in this debacle. I can assure you, it won't be me.

Boanerges BoanergesJul 17edited

I have really hard time believing that above mentioned "issues" are at the core of the battle for the control of probably the single most important voice (sorry Gloria.tv) of resistance against enemies of the Church who occupied Rome 13 years ago. It just doesn't add up. Sorry.

OrthocatJul 17

Sounds like post facto cover-up. Kind of like when the Vatican under Francis, laicised Frank Pavone citing 'disobedience' to his bishop as the cause. Then later some lay woman who worked with him claimed he committed "boundary violations." A weasel word that could mean anything the accuser wants.

Patricia McKeeverJul 18

@Boanerges Boanerges and @Orthocat
Your comments amaze me - you are, it seems, dismissing very serious charges against JHW, assuming them to be trumped up for nefarious purposes. It might be more prudent to wait to see if he challenges them with a fact-based defence. Otherwise, you place yourselves into the teenage-fan category, unwilling to believe that your chosen hero-figure could possibly be guilty of any such wrong-doing.
Let's wait for his denial, if and when it comes. If he fails to do that, and instead relies on his supporters to naïvely interpret his "too sweet to be wholesome" image/silence, then we'll know that he is, in fact, guilty of this wrong-doing. That's not what I wish - I will be pleased if he presents a solid defence, but not a "holier than thou" silence, with the expectation that we all accept it.

Boanerges BoanergesJul 18

God knows the hearts of men. Whether JHW responds or not is not decisive. Christ kept quiet in front of His accusers on Good Friday.

Patricia McKeeverJul 18edited

@Boanerges Boanerges
It is not correct to equate any possible forthcoming silence from JHW (or any other similar allegations against any of us today) with Christ's silence under accusation - for a number of reasons. For one, key thing, Christ foretold that this would happen to Him. And his silence must be interpreted in the light of what He had previously said and foretold. There's no comparison. A public Catholic figure today, when faced with allegations of wrong-doing, has a duty to speak the truth, to avoid scandal; if innocent he has a duty to say so to protect his reputation, and present a credible defence. If all of that fails and he is unjustly dismissed or whatever, then he can imitate Christ's humility and acceptance of unjust suffering.
We have the example of various saints, notably St Thomas More, who initially maintained silence in the face of accusations, but who made clear at the end that this was because of the legal (he was a lawyer) position that his silence (in not openly criticising the King) should have been interpreted as agreement (with the King). That should have been the end of the matter. Now, however, that it was clear his enemies were determined to put him to death, he said he must speak out to protect his reputation and defend the Faith. His integrity was important to St Thomas More, as it should be to each one of us. And that includes JHW.