Weeks before the defamation trial was scheduled to start, Church Militant settled the lawsuit brought by the Rev. Georges de Laire and agreed to pay out $500,000 to the parish priest who serves as judicial vicar for the Diocese of New Hampshire.
The Michigan-based media non-profit, St. Michael’s Media, plans to shut down Church Militant by the end of April, according to a segment released Friday by Todd & Weld, the law firm representing de Laire.
“St. Michael’s Media has also represented that it will cease all operations of Church Militant by the end of April 2024,” said the statement.
Voris was accused of living a homosexual lifestyle while being the face of a media operation that attacked the Church for being open to homosexual members. He allegedly sent half-nude selfies to staffers and potential donors, including Jets placekicker Greg Zuerlein, and is accused of grooming young men who worked at the Ferndale, Michigan office.
still from video: https://www.facebook.com/michael.voris.7/videos/255458450430632
Church Militant posted an apology to its websiteThursday, acknowledging the January, 2019 story labeling de Laire as “emotionally unstable” and “incompetent” was based on unnamed sources whose statements could not be substantiated in any credible manner.
“SMM and Church Militant extend their apologies to Father de Laire for the publication of this story which has been permanently removed from the ChurchMilitant.com website. Additionally, we have resolved Father de Laire’s defamation lawsuit through a financial payment to him,” the statement reads.
The statement issued Friday by de Laire’s law firm, Todd & Weld, confirms Saint Michael’s Media/Church Militant paid $500,000 to settle the lawsuit after being unable to produce a single witness who could confirm the defamatory article.
“(T)he defendants were unable to identify a single source who said anything negative about Father de Laire,” Todd & Weld’s Director of Marketing Paul Boynton wrote in the statement.
Both de Laire’s legal team and Church Militant blame the story’s author, canon lawyer Marc Balestrieri.
A “manufactured controversy”
Boynton claims Balestrieri wrote the article as a means to get leverage on de Laire in the dispute between fringe group, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Diocese of Manchester, as well as to get money for himself. Balestrieri was representing the Slaves at the time.
Marc Balestrieri
“To the contrary, the evidence established that Father de Laire is highly regarded by all who know him, and that Mr. Balestrieri manufactured a controversy because at the time he was representing the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, NH,” Boynton wrote. “The group had been placed under Precepts by the Diocese of Manchester because of their nonobservance of Church law, according to the Church. The defamation was used, apparently, as an attempt to discredit Father de Laire and the Diocese and to raise funds including to pay for Mr. Balestrieri’s services as a canonist. At Mr. Balestrieri’s insistence, his authorship of the article at issue was hidden from readers. Father de Laire’s lawsuit forced the disclosure of these facts about Church Militant and Mr. Balestrieri.”
Reached Friday, Balestrieri denied he wrote the article as part of any scheme.
“No sir, absolutely not,” Balestrieri said.
Balestrieri’s been almost impossible to track down throughout the lawsuit, which was first filed in early 2021. Church Militant hid the fact he was the author for almost a year, and Balestrieri did not respond to calls or emails. According to court records, he evaded process servers, even running into the woods to hide from the lawsuit.
But on Friday, Balestrieri, rather than an answering service, answered his business phone, though he declined to answer most of my questions, citing the “pendency of litigation.” In the few answers he did provide, Balestrieri stood by the facts of the article but refused to take credit.
“On February 20, 2024, I telephoned Saint Michael’s Media’s attorneys, Stephen Martin and Seth Hipple, and spoke at length with them both, informing them – prior to their entering into the agreement for judgment of February 27th on behalf of their clients – that all of the information I provided as a source was true and that there are witnesses, including myself among them, and documentation able to corroborate what Church Militant reported in the article,” he wrote.
Balestrieri did not answer directly if he actually wrote the article, but indicates he was not the author.
“Attribution of the article in question, as indicated on the website during the entirety of its posting, was ‘Church Militant’,” he wrote.
Canon lawyer says he was threatened
Balestrieri claims he evaded the lawsuit, skipped a scheduled deposition, and stayed away from the trial because of the threat he received to stop him from telling the “truth.”
“On July 12 … within 20 minutes of agreeing in person in writing to testify to the truth, first by deposition and then in trial, I received a written threat not to go through with the deposition. For that reason and that reason alone did I not appear for the deposition. I was advised by law enforcement to take the threat seriously, decline politely to participate in the deposition, and, at the time, stay away from the trial,” Balestrieri wrote.
Evidence uncovered during litigation shows Voris threatened to somehow expose Balestrieri in June when it became clear Balestrieri planned to deny he was the story’s author.
“We have all the receipts. You go through with this and we will rain down on you publicly. You are a liar, and a Welch,” Voris texted to Balestrieri on June 15, 2023.
But so far, it is unproved Balestrieri was threatened in July as he told me Friday. Balestrieri was asked to provide evidence he received an additional threat on July 12, and asked for the name of the law enforcement agency that advised him, and if there was any report about the threat filed with any agency. He has yet to respond to those questions.
Last year, Voris and Church Militant were exposed hiding Balestrieri-related evidence that was supposed to be turned over to de Laire. In response, Judge Jospeh LaPlante ordered them to go through their records and get the discovery, or face sanctions. In the weeks before the settlement was reached, Voris turned over 17 pages of text messages with Balestrieri. Church Militant handed over 30,000 documents at the start of February.
Where it all began
All of the drama started in early January of 2019 when the Slaves were issued a letter of precepts by the Diocese of Manchester. As judicial vicar, de Laire had spent years dealing with problems surrounding the Feeneyite sect, and he is the official who issued the letter of precepts.
Unbeknownst to the public at the time, the Slaves were represented by Balestrieri in their canon law appeals. Within weeks, Voris was in New Hampshire to interview Louis Villarubia, also known as Brother Andre, the current leader of the Slaves.
The subsequent reporting cast de Laire as the villain, an ambitious and out-of-control prelate, known to be unstable and incompetent. Church Militant’s reporting also raised questions about de Laire’s ethics, insinuating corruption due to the fact he purchased a million-dollar home close to his assigned parish.
Apparently, neither Balestrieri nor Voris was aware that de Laire is an heir to a wealthy French family that made a fortune in the perfume industry. The expensive home was purchased with de Laire’s private money for his elderly mother.
Voris never contacted de Laire for an interview prior to publishing the defamatory article.
Soon after Voris reported on the Slaves, the group started a website to solicit donations for their defense. They were seeking at least $50,000 to pay for their appeal of the precepts. Balestrieri did file an appeal on their behalf with the Vatican, but it was dismissed because he missed the deadline.
Voris agrees to keep Balestrieri’s secret, lends him $65k of Church Militant’s money
Voris knew Balestrieri personally and had hired him for his own canon law cases, according to evidence uncovered in the case. According to the evidence and the settlement statements, Voris agreed to keep Balestrieri’s contributions to the reporting anonymous.
That meant Voris represented in court for more than a year that he was the author. When the ruse was finally found out through discovery, Balestrieri was made a defendant, and then found in default because he failed to appear in court or respond to the lawsuit.
As the lawsuit was grinding down Church Militant’s finances, Voris pushed Balestrieri to come up with confirmation from his supposed sources. According to depositions, during a heated conversation in June of 2022 about the sources, Voris agreed to give Balestrieri an interest-free $65,000 loan from Church Militant’s accounts.
Meanwhile, Villarubia never knew that his canon lawyer was the author. Villarubia testified during a deposition that he discovered that fact after I reported it. This led to an awkward call in 2022 between the chief Slave and the canon lawyer during which Balestrieri denied he wrote the article.
“And I said this is a problem, that Michael Voris said you wrote the article and you’re our canon lawyer. And [Balestrieri] said ‘I didn’t write the article.’ He vehemently denied authorship of the article,” Villarubia said during his deposition. “I simply thought that that should be on the record. Obviously, Marc’s chosen not to defend himself, but I have this information, and I thought that this should be part of the record.”
Villarubia did not respond to a request for comment.
Last year, Voris and his Church Militant crew, including Christine Niles and Simon Rafe, handed over reams of evidence they originally claimed didn’t exist in order to prove Balestrieri was the author.
Multiple lawyers ended up quitting the defense citing conflict of interest rules.
Church Militant apologizes and closes down, holds Lent Liquidation sale
On Friday, Church Militant’s website makes no mention of shutting down, though a video retrospective of Saint Michael’s Media and Michael Voris is the lead featured post.
The video features clips of Voris’ program, The Vortex, and quotes from grateful viewers. It ends with the words “Stay Tuned.”
Church Militant was recently forced to sell both its Ferndale office building where it operates and records its shows. The estimated sales revenue was a little under $600,000, according to court records.
Earlier last year, the non-profit laid off dozens of employees in a cost cutting effort. This week, Church Militant is also advertising a “Lent Liquidation Sale,” offering 50 percent off everything in its online store which is also shutting down.
“The store has been running for longer than Church Militant itself – but all good things come to an end,” the advertisement states. “We need to liquidate the stock, and so this is your opportunity to get a hold of some wonderful Catholic books, DVDs and CDs, statues and more at fire-sale prices.”
Voris: “Somehow, things have gotten out of control”
By Damien Fisher
At the end of Tuesday’s emergency court hearing held the day after Christmas, United States District Court Judge Joseph LaPlante had pointed parting words for Michael Voris and Mike Sherry.
“Mr. Voris, Mr. Sherry, I look forward to your retention of counsel,” LaPlante said.
Sherry, the current president of Church Militant’s board, and Voris, the now disgraced former board president and founder, agreed to an order that essentially gives New Hampshire priest the Rev. Georges de Laire control over Church Militant finances pending the outcome of the defamation lawsuit. Neither is currently represented by a lawyer, the result of Voris’ so-far disastrous legal machinations.
In perhaps the first good decision Voris has made in the case, he appeared in Tuesday’s Zoom call as an audio-only participant.
Voris and his assistants at Church Militant, Christine Niles and Simon Rafe, are accused in court documents of hiding and destroying evidence. Voris is also accused of lying about basic facts of the case, hiding the identity of key figure Marc Balestrieri, using Church Militant money to give Balestrieri an interest -free loan, and later threatening Balestrieri when it seemed his testimony could hurt Voris.
Voris and Church Militant defending themselves in court; judge advises a different plan
LaPlante was blunt with the pair, telling them Church Militant’s legal defense up to this point has been “troubling.”
“Unorthodox is the most charitable word I can use,” LaPlante said. “The way it’s been conducted is troubling from the defense’s perspective.”
In August, Voris’s attorneys Kathleen Klaus and Neil Nicholson quit the case, a day after Niles admitted under oath that she had been sitting on texts with Balestrieri that should have been turned over as evidence. LaPLante said Klaus and Nicholson quit because they “could not continue due to the conduct of one of the parties in the case.”
Howard Cooper, de Laire’s attorney, said in court the conflict came about because members of Church Militant’s board want to pursue criminal charges against Voris.
Voris: “Somehow, things have gotten out of control”
Voris, perhaps trying to refute the idea he is criminally liable, spoke up during the hearing to set the record straight about Lehmann’s departure.
“Somehow, things have gotten out of control,” Voris said.
Voris started to explain that he and Sherry, as a pair, did not ask Lehmann about separate defenses. Instead, Voris started to say that both he and Sherry had private conversations with Lehmann about different possibilities for the defense.
It was at this point, LaPlante stopped Voris from speaking.
“I don’t know where you’re going with this,” LaPlante said.
The judge then explained to Voris that his statements were approaching a legal line, and if he continued talking, he would be effectively waiving attorney-client privilege with Lehmann, and all his communications with the former attorney would become discoverable in the trial.
Voris tried to simplify his message while protecting his interests.
“Mr. Sherry and I have not arrived at a decision that we’re two competing parties,” Voris said.
Voris followed this statement with a drawn-out explanation that the pending sale of Church Militant’s only real assets, two office buildings in Ferndale, Michigan — which were the subject of Tuesday’s hearing — have nothing to do with the de Laire lawsuit. LaPlante responded that the reason for the sale is not relevant to the hearing to decide what happens to the money.
“I don’t know what you want me to do with that information,” LaPlante said.
When Voris then tried to explain he had not had a chance to speak to Sherry about these matters before Tuesday’s hearing, the Judge seemed surprised.
“That’s mystifying,” LaPlante said.
Church Militant sale proceeds to go into escrow so it doesn’t disappear
Hemorrhaging donations in wake of the scandal, the Michigan non-profit is about to close on a deal to sell the two office buildings, one which is home to Church Militant’s offices and studio. But under the agreement reached Tuesday, the proceeds of those sales, set to close Thursday, are now frozen in an escrow account.
Sherry was authorized by his board to agree to a capped escrow of $200,000, saying any more could mean the end of Church Militant.
“I can accept a $200,000 attachment, but we cannot do the full amount; we might as well shut down,” Sherry said.
Cooper stressed on Tuesday that de Laire is not trying to end Church Militant, but simply to secure funds that are likely to go to him either in a settlement or in damages awarded by a jury. To that end, Cooper offered to allow Church Militant to access the funds to keep the lights on. But the non-profit would first need to prove the figure they need.
Church Militant must disclose operating expenses
Sherry appeared alone in the Zoom hearing, streaming from an empty studio. He did not seem to understand the proceedings at times. After Cooper’s proposal was repeatedly explained to him, Sherry agreed to allow all the building sale money to go into an escrow account. Sherry is now under court order to file an affidavit stating Church Militant’s monthly operating expenses. The organization will be allowed to draw out that amount from escrow in order to keep operating.
LaPlante said the escrow order is temporary and will be revisited once Voris and Sherry both find new lawyers. The judge suggested whoever Voris and Sherry find to defend them in court, they be first allowed to speak with the attorneys who quit the case.
*** Image: Mike Sherry in a Church Militant studio during Tuesday’s virtual hearing. Courtroom sketch by Simcha Fisher
Days before a morality clause violation forced Gary Michael Voris to resign his job leading St. Michael’s Media, Voris’ attorney Richard Lehmann asked United States District Court Judge Joseph LaPlante to delay the upcoming trial in the federal defamation lawsuit.
Voris is the face of St. Michael’s Media and its news outlet, Church Militant. He started the organization almost 20 years ago, and his presence on the cruise voyage is essential, Lehmann wrote in his motion seeking a delay.
“Defendant Voris is a significant draw for participants, who register in large part to hear his presentations and have an opportunity to meet him for private conversations, meals, and other events,” Lehmann wrote.
The cruise generates substantial revenue for Voris and his organizations. Lehmann wrote that last year’s voyage garnered $128,000.
With the “Retreat at Sea” scheduled for Feb. 4 through Feb. 11, LaPlante agreed to set the trial start back to Feb. 13.
Voris still from video https://twitter.com/Michael_Voris/status/1727102250311733320
“Sometimes it takes very horrible events, even at your own hand, to surface certain things that need to be faced,” Voris said.
Lehmann declined to comment when asked how the sudden change in Voris’ employment status might impact the defamation case.
The delay of the trial date might be the last bit of good news for Voris’ defense.
Both Voris former Church Militant personality Christine Niles are now personally under court order to produce evidence de Laire claims they have been hiding since the case started in 2021. Lawyers for de Laire say the two sat on incriminating texts and emails, destroyed evidence, and even interfered with the testimony of Marc Balestrieri, the key witness who has once again disappeared, according to court records.
Niles and Voris have until Dec. 5 to file statements under oath attesting they have made good faith efforts to find and hand over the evidence or face serious sanctions, like automatically losing the case and setting up a trial for the damages they will have to pay de Laire.
“Failure to comply with this court order, or failure to make the required productions referenced above, could result in entry of a default judgment against one or more defendants,” LaPlante wrote in his Nov. 16 order.
But since they’re both out at Church Militant, it remains to be seen if Niles and Voris can even comply with LaPlante’s order. Niles resigned Nov. 9, and Voris was pushed out Nov. 21. The uncertainty creates the possibility for yet another delay in the trial. Lawyers for de Laire have repeatedly accused Voris and Church Militant of stalling in order to drive up his legal costs.
As of Nov. 22, there were no disclosures on file in the United States District Court in Concord that Niles and Voris are no longer employed at Church Militant. Interestingly, the allegedly defamatory articles about de Laire no longer appear on Church Militant’s website.
Voris and Niles resignations unexplained
Voris’ ouster from Church Militant came as a shock to his legions of fans. The controversial media mini-magnate isn’t saying why he’s no longer leading the organization, other than to get help with some sort of dark and ugly secret that’s impaired his life.
The board statement, which they call “fully transparent,” simply states Voris violated the morality clause and is seeking help for his health.
But Niles, who has been with Voris and Church Militant for almost a decade, dropped hints in a video of her own put out Tuesday night. Niles claims she resigned on Nov. 9 by bringing a damning letter to the board detailing Voris’ transgressions, but she refused in the video to say what they were.
“I’m not in the business of detraction,” Niles said.
Christine Niles still from video https://twitter.com/ChristineNiles1/status/1727120238721048950
Niles did offer that Voris seemed to have undergone a personality change in recent years, including a seeming loss of fervor for his very public faith. Voris stopped attending the mandatory Church Militant prayer sessions, she claimed, as well as committing whatever misconduct that is seemingly at the center of the sudden resignations.
Niles did say Voris’ actions have hurt and scandalized people at Church Militant.
“To say that I am heartbroken and furious is an understatement. There’s a lot of anger, there is a great deal of anger over this,” Niles said.
But why now?
The resignation mystery is unfolding as the de Laire lawsuit appears to be going poorly for Voris, with new allegations surfacing that he used Church Militant money to buy Balestrieri’s testimony with an interest-free loan, and then threatened Balestrieri when it seemed his testimony could hurt the defense.
Voris and former Church Militant writer Anita Carey were scheduled to go to trial in September in de Laire’s lawsuit. Church Militant as an entity is also a defendant in the case. Voris’ attempts to hide key facts and witnesses have already delayed the start of the trial, according to court records.
Rev. de Laire, the judicial vicar for the Manchester New Hampshire Diocese, sued Voris after Church Militant published videos and articles attacking de Laire as incompetent, emotionally unbalanced, and considered a “troublemaker” by his superiors in Rome.
Balestrieri is a canon lawyer with a penchant for secrecy. In a recent deposition under oath, Voris himself called Balestrieri “squirrelly” when it comes to matters of privacy. Since he wants to protect his image with Church officials he works with, Balestrieri is loath to have it known he has been a secret Church Militant author and source for years, Voris said.
“Marc’s great overarching concern was always being worried that his providing information — sometimes extraordinarily sensitive information — on all kinds of cases — that he was always very squirrelly about any of that being found out … He was always — for obvious reasons, because of retaliation and, you know, not viewed as trustworthy by, you know, individuals in the Church who would care about that sort of thing,” Voris testified in a recent deposition.
Lawyers for de Laire used the fact Voris hid Balestrieri as one of the arguments for a summary judgment, essentially asking for a finding by a judge instead of a jury in his favor. By the time the summary judgment question was heading for a hearing, Balestrieri had already been added to the lawsuit as a defendant and found in default.
Balestrieri repeatedly dodged process servers for months, at one point actually running into the woods to evade a server, prompting LaPlante to declare him liable for the defamation last year. Assuming the case ever gets to a jury, Balestrieri will automatically be on the hook for damages no matter what happens to Voris.
But it was the June 15 summary judgment hearing that continues to cause problems for Voris. After being unfindable for months, Balestrieri made a surprise appearance at that hearing claiming he was ready to set the record straight. The day before the hearing, Balestrieri emailed the court announcing his intention to challenge the default judgment and tell his side of the story.
“(He wished to) ‘have my day in court’ to defend myself against the false accusations of fact and claims that have been asserted by more than one party against me,” Balestrieri wrote.
This spelled trouble for Voris.
Good friends make bad loans
With the disclosure that Balestrieri is the man behind the disputed articles revealed in early 2022, a mutual panic seems to have set in, according to newly released evidence.
Voris needed Balestrieri’s sources, the people he relied on to write the articles about de Laire. At the same time, Balestrieri needed to keep his name off the lawsuit. Though Balestrieri has been named as the author in court documents filed in the spring of 2022, he was not yet named as a defendant in the lawsuit. That would happen in October of 2022 over Voris’ objections.
New evidence shows Voris not only hid that Balestrieri wrote the articles, but he hid the fact Balestrieri was heavily involved in the early days of the legal defense.
When de Laire sent Church Militant a letter demanding a retraction in January of 2019, soon after publication, the Church Militant response letter was drafted by Balestrieri, according to new evidence. Balestrieri didn’t sign the letter, though. Voris signed the response sent to de Laire’s attorneys, giving the impression he wrote the letter and not Balestrieri.
Voris would later acknowledge in his August deposition that he presumed Balestrieri had been communicating with his lawyers when they drafted the original answer to de Laire’s lawsuit.
With pressure mounting, Voris and Balestrieri had a meeting at Voris’ house in June of 2022. During the heated conversation, Voris demanded Balestrieri divulge his sources. Balestrieri was hesitant, because his sources who allegedly called de Laire’s ability, competence, mental state, and general character into question were involved in delicate canonical matters like marriage and annulment cases.
“[W]ell, you know, Marc, these are your sources and if they won’t step up, well, then you have to,” Voris said, according to his August deposition.
Voris testified that he had been “forceful” in this conversation and had raised his voice at Balestrieri.
Yet, during this contentious meeting, it was Church Militant as a corporation, not Voris personally, that loaned Balestrieri the $65,000, according to the loan agreement filed in court. The interest-free loan was to be paid back by the end of 2022, but otherwise carried no restriction.
When asked under oath, Voris said Church Militant giving Balestrieri a loan in the midst of an argument about sources was simply a “coincidence of time.”
Communications between Voris and Balestrieri since handed over indicate the canon lawyer and ghostwriter was struggling to pay medical bills for his ailing mother.
After Balestrieri was added to the lawsuit as a defendant, and the matter started to attract attention on Catholic social media, a worried Balestrieri texted Voris in November of 2022. Voris’ response was to remind Balestrieri about the loan.
“Also, you should know, that what I presume is going to be a failure to repay as agreed, we are likely going to have to lay off at least one person. You agreed to pay the $70K and so far haven’t,” Voris texted on Nov. 28 2022.
Brother Andre’s choice
Whatever else can be said about “Brother” Andre Marie Villarubia, head of the Richmond Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, he is a man of conviction.
The Richmond Slaves splintered from the Still River, Massachusetts Slaves in the 1980’s over disputes about watering down founder Rev. Leonard Feeney’s message. Still River leaders sought recognition within the Church, and that meant toning down their interpretation of“No Salvation Outside The Church,” which got Feeney excommunicated.
The Richmond Slaves didn’t want recognition if it meant giving up their beliefs. The group started the St. Benedict Center with an order for men and women, as well as a school. Villarubia took over as leader around 2010.
“Brother” Andre Villarubia in 2019. Photo by Damien Fisher
He had been part of the Richmond Slaves efforts for accommodation with the Manchester Diocese, agreeing in 2009 to disavow the open anti-semitism in the Slaves’ prior writings. In exchange, Manchester gave the group permission to have a traditional Latin Mass celebrated, assuming they could find a priest in good standing.
But “No Salvation Outside the Church” continued to cause friction for the Slaves. Villarubia appealed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, basically arguing he and the other Richmond Slaves should be free to hold to their interpretation of the doctrine.Even after the CDF rejected this argument and considered the matter closed in 2016, the group persisted in holding to the Feeneyite message.
Unbowed, Villarubia raised money to fight the precepts in Rome. His canon lawyer? Balestrieri.
Just weeks after the precepts were issued in January of 2019, Voris was in New Hampshire interviewing Villarubia, and Church Militant published video reports and stories about the controversy and attacking de Laire as an incompetent.
Among the questionable facts Voris/Balestrieri included in their articles is the fact de Laire owns a million dollar house. The articles question how the priest could afford the luxury home.
Rev. de Laire is assigned to a parish in Manchester, and lists that address as his residence. The home, in nearby Amherst, was bought for his elderly mother. The de Laire family are heirs to a French perfume fortune, a fact seemingly missed by Voris and Balestrieri.
Balestrieri worked on getting the precepts overturned. But the appeal was rejected by Rome after Balestrieri missed the deadline.
Marc Balestrieri
The lawsuit against Church Militant snared Villarubia, requiring him to sit for depositions with de Laire’s lawyers. The March deposition Villarubia gave under oath this year included a missile aimed at Voris.
In June of 2022, around the time a shouting Voris gave a worried Balestrieri a $65,000 loan, Villarubia learned about Balestrieri’s authorship of the alleged defamatory articles for the first time. This obvious conflict of interest unnerved Villarubia enough that he decided to fire Balestrieri, according to the deposition. That’s when Balestrieri made a stunning claim.
“And I said this is a problem, that Michael Voris said you wrote the article and you’re our canon lawyer. And [Balestrieri] said ‘I didn’t write the article.’ He vehemently denied authorship of the article,” Villarubia said during his March deposition. “I simply thought that that should be on the record. Obviously, Marc’s chosen not to defend himself, but I have this information, and I thought that this should be part of the record.”
Villarubia further speculated Voris might have written the article with Balestrieri in a collaborative effort. Either way, the question was now open if Voris lied when he originally claimed authorship of the articles, or when he later put the onus on Balestrieri.
Welch!
Voris knew Balestrieri planned to say something at the June 15 hearing, and he worried it would be a denial about writing the articles.
The hearing transcript depicts an odd scene in which Balestrieri does not appear to understand the court proceedings, does not realize he is about to be served with subpoenas to give a deposition, and refuses to give the court his address, claiming to live a “nomadic” lifestyle.
Soon, however, it is agreed during the hearing that Balestrieri will sit for a July 12 deposition with de Laire’s attorneys and answer questions under oath.
A now concerned Voris, despite claiming for months he had no way to contact Balestrieri, arranged for a staffer to send Balestrieri a text he composed with a warning.
“Marc – you are committing perjury. You know you wrote that article. What you don’t know is this morning we found proof – your digital fingerprints – all totally documented – on that article. Remember the email address – TomMoore@Churchmilitant.com.? We have all the receipts. You go through with this and we will rain down on you publicly. You are a liar, and a Welch,” Voris wrote.
Knowing what Villarubbia said about Balestrieri’s denial, Voris wanted proof that Balestrieri was the original author. So on June 15 he ordered his Church Militant team, including Niles and Chief of Staff Simon Rafe, to find the Google Drive drafts, emails, text messages, and other evidence Niles and others had previously claimed could not be found or did not exist, according to court records.
Sometime between receiving the “Welch” text and the July 12 deposition date, Balestrieri had second thoughts. On July 11 he let de Laire’s lawyers know he would not show up, and he since has gone missing again.
Lawyers for de Laire argue the “Welch” text was a clear threat to the publicity adverse Balestrieri, and the prior Nov. 28 text about the loan show Voris has been attempting to manipulate Balestrieri and his testimony.
Voris denied he was threatening Balestrieri, but insisted in his August deposition that he was concerned for the elusive canon lawyer’s soul.
“[I was] troubled he was going to perjure himself,” Voris testified. “First of all, that’s a sin to take an oath before God and then lie. It’s a mortal sin, which is in the category of pretty darn bad in Catholicism.”
But in trying to save his friend from sin, and prove he didn’t write the article himself, the new evidence Voris turned over after the June 15 hearing was a double-edged sword. It showed the court Voris had been hiding evidence, and might be hiding more.
After Balestrieri skipped his deposition, the court ordered Voris and Niles to sit for new depositions, during which more evidence that had been hidden came to light.
Deposition of a law school graduate
Niles, Church Militant’s senior investigative reporter and unofficial in-house counsel, was now fully enmeshed in the lawsuit when she sat for her Aug. 9 court-ordered deposition.
Niles provided the court in June with a signed affidavit detailing the evidence she had recently found in a Church Militant Google Drive that proves Balestrieri’s authorship. In her affidavit, Niles explained she never turned over the drafts proving Balestrieri wrote the articles because she forgot to check the Google Drive.
“In all sincerity, I forgot that he did not email me the article, but shared it through his Google Drive under his alternate email tommoore@churchmilitant.com,” Niles wrote in her affidavit.
But, Niles’ affidavit also raised a new set of problems for Church Militant.
Her signed statement made clear Niles was not Church Militant’s lawyer, in-house or any other kind. But Voris had refused, in earlier depositions, to answer questions about his conversation with Niles, citing attorney-client privilege.
Niles would need to answer questions about her work status, as well as the evidence on Balestrieri she found after June 15, evidence she and Voris had previously claimed didn’t exist.
During her Aug. 9 deposition, Niles confirmed that she graduated law school, and then clerked for a state supreme court justice for two years. Then, she gave up her law practice to be a stay-at-home mom.
Niles never argued a case in court, never represented a defendant, and when she moved to Michigan, where Church Militant is headquartered, never joined that state’s Bar Association. Niles is a licensed attorney in another state, though her status is inactive.
Around 2014, Niles turned her part-time copyediting and proofreading skills into a job at Church Militant, and moved to Michigan to launch her career. In that time, she testified, she acted as a sort of informal legal adviser, but she was never Church Militant’s attorney.
But it was her next admission that really tripped up Church Militant’s defense. When asked if she had any communication with Balestrieri in 2022 concerning the lawsuit, Niles said she had sent him at least one text. She had never turned that over doing the discovery phase because she “was never asked,” even though de Laire’s team had been seeking such communication for months.
At this point, Church Militant attorneys Kathleen Klaus and Neil Nicholson called for a short break in Niles’ deposition. When they restarted ten minutes later, the lawyer handed over pages of text messages from Nile’s phone showing that she and Balestrieri engaged in multiple conversations about the lawsuit over the course of several months.
“These text messages, in addition to testimony of Niles and Voris, show that Defendants have been working and coordinating with Balestrieri concerning information to be disclosed (or, more accurately, withheld) from Father de Laire throughout the duration of this entire litigation,” de Laire’s lawyers wrote.
Klaus and Nicholson quit the case the day after Niles’ deposition.
“Recent events that have transpired in the litigation have created an unwaivable conflict between Counsel and their clients … Counsel believes this conflict bars them from taking any further action on behalf of their clients,” Klaus and Nicholson wrote to the court.
But Randazza had a reputation for more than fighting for freedom of speech. In 2018, he pleaded guilty to violating the attorney code of ethics in Nevada in a case in which he allegedly solicited pay-offs from companies his porn production client was considering suing.
Marc-randazza, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
“There needs to be a little gravy for me,” Randazza emailed an opposing attorney in one lawsuit. “And it has to be more than the $5K you were talking about before. I’m looking at the cost of at least a new Carrera in retainer deposits after circulating around the adult entertainment expo this week. I’m gonna want at least used BMW money.”
Randazza has gone on to represent the likes of Alex Jones and neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin.
LaPlante ordered Randazza off the case last month after de Laire objected. It is not known why Randazza is not being allowed to represent Voris, as LaPlante’s order is under seal. The court docket states there is a new, pending ethics complaint filed against Randazza in another jurisdiction.
That leaves Lehmann as the sole attorney for Church Militant. Lehmann is well-respected in New Hampshire legal circles, but he’s no stranger to culture war skirmishes. He’s the lead attorney for a mother suing the Manchester, New Hampshire School District over her child’s social gender-transitioning. Lehmann was also on former President Donald Trump’s legal team in a failed effort to keep Trump off the New Hampshire presidential primary ballot. When LaPlante agreed to reschedule the trial to accommodate the cruise, he also noted Lehmann’s need to now get up to speed as the lead attorney.
___
___
Damien Fisher is married to Simcha Fisher, who is the owner of this site. Simcha Fisher is an independent contractor for Parable Magazine, which is owned by the Diocese of Manchester.
Accused of hiding evidence, lying about on-air talent Christine Niles’ status as an attorney, and even threatening a key witness to keep him from giving a deposition, Voris saw his lawyers quit last month, weeks before the federal defamation trial over his Church Militant stories about New Hampshire’s fringe group Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary was set to start.
(N.B. A quick recap of the lawsuit can be foundhere. This article focuses on the seeming melt down happening to Voris’ defense.)
Now, Voris wants to bring in Massachusetts-based lawyer Marc Randazza. The problem? Randazza’s record of double-dealing which resulted in guilty pleas and formal discipline in multiple courts.
Marc-randazza, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Randazza, who got in trouble for his actions in a lawsuit involving gay porno companies, fashions himself as a First Amendment crusader and is popular with Info Wars host Alex Jones, Neo Nazi publisher Andrew Anglin, and right-wing personality Mike Cernovich.
New Hampshire priest Rev. Georges de Laire, the judicial vicar for the Manchester Diocese, is suing Voris over defamatory videos and articles Voris published, and starred in. Voris operates Church Militant and St. Michael’s Media, which produces a news website and Youtube video programs.
Attorney’s for de Laire, Howard Cooper and Suzanne Elovecky, are not amused by Voris’ antics, and told the court Randazza’s hire is another tactic to try to tank the lawsuit without a trial. They now want the court to make Voris pay.
“Defendants have engaged in numerous bad faith tactics in this case. Their actions have deprived Father de Laire of critical testimony, derailed a firm trial date, and made this matter far more expensive and emotionally draining for him than it otherwise should have been. Defendants conduct has been so egregious that Father de Laire will shortly move for the entry of a judgment of liability,” Cooper and Elovecky wrote.
Cooper and Elovecky are asking the federal judge to block Voris from bringing Randazza into the case, and they might have precedent.
In 2019, as Jones was being sued by parents of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims, he tried to hire Randazza. However, the judge in the case ruled Randazza’s record of serious misconduct was too much. Randazza was not allowed to represent Jones in the Connecticut court, though his law firm stayed on the case.
The misconduct cited in by the Sandy Hook case judge is that Randazza, while representing gay porno producer Liberty Media Holdings, reportedly also worked on the side for the company Liberty was suing. Records show Randazza even solicited a bribe from the company Liberty was taking action against.
“There needs to be a little gravy for me,” Randazza emailed an opposing attorney in a Liberty lawsuit. “And it has to be more than the $5K you were talking about before. I’m looking at the cost of at least a new Carrera in retainer deposits after circulating around the adult entertainment expo this week. I’m gonna want at least used BMW money.”
A fuller picture of Randazza’s history can be foundhere. In 2018, he pleaded guilty to violating the attorney code of ethics in Nevada. This resulted in reciprocal discipline in other jurisdictions, and the fact Randazza has to disclose his past conduct when he starts a new case.
The reason Voris is even thinking about hiring Randazza in the first place might have to do with another lawyer involved in the de Laire lawsuit, Marc Balestrieri.
Balestrieri is a conservative canon lawyer who once tried to get Sen. John Kerry excommunicated.
Marc Balestrieri https://www.facebook.com/fsspminneapolis/photos/a.380489198774900/668338999989917/?type=3
He’s also accused of being the real author of the original anonymous article Voris published attacking de Laire in January of 2019. Balestrieri represents the Feeneyite Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary based in Richmond, New Hampshire in their fight against Church sanctions.
Balestrieri disappeared this summer before he was supposed to sit for a deposition with de Laire’s lawyers. The disappearing act came after Voris sent Balestrieri a threatening text message, according to court records.
Backing up a bit, Voris kept Balestrieri’s connection to the article hidden from de Laire and his lawyers for more than a year as the case worked its way through court. It was only in April of 2022 that Voris conceded that he himself was not the author. Eventually, Balestrieri was outed and made a defendant in the lawsuit.
Or he would have been. Balestrieri dodged process servers for months, even running into the woods to evade a server who tracked him to a conference for canon lawyers, according to court records.
The process server watched as Balestrieri called a friend who picked him up near the woods so they could drive away. Finally, in October of last year, Balestrieri was found in default in the defamation lawsuit. When the case is finally resolved, Balestrieri will have to pay damages to de Laire.
Interesting side note: according to court records, Voris loaned Balestrieri around $54,000 in June of 2022. The two would later claim this money was to help pay medical bills for Balestrieri’s sick mother.
Balestrieri stayed out of sight until he made a surprise appearance during a June 15 hearing in the United States District Court in Concord, seeking to have the default judgment lifted. Balestrieri does not have a lawyer, and did not seem to understand the way courts work.
Balestrieri was surprised when Judge Joseph LaPlante told him he was not going to lift the judgment and ordered him to give deposition as a witness. However, Balestrieri told LaPlante he was eager to clear up lies that had been told about him.
True to form, Balestrieri hemmed and hawed before finally agreeing to a date for the deposition. But, Balestrieri refused to give LaPlante or court staff his address. Balestrieri claimed he lived a “nomadic lifestyle.”
The prospect that Balestrieri would give a deposition under oath, and say he was not the author, presented problems for Voris. Voris had said in his court pleadings he did not question Balestrieri’s sources, and trusted the canon lawyer to tell the truth in his reporting.
Already, though, Balestrieri had told at least one person he never wrote the articles at the center of the defamation case. Chief of the Slaves, Louis Villarubia, also known as Brother Andre, had disclosed in his deposition that Balestrieri was claiming he was not the author.
Photo of Louis Villarubia, aka Br. André Marie, at a recent town meeting in Richmond, NH; courtesy Damien Fisher
Villarubia testified that he was concerned when he learned in June of last year for the first time that his canon lawyer, Balestrieri, had written the articles. Villarubia questioned Balestrieri about the authorship and the conflict of interest.
“And I said this is a problem, that Michael Voris said you wrote the article and you’re our canon lawyer. And (Balestrieri) said ‘I didn’t write the article.’ He vehemently denied authorship of the article,” Villarubia said during his deposition. “I simply thought that that should be on the record. Obviously, Marc’s chosen not to defend himself, but I have this information, and I thought that this should be part of the record.”
Villarubia further speculated Voris wrote the article with Balestrieri.
After Villarubia’s deposition, Voris and his Church Militant teams scrambled to find evidence linking Balestrieri to the articles. This would result in Voris tripping up himself, and Church Militant co-host Christine Niles. In June and July, Church Militant produced emails and other evidence they say proves Balestrieri’s authorship.
This new evidence backing Voris’s version of events arrived three months after the discovery in the case closed. And a lot of the evidence Church Militant produced were documents they claimed could not be found when previously ordered to do so, according to court records.
Among this new cache of documents was the threatening text message Voris sent Balestrieri on the day of the June 15 hearing. In it, Voris makes it clear Balestrieri must take the credit for the article and not claim otherwise.
“Marc – you are committing perjury. You know you write that article. What you don’t know is this morning we found proof – your digital fingerprints – all totally documented – on that article. Remember the email address – TomMoore@Churchmilitant.com.? We have all the receipts. You go through with this and we will rain down on you publicly. You are a liar, and a Welch,” Voris wrote.
The “welch” insult raises questions in light of the $54,000 loan.
On July 11, Balestrieri called lawyers for de Laire and left a voice mail informing them he would not attend the deposition. He did not give any reason.
The other problem the new evidence presents is Christine Niles’ statement and work status. Along with the June evidence Church Militant found, Niles supplied the court with a signed statement on July 13 laying out the proof that Balestrieri wrote the article. She claims they were able to link him to the pseudonymous email account, tommoore@churchmillitant.com, as well as drafts of the original article using Google docs. Balestrieri had reportedly used the Tom Moore pen name for years when he wrote articles for Voris.
The excuse for why Niles and Church Militant did not hand over the information linking Balestrieri to the article as previously ordered is an oversight on her part.
“In all sincerity, I forgot that he did not email me the article, but shared it through his Google Drive under his alternate email tommoore@churchmilitant.com,” Niles wrote in her statement.
Niles’ statement is not great for Voris on another front. In it, she makes clear that she is not a practicing attorney, and does not work as an attorney for Church Militant. Niles is an investigative reporter, according to her statement. That’s new to de Laire’s attorneys who say they were given the impression Niles was in-house counsel for Church Militant.
“This comes as a surprise as St. Michael’s Media d/b/a Church Militant and Defendant Gary Michael Voris have repeatedly claimed privilege over conversations with Ms. Niles, including those that pre-dated litigation and did not include trial counsel,” Elovecky wrote in an affidavit.
(Voris’s real name is Gary.)
For the record, Niles is an attorney who is licensed to practice law in Indiana and listed as “Inactive in Good Standing,” according to court documents. Voris’ lawyers tried to refute the accusation they improperly hid Niles behind attorney-client privilege.
“Mr. Voris never refused to answer any question concerning his communications with Mrs. Niles, on the basis of attorney-client privilege, even though he could have,” Kathleen Klaus, Voris’s now former lawyer wrote.
According to the deposition transcript, it was Klaus who stopped Voris from answering a question about a conversation he had with Niles due to privilege.
By August, the new evidence was causing fallout and the trial was scheduled to start Sept. 6. Lawyers for de Laire were demanding Voris submit to a new deposition to answer under oath exactly who write the article, and that Niles also make herself available for a deposition.
Instead, Klaus and Voris’s other attorney, Neil Nicholson, quit the case. Their Aug. 10 motion to leave does not detail why they are no longer representing Voris, but gives clues.
“Recent events that have transpired in the litigation have created an unwaivable conflict between Counsel and their clients … Counsel believes this conflict bars them from taking any further action on behalf of their clients,” Klaus and Nicholson wrote to the court.
Klaus and Nicholson cite New Hampshire’s Rule of Professional Conduct for attorneys 1.7 (a). That rule, concerning conflicts of interest, states lawyers cannot represent clients when there is a concurrent conflict of interest. That’s defined as: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
Voris does have a New Hampshire lawyer engaged for representation, Richard Lehmann.
It’s been an otherwise rough year for Voris and his crew at Church Militant. This spring, the mini-media mogul was forced to lay off 19 staffers and put the nightly program, Church Militant Evening News, on hiatus.A former staffer claims the company enacted an “austerity” program to save money.
“Phones were removed from reporters’ desks, health benefits were canceled, essential equipment such as printers were not replaced. There was a freeze in hiring and travel,” former Church Militant employee Kristine Christlieb states.
The staff cuts saved Church Militant about $1 million in salary, according to Christlieb.
