We now have more details about the serious allegations of abuse against a catholic
cult, that Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett happens to be part of.
Now, the founder of the people of praise was described as
exerting almost total control over one of the group's female
members in a sworn affidavit in the 1990's.
The guardian has now reported on the details of that affidavit and
I wanna share them with you.
Now, the court documents also described alleged instances of sexualized
atmosphere of a sexualized atmosphere in the home of the founder of this group,
Kevin Ranaghan and his wife, Dorothy Ranaghan.
Cynthia Carnick stated in these documents that she had witnessed,
Dorothy Ranaghan tie the arms and
legs of two of the Ranaghan's daughters who were three and five at the time.
The incidents were allegedly witnessed to their crib with a necktie.
She also said that the Ranaghan's allegedly practiced sexual displays
in front of their children and other adults such as Dorothy Ranaghan lying
with her clothes on and rocking on top of Kevin Ranaghan in their TV room.
Now, again, this was all part of a 1993 court proceeding in which
Cynthia Carnick had stated that, she didn't want her children to have
visitation with her ex-husband because he was part of this religious cult and
she was concerned about their safety.
Now, Carnack also described inappropriate instances or
incidents involving the couple and the Ranaghan children.
The matter was actually eventually settled out of court between the two parties.
But there have been others who have corroborated similar accounts or
those accounts and have detailed similar accounts.
So, in an affidavit that supported Cynthia Carnick written statement
collect Humphrey said that she had lived with Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan
from 1973 to 1978, when she was a member of the people of praise.
And confirmed that she had witnessed incidents of inappropriate sexual
expression.
She said this, when I was part of the people of praise.
I was in full life submission to Kevin Ranaghan under full obedience to him and
he expected his authority over he, I'm sorry,
exercised his authority over most areas of my life.
For example, we were in common financially,
which meant that I had to hand over my paycheck to Kevin Ranaghan and
he would decide on how that paycheck would be used.
Kevin Ranaghan controlled my dating relationships, deciding who and
when I should date.
Now, there was a third woman as well named Susan Reynolds who
also shared abusive accounts herself.
But the reason why we're giving you these details,
is because understand that again, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, is very
much part of this catholic cult known as, >> People of praise.
>> People of praise and she actually worked,
she lived with the Ranaghan's while she was in college for about two years guys.
>> There's tons of disturbing allegations.
I wanna give you more of them and I wanna give you their defense as well, of course.
So, let me go to graphic six.
Members of the people of praise have entered a covenant commitment,
they say to live together.
And are expected to share portions of their income and regularly at ten hours
long private prayer meetings, which can include exorcisms and speaking in tongues.
Now, wait, did Barrett ever do that?
Well, let's go to graphic five.
Barrett, 50 lived with Dorothy and kevin Ranaghan in her in their
nine bedroom South Bend Indiana home while she attended law school.
And according to public records.
The justice who was then known as Amy Coney graduated from Notre dame
in law school in 1997 years later married her husband, Jesse Barrett,
who also appears to have lived in the Ranagan household.
So, she believes in these covenants and
that at that point the kevin Ranaghan makes all of her decisions for
her later, her husband makes all the decisions for her.
So she consulting him for the Supreme Court decisions.
I mean, look, it's gone, she's on the court.
This isn't about like, this is a political hatchet job or anything like that.
So this is just a conversation about what are we doing?
>> Yeah, what are we doing.
>> Like, so, nobody was allowed to ask about our religion.
But why not?
It's definitely a cult.
Here let me give you more disturbing elements.
So you begin to get a sense of it.
Let's go to graphic eight in June 2021, four victims of alleged sexual or
physical abuse and the people of praise published an open letter in
the South Bend tribune calling for reforms within the faith group.
The suggested reforms included public acknowledgment that there had been quote
a systemic failure to protect the people who have praised children from abuse,
publicly naming of all individuals who have been quote,
credibly accused of abuse.
Or concealing abuse within people of praise or at schools.
And placing an equal number of women in their highest leadership
positions in the group and giving them an equal vote in all the groups decisions.
So there's two different elements here.
One is the abuse and the other is the rules overall,
women cannot be part of leadership.
So Amy Coney Barrett is part of a group that says a woman is just not capable of
leading.
Yet she's on the Supreme Court.
>> Yeah, what's wrong with that.
>> And no one even asked her about that.
The group of course is very against gay rights.
And then there's the issue of abuse,
including the allegations that he the Ranaghan showered
with his kids who were like ten and 11 years old, okay?
So that's super, weird let alone that there's a number of people saying
definitely child abuse going on here, that's their allegations.
So, we're not allowed to ask about that.
And so no one did.
No one Dianne Feinstein when Coney Barrett was up for a lower position
in the federal judiciary once asked about her religion very, very generally.
And what did the Republicans do?
>> They lost it.
>> They're like, how dare you, this is persecution.
She didn't even get into any of the details and go.
Wait a minute, is your husband making the decisions or are you making the decisions?
Cuz it's not my cult,
it's your cult that says the husband should make all the decisions.
>> And we know what the treatment would be, if the nominee happened to
believe in a different type of religion, maybe Muslim religion.
>> 100%.
>> If the nominee wasn't a pro-corporate contender for the either
the Federal Courts or the Supreme Court, we know what the treatment would be.
Wouldn't matter how egregious the question would be in regard to that
individual's faith, right?
>> Yeah, no, we have a right to know.
So she's obviously has massively anti gay views that's gonna affect her decisions
and in a sense, by stripping away the right to privacy in reversing role,
which she signed onto apparently.
>> Yep. >> She has begun to do that.
She obviously has no respect for women's rights.
She's wanting to give away all of her rights to a Rando that she lived with
in Notre dame weirdo cult leader who's accused of abusing children.
So, she has a women's rights.
She doesn't even necessarily think women have rights.
That's unbelievable.
She's on the Supreme Court.
And not a single Democrat had the courage to ask her, hey,
what's going on with your cult?
What are your actual beliefs?
>> Well, the Democrats are worried that Republicans might yell at them.
>> Yeah, my God.
And then, my God.
>> I can't have that.
>> Well, we're more religious in the right way.
We're more fundamentalist than the right way.
We promised you losers.
You that you're you think you're getting the southern Baptist vote ain't getting
you think you're getting the evangelical vote.
You're not getting it.
So just God damn it.
Do your job.
This is also the people at the top are not any better than you.
There's a bunch of wackos up there, the ship has sailed.
There's nothing we could do about it.
It's important for you to be informed now that we have all the information.