Jehovah’s Witnesses are suing a reporter for "wiretapping"—after inviting him on the call
Mark O’Donnell is being dragged to court over a leaked call that highlighted legal panic within the religious group
This newsletter is free, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can use the button below to subscribe to Substack or use my usual Patreon page!
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are suing one of their long-time critics for what they claim is illegal wiretapping and an invasion of their privacy. The details, however, suggest a far less nefarious plot and far greater attempt to silence one of the biggest thorns in their side.
In 2020, the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office (then led by Josh Shapiro) opened a grand jury investigation into JW congregations across the state. Much like Shapiro did with the Catholic Church, he wanted to prevent the sexual abuse of children and there was reason to believe JW leaders were committing crimes against kids and covering them up. Even more damning: They kept internal records about people accused of sexual abuse… but refused to share that list publicly even though it could have prevented future problems.
Mark O’Donnell was one of many former Jehovah’s Witnesses who spent his time trying to sound the alarm. He told journalists that he was interviewed by Pennsylvania investigators for the case, largely because he was one of the go-to guys for whistle-blowers within the organization.
In 2022, Shapiro announced criminal charges stemming from that investigation: Four men were charged with sexually abusing a total of 19 victims, even including their own children. (Many more charges would follow. At least 16 people have now been charged in these investigations.)
As you can imagine, that created all kinds of concerns for the JW congregations within Pennsylvania—not about the victims but about their legal liability. So in February of 2023, representatives from 11 JW congregations in Montgomery County arranged a conference call with two of their lawyers.
One of those representatives, it turns out, sent the login information to O’Donnell. (Why? We don’t know. Who? No one’s talking.)
So O’Donnell jumped at the opportunity to find out what was happening behind the scenes. He listened in on the call using his personal phone, then discussed what they had said during a YouTube livestream later on. (While that video has since been taken down, online comments suggest that, among other things, the lawyers discussed a “litigation hold” with the JW leaders, telling them to preserve their documents and not to destroy anything. They also discussed how settling these cases could work.)
Here’s the question: Did Mark O’Donnell break the law when he joined that call?
That’s what the Witnesses are now alleging. Their lawsuit, while heavily redacted, says his “invasion of… privacy” caused “reputational harm” to them… which is quite a claim given that this is all happening because Jehovah’s Witnesses may have committed sexual abuse and their leaders may have helped cover it up.
They also say it’s now difficult to chat with their attorneys over Zoom because Mark made them have to meet in person “to avoid additional interceptions.” Apparently it never crossed their mind that they could always verify who’s on the call before opening their mouths… or just not give login information to people they can’t trust.
This isn’t a real problem. This is an Old People Not Knowing How Computers Work problem. It’s easy to solve.
Nevertheless, they’re saying O’Donnell broke four laws, each of which requires a payout of over $700,000.
The arguments in the complaint—that O’Donnell violated wiretapping and privacy laws and the congregations are therefore entitled to $2.8 million plus legal fees—are absurd. It brings to mind how Republicans whined about how a journalist from the Atlantic snuck his way onto one of Pete Hegseth’s Signal chats… when that journalist was literally invited onto the call by a staffer. (Accidentally, perhaps, but it wasn’t the reporter’s fault, and he sure as hell didn’t hack his way in.)
That’s what O’Donnell argued in his response. He said he “did not violate any laws because he was invited to the meeting and because the plaintiffs waived any expectation of privacy they may have had with respect to the meeting.” Furthermore, they were aware of his presence shortly after the call ended, yet didn’t say anything indicating their concern. They didn’t demand he take down the YouTube video in which he talked about what he heard until nearly a year later. He also argued that much of what he said in the YouTube video was stuff he knew before the call occurred.
This week, O’Donnell finally issued a press release announcing a trial date has been set for October and reiterating that he hadn’t broken any laws. He also said the Witnesses wanted him to reveal his sources:
In the litigation, the JWs have demanded that I name every Jehovah’s Witness I have communicated with in the last five years regarding the faith of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Obviously, that would reveal my journalistic sources, and I will not do so.
As a reporter, protecting my sources is essential. Because of this, I have been forced to hire expert legal counsel for my defense, with costs expected to be more than $150,000.
The investigation and publishing of accurate information about child abuse within the Jehovah’s Witness Church is essential, and reflects similar reporting about other organizations and religious groups. Without this reporting, the cries of victims often go unanswered, and their stories buried beneath an illusion of justice.
My mission has always been to shed light on these crimes, force change, and do so without cost to the public. While I am limited in what I can say now, I am grateful that the public can see what has happened for themselves.
O’Donnell hasn’t asked people for donations. It seems like his goal right now is simply to make sure people are aware of the story. (I reached out to him for comment days ago, but he has not yet responded.) I would love to know why he’s putting this information out there now given that the case has been unsealed for several months and his legal response to the plaintiffs was made in December of last year.
Even without those answers, though, this is a case worth watching. A journalist was given access to a phone call by a participant and reported on what he heard. Now a wealthy religious group is trying to bankrupt him and scare him away from the work he does.
It’s appalling behavior from a group of people who were only on that phone call because they were trying to figure out how to deal with allegations involving the sexual abuse of children committed or covered up by their own leaders. Instead of looking in a mirror and confronting themselves, they’re going after the one person in this whole story who is doing everything in his power to protect survivors and prevent further abuse.
Sounds like a case of: "Play stupid games; win stupid prizes," and indeed, the first thing I thought of as I read the beginning of this piece was Mike Waltz's massive faux pas of inviting Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg in on what should have been a highly classified conversation in a SCIF. Obviously, JWs don't have SCIFs (at least not to my knowledge), but maybe they should have, or at least be a great deal more circumspect about who they're involving in their meetings about child abuse.
What their lawsuit amounts to, at least from where I sit is: "How dare you document how we shot ourselves in the foot?" Long story short, they want recompense for their boneheaded move.
And they damned well shouldn't get it.
It is possible that someone in the JWs is trying to do the right thing by making sure someone knows what is really going on. If so, great there may be a reckoning and we should protect the whistleblower.
But, more likely, since there was very little new information on that call and the JWs knew about the incident and the podcast after, this was an intentional slip designed to silence the reporter. They let him in, pretending to be unaware of his presence. Allowed him to hear information that isn’t surprising, or all that damning, making sure it’s cleared through lawyers and with lawyers (potentially to claim privacy through attorney client privilege, even if it doesn’t really pertain to reporters). Then later, once some harm is developed through the leak, file a lawsuit and demand a high dollar amount that the reporter himself cannot cover, bankrupt him or cause enough damage to keep him out of their affairs.
Or maybe they didn’t pay attention to who was on the call, or what the reporter was saying, until it was too late.
I might assume ignorance over malice, but it’s a difficult assumption to make considering who we are talking about.