Anglican Watch

Liam Goligher proves he’s unrepentant, sends laughable cease and desist letter

Liam Goligher, liar and adulterer

Any time a pastor who’s been caught in misconduct sends a cease and desist letter, you know they’re both stupid and unrepentant. And that is the case for Liam Goligher, who just sent us the cease and desist letter below.

For starters, the Anglican Watch terms of service specifically forbid using our email to send legal notices:

Anglican Watch terms of service
Anglican Watch terms of service

Thus, we will be filing a disciplinary complaint against Mr. Goligher’s attorney, Richard Coble, for computer trespass. And being the ill-tempered, vile sorts that we are, we may file criminal charges against him in the relevant jurisdiction. We’ve done it before, and we may do it again. The result was amusing and well worth our time, so best not to tempt us.

As for the letter itself, it’s laughable. Not only does it show that Goligher has no remorse whatsoever, but if he’s trying to scare the kiddies, it’s won’t work.

For starters, his attorney needs a good proofreader. “Solacious” means “affording comfort.”

Meaning of the word solacious
Meaning of the word solacious

For the record, Anglican Watch categorically denies writing anything intended to afford Goligher, Elzey, or Goligher’s minions solace.

Second, there’s nothing tortious about content that is speculative.

Third, truth is a near-absolute defense to claims of defamation. If Goligher wants to put into motion a debate involving his conduct with Susan Elzey, he’d better be prepared for the outcome. And we have lots of additional information on Goligher that is not favorable that would almost certainly come out in any lawsuit.

Fourth, in Pennsylvania, written statements that are defamatory are libel, not slander. Slander involves spoken statements, so the various quotes the attorney cites are by definition not slanderous.

Fifth, his reference to law enforcement is pure BS. While we are aware that Goligher likes to perjure himself with false claims about Phil Snyder threatening him, that’s not going to work here. Indeed, threatening criminal charges for publishing content sounds suspiciously like extortion. 

Sixth, any attorney foolish enough to sue Anglican Watch will discover we have set up our corporate entity to make a successful lawsuit impossible. We won’t go into the details, but someone can spend a whole lot of money suing us, only to discover they are spinning their wheels. Not to mention we will publish about the experience, every inch of the way. And guaranteed, if your reputation is bad now, it will be a whole lot worse when your lawsuit is over.

So, to Liam Goligher and Richard Coble, two words: Shove. Off.



  1. more of the same at tenth Presbyterian bring lawyers in cover up the abuse there. Laim and Wynne and sessions continue to cover up actions. Just because Liam is gone it does not mean that those left behind cover up their action’s families destroyed hiding what goes on there till this day.

  2. the whole leadership there is just as guilty as Wynne Laim and Leal. they covered for those men and the actions of them. we can just sit by and watch our family be destroyed by the actions of tenth leadership.

  3. I agree, the whole business sounds like the work of a hack attorney. However, as a Christian attorney who’s taught the law for two decades, I take exception to two things: 1). You said “near-absolute.” When is truth not an absolute defense to defamation? Definitionally, defamation must be an untrue statement. As long as what you’re saying is true and not something in which he’d have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then Goligher has no conceivable leg to stand on. If he and Elzey were getting a kick out of having sex in a public park and got caught, they have no intrusion on seclusion or public disclosure of private facts tort claims either, because what you do in a public park is neither secluded nor private.

    2). Careful with that corporate entity. One does not create an entity specifically for the purposes of avoiding litigation. I understand that a corporate entity can provide the shield from litigation for personal assets, but not from the corporate entity’s assets, which are always fair game. And if you do get cute and underfund the corporation (the only conceivable manner in which “we have set up our corporate entity to make a successful lawsuit impossible” makes any sense to my mind), that’s the classic situation where the courts allow the corporate veil to be pierced–thus putting your personal assets at danger. Unless there’s some massive loophole of which I have no knowledge–which would likely be closed up pretty fast once it gets challenged in court–you’re getting some bad advice on point two. Of course, though, the point is moot anyway because I can’t fathom any legal grounds for his claim, unless there’s something major about which I know nothing.

    1. Hi Mike, in addition to some federal court carve-outs to the notion of truth as an absolute defense to defamation claims, Virginia courts have held that a claim may be literally true but defamatory by implication:

      On the issue of corporate structure, inter alia, best not to go into all the details, but if worst comes to worst, as editor, I am judgment-proof. Happily retired, no assets, no income, and live comfortably. So even if a litigant climbed over several steep ramparts and secured a judgment, on a good day I might have some money in my pocket for lunch. That’s about it. And as a nonprofit, AW is all-volunteer, and holds zero assets except its intellectual property.

      Old age really is a wonderful thing. LOL

      Thanks for your contributions.

  4. A criminal record isn’t slander- it’s fact. And he pleaded guilty- and resigned his position at Tenth in disgrace. For sure someone knew what was going on with him and his lover. Can you really hide such a thing?? I am so weary of church leaders- men in the PCA because they are the only leaders allowed- rallying around the abusers. They get so self-righteous about the sin of their leaders. It’s a wonder I even attend church anymore.

  5. I hope he sues so we can get all the nasty little details – ie: who was on top? What type/color of underwear was discarded? What positions were noted by the arresting officer(s), etc.

    1. Who was on top? Smart money says it was Susan. Images of leather, whips, and stiletto-heeled boots come to mind, even as she spouts off about “by the Grace of God.”

      “Obey, Liam!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *