**********The City of Angels is Everywhere*********

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Cover-ups, Destruction of Documents, Concern for Pedophile Pederast Priests Over Children in Just One Clergy Case on San Diego Archdiocese

Dive in the files and find the felonies

"Out came Father John Daly totally naked, holding the doors wide open."

It had been one short wet ride after another for days. Now they’d been on this onramp for hours. More rain came and the two boys held out their thumbs as occasional cars and trucks drove past. The Arizona-Calexico region got 14 inches of rain after Hurricane Heather in August 1977, but two teenagers hitchhiking to the Haight Ashbury weren't thinking about the weather.

Finally headlights approach and stop. The boys don’t even look inside the car, just jump in. The driver tells them in an Irish brogue that he works at a Catholic Church where hitchhikers can clean up, even have a bed to sleep in.

Around two AM the two boys burst out church doors. They tumble into the town of Holtville. Mike vomits on the side of the road.

“Police, open up,” the officers stood with weapons drawn listening to loud thumps coming from inside the room at the back of the church. Then…

Out came Father John Daly totally naked, holding the right and left doors wide open with the light pouring down on him, all 250 pounds of his body billowing in the rain and early morning light for all to see.

The naked priest snarled as Mike identified him through the police car window.


Last summer the arresting officer testified in deposition for Mike’s case.

A: “I’ve looked at the report you've handed me and it’s incomplete.”

Q: When you say it’s incomplete, what do you mean?

DUTTON: Well the statements aren’t there, the evidence list isn’t there, the copies of the reports that I received from La Mesa and other places about him aren’t there.

Q: Are you talking about the NCIC?

A: No those are also not here. NCIC is not here CI&I is not here if I ran it, I’m sure I did, but also the police reports or whatever department reports from other law enforcement agencies are also not here in what they provided you. And we did receive those and those were made part of the investigative file.


Holtville is a small town today and in 1977 with no radio, TV, or news report, word got out that Father Daly had been arrested. Dutton testified that people from town started to call, with stories about Father Daly coming out of the rectory with a young boy, and his fly was open.

Mike and Mark stayed in a nearby motel sleeping for several days after John Daly’s arrest.

As they slept the Catholic protect-the-perpetrator machinery went into action.

This letter is in the exhibits from Mike Shoemaker’s case against the San Diego Archdiocese, a letter from the local church attorney to Bishop Maher in San Diego explaining how the local parish dispatched of the Father John Daly problem.


To Bishop Maher
San Diego
Diocesesan office for apostolic Ministry in Alcalala Park, San Diego

“Mr. Flourd, attorney, contacted me, Mark A. Medaer, voluntarily, to engage my assistance in a legal matter.
“On Friday Father John and myself were called to the office of Mr. Flourd. We were told that the District Attorney considered the case “a chargeable criminal complaint.” Mr. Flourd echoing hints from other sources, advised us that if Father John would leave his post he thought some authorities could “argue down” the case with any dissenting parties.

Father John and myself consulted. At 2:00 PM Father Daly decided to go to El Carmelo Retreat, awaiting instructions from the Bishop. (sloppy typing here) Mr. Flourd was advised of the move. He would contact the District Attorney. At 3:00 PM Father John left.

I contacted Father Richard Duncanson and Msgr William Cooney.

“NO COMPLAINT BEING FILED, (their caps) I did not think it necessary to contact the Chancery, knowing furthermore that our Bishop and Chancellor were absent.
John Daly went to El Carmelo Retreat House on August 17, three days after the incident, “upon the advice of Mr. Lewis Flourd, attorney at El Centro,

and myself

Mark Medaer episcopal vicar in the Imperial Valley.”


January 22 2007

Mike opens the package from his attorney, a copy of the church’s Motion for Summary Judgment granted last week on his case. Mike wasn’t as upset as he’d expected to have his case dismissed. It just meant a few more years of legal lunacy. Other cases had been appealed for disallowed testimony so it was just a matter filing an appeal.

It was the wording of the Motion for Summary Judgment itself, a collection of sentences in the first paragraph of the introduction by Brandy Stanton Cody of DiSante & Freudenberger in San Diego
that still to this day make Mike break out in a string on invectives:


“Nor was plaintiff a na├»ve, sexually inexperienced child when the events occurred," reads the first paragraph of the motion.

"A year before the alleged assault, when he was 15, Plaintiff began a long-term relationship with an adult male airline pilot in Arizona in which he exchanged sexual favors for flying time in the pilot’s plane,” writes Brandy Cody.


“It's never consensual sex with a 15 year old.”

-- A.D.A. Alexandra Cabot
-- Law & Order Special Victims


“I was set up like a bowling pin by this guy,” Mike said recently. “And Brom's lawyer places me on intellectual and chronological equal footing with him. I was just another adult, equal to his 30 years or so of college and government training....according to this attorney, I apologize, but this female lawyer is just plainly evil in my sight. I know of no other way to describe her.”


For Mike at age 15 waking up in a room behind a church altar to find a burly Irishman sucking him off was traumatic, doubly so when he found out the ephebophile was a priest.

Brandy Stanton Cody denigrated Michael with a low blow attack that makes it now open season on Brandy Stanton Cody, Associate, Carlton DiSante & Freudenberger LLP, 2001-present.

Church attorneys investigated Mike’s life and found that when he was 15 and hanging out at an airport, he’d been molested by a pilot.

At age 15 Mike was a preying pedophile’s dream target: boy living in trailer with mom and grandmother, some neglect, starved for father figure and support. For Brandy Stanton Cody to represent this earlier molest as a consensual relationship between Mike and an older man --

To make a troglodyte statement that a 15 year old is responsible for whatever sexual situations he finds himself in --

Brandy Stanton Cody, church attorney, has apparently sold her soul to the devil.

I’m sure the San Diego Archdiocese paid Brandy Stanton Cody dearly to smear Mike and twist history, even call Mike a 15 year old predator himself, anything to protect the church’s assets and slam down on the plaintiffs.


Then there’s the issue of Brandy’s face. If anyone has seen the movie Devil’s Advocate they know what I mean. Think of the scene where Charlize Theron is shopping and the woman from the devil’s law firm glances over and allows Theron a glimpse of her real face, her demon face.

Demons are able to change the way humans see their faces. The day I saw Brandy Stanton Cody argue this motion in court her face looked like Jane Krakowski. I made a note: if LA Clergy Cases is ever made into a movie cast Jane Krakowski as Brandy Stanton Cody.

Now I think I’d more likely cast Shelley Long, indeed now I don't even know if Brandy Cody Stanton is human. Because every time I’ve seen her since she’s looked like a completely different person.

Brandy Cody Stanton is a devil or one of the devil’s advocates herself. She can change her face just like the demons in the movie.

Church Attorneys Deserve Little Respect

As Brandy stood in front of the court, facing the judge, she was in a line of male lawyers, and I was staring at their backs:

Pants, pants, pants, pants, silky black sheen stockings covering calves and a skirt that barely touches the knees, pants, pants.

And the cut of her suit, from behind her, where I sat, I could not help staring at the way the tailored jacket touched right at the top of her hips. I couldn't stop looking at it, and I’m not even a little bit gay.

Don’t think for a minute that attorneys don’t plan their wardrobes for effect.



Call her, or better yet, call or write her boss.

For Brandy Stanton Cody, Associate, Carlton DiSante & Freudenberger LLP, 2001-present to dig up a previous molest and infer that a 15 year old boy was in a long-term consensual relationship with a man in his thirties, she no longer deserves the respect usually afforded to attorneys, even if they represent the opposition.

she works at:

Carlton DiSante & Freudenberger
4510 Executive Drive, Suite 300
San Diego CA 92121
858 – 646-0007

Call her. Or better yet, call her boss.



Soon after putting some clothes on Father Daly, Dutton ran an NCIC on the station telex. The National Crime Index machine using 1977 state of the art technology printed out an arrest record of Fr. John Daly, for sexual molestation, one in La Mesa a few years earlier and another from San Antonio, Texas.

Where did the NCIC report go from Father Daly’s arrest record?



Dutton says that when word got out in Holtville that he'd arrested Father John Daly, several community members contacted him.

“A couple of them said that they recall him coming out of the children’s playroom where children were in the playroom, with his zipper down," he testified in Mike's case.

Q: Okay anything else they recall?

A: They were suspicious of him. But these conversations occurred from community inquiries after the decision had been made not to file charges

Eerily similar words were used in the vicar’s letter to Bishop Maher in San Diego:

“NO COMPLAINT BEING FILED, (their caps) I did not think it necessary to contact the Chancery

Daly spent a month at the retreat house then took another assignment as a priest, and apparently never acted out again. Or at least he never got caught.


Mike talked recently about why he’d filed the civil case against the San Diego Archdiocese in the first place:

“In 2000 Boston was on TV every night. I did not think that I was affected by the abuse. I had never held a job longer than 18 months, had insomnia, was diagnosed bi polar, but anyway.....so these news stories reminded me of the past and I began to wonder what had happened to Daly. I was certain that he had gone to prison for what he did to me. I emailed the Holtville newspaper ( and only them ) asking what had happened to Daly. They never responded, but KFMB TV in San Diego did instead. The new producer told me that Daly had got off, pardon the pun. because the bishop interviened."

Mike hired an attorney and waited.

He described what happened when he and Mark ran out of the little room behind the church altar, where Daly had a pedophile's pantry of audio tapes of boys talking about sex (exhibits listed on what's left of the police report).

The room was not the rectory. Daly lived in a different building on the church lot. This room was a pedophile den directly behind the altar - a fold out bed, a room divider and another bed, a portable shower -- little else.

"Mark held a large coffee cup over Daly's head, ready to bury it in Daly's head per my profane instruction... while I got dressed...fast. Then I held the pipe I had found while Mark got dressed. During this time we made it very very clear to Daly that if he so much as twitched we do all in our power to stop/kill him."

It was only when he returned with Dutton that Mike realized there was another bed behind the divider. Daly had insisted he had to get in bed with the boys because it was the only bed, and the sleeping bags were drenched. He had to be naked as his clothes were wet too.



Did Callahan shred personnel files that were needed as evidence?

This is the case where Monsignor Steve Callahan of San Diego admitted in deposition that in the mid nineties he systematically destroyed personnel documents that dealt with crime or psychological problems such as alcoholism. He used a shredding machine in the basement of University of San Diego’s student pastoral center.

But Callahan did not become Chancellor of San Diego until 2002. The Chancellor is the person who maintains personnel records, so this destruction of files may have been after 2002, or even after 2003, after the one year window for civil action opened in California.

There’s a good chance the Chancellor was destroying files in 2003 after knowing those files would be needed for evidence in upcoming lawsuits.


One way to find out when Monsignor Steve Callahan shredded personnel files would be to get him to testify again.

This much did come up in Callahan's deposition in Mike’s case.

Q: So did you keep a summary of the documents?


Q: And did you have Bishop Brom’s full permission to do this?


CHURCH ATTORNEY: Objection, asked and answered.

Too late. A fact about a bishop slipped through.

Callahan also mentioned destroying Servants of the Paraclete files with his shredder. Servants of the Paraclete is a spa in New Mexico that in the sixties and seventies was a “recovery center” for priests with sexual problems.

MONSIGNOR STEVEN CALLAHAN needs to talk at more depositions.


If only the church hierarchy had done the right thing as soon as they knew instead of avoiding prosecution and scandal.

They didn't even avoid prosecution and scandal, just put it off a few generations and created thousands of damaged people reeling through life

People like me, with diagnoses like mine: Prolonged PTSD with continued re-victimization (from age 5 to age 45), and now in my late fifties, just PTSD probably for the rest of my life…

My story is at cityofangels1.blogspot.com

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

As Jury Trials Approach, Plaintiffs Compel Depositions and Documents, Church Fights for Pedophile Pederast Priest and Cardinals' Rights


Jury trials begin this summer in the L.A. Clergy Cases so I spent some time in Room 106 of Superior Court today to see what type of documents have been filed in the last few weeks.

There have been settlements. About 30 documents down from the top, “Motions of Good Faith Determinations” on the part of the Congregation of the Mission also known as “the Vincentians” and 10 plaintiffs. There are still other defendants in these cases, the RCC Archbishop "DOE 1" and St. John’s Seminary "DOE 2" but at least the Vincentians have dropped out of the lawsuit insanity.


Over and over again the LA Archdiocese refuses to turn over documents and exhibits while at the same time filing motions to strike and quash cases because the plaintiffs don’t have documents and exhibits.

Your eyes start to blur as you open one document after another.

It’s hard to tell which cases connect with which priests. For example on July 9 the jury trial is for “Hagenbach Cases”

But one Hagenbach case alone names 28 priests who were apparently part of an inner circle of pedophiles in Southern California.

Many of these inner circle pedophile pederast priests came from Our lady of the Angels Junior Seminary. As teachers and education professionals they recruited young boys like a NAMBLA network on a mission from god. Those select young boys went through the seminary and went on to become priests -- priests with a peculiar predilection for young boys themselves, and the abuse became generational.

Young priests graduated from seminaries run by pedo-rapist priests, then spread throughout Southern California. After finishing at Our Lady of the Angels, or St. Johns Seminary in Camarillo, which is named in another suit with another BC number,

These priests specially trained and developed as young boys recruited into the seminary now went out into Southern California parishes throughout reaching as far north as Santa Rosa.

These junior seminarians turned semen specialist priests moved in to the communities of Southern California and become pastors.


Where they preyed on little boys and girls -- diddling moms sometimes to get to the children -- supported by the L.A. Archdiocese hierarchy for decades


The Catholic Church created an epidemic of child molestation in Southern California Catholic churches, and this summer will only be the tip of the iceberg as the stories come out in jury trials.

In one Hagenbach case alone these priests associated with Queen of Angels Junior Seminary are named:

G. Patrick Ziemann

Taught at Our Lady Queen of Angels Junior Seminary then went on to become Bishop of Santa Rosa. He had to resign that post after it came out that he blackmailed a younger priest into having sex with him.

Gerald Fessard

Was Associate Superintendent of Elementary Schools in the Los Angeles Archdiocese in 1981 after being run out of Santa Clara parish in Oxnard for sexually graphic talk with students. In February 1987 Fessard became Dean of Studies at Queen of Angels Junior Seminary and within months he was brought up on charges for molesting no less than 8 seminarians in their beds.

John Farris

A most prolific child molester / faculty member of Our Lady Queen of Angels Junior Seminary, Farris was also one of the most popular teachers. He specialized in combining “spiritual advisement” with sex molestation.


I continued reading documents that were recently filed in the Clergy Cases:

Defendant Blessed Sacrament:

Baker and Baker attorneys for the church again
One after the other Baker & Baker represent the church and deny all allegations.

“Defendant denies that plaintiff has been injured

Defendant Doe 10, 14, and 27’s answer to Plaintiff's motion. Doe 10 is St. Paul the Apostle, Blessed Sacrament is Doe 14, Doe 27 is St. Lawrence of Brin

Again the church “Denies that plaintiffs have been injured or damaged by any act on the part of defendants/

“Deny injury

“Cause of action or prayers for relief fail as a matter of law.”


I’m up to PAGE 3 on the screens of documents filed in LA Clergy Cases, about 30 documents per page.


Defendant Doe 3’s answer to Plaintiff

Again Baker & Baker attorneys for the church
This one has 1000 or so defendants and 13 plaintiffs

On the part of Doe 3 St. Francis of Rome School/ Parish defendant answers and denies every allegation… denies plaintiff has been injured by any action on its part

And so on.
Bc308395, bc307934, bc308665, bc308608, bc3086507.


Over and over again Doe Defendants respond to plaintiffs and deny all allegations.

Plaintiffs are filing motions to compel deposition and vice versa and a lot of the recent activity in the Clergy Cases has been in cases that still have no trial dates scheduled.



St. Johns Seminary has until April 17 to get Monsignor Helmut Hefner to produce documents. The monsignor showed up at a recent deposition without documents he’d been court ordered to produce. Katherine Freberg will be arguing at that hearing to get the judge to nudge St. Johns --

In this case, BC307225, Donald Steier, a criminal attorney who specializes in pedophile pederast priest rapists defense in Los Angeles waited until four days prior to deposition to write a letter to the plaintiffs saying Monsignor Helmut Hefner could not bring seminary files from :

and Dawson

-- with him to the depositions.

“This court has already ordered the production of files on the entire seminary file as part of written discovery,” writes a plaintiff’s attorney.



Throughout the cases Cardinal Roger Mahony tries to have it both ways.

He claims these rapist priests have nothing to do with the Archdiocese while at the same time claiming he can’t release files and documents because these priests are part of the archdiocese --

He’s been having it both ways for so long he doesn't even see the contradiction here and uses this argument over and over again, fighting plaintiffs.

Another Repeated Contradiction in the Church’s Arguments:

There is no evidence

But when plaintiffs file motions to compel documents and motions to produce witnesses for deposition

Church attorneys refuse to produce witnesses or documents

It's like a little poem

They don't have any evidence
'cause we won't let 'em have any evidence
n'yah, n'yah, n'yah


The church actually got away with a motion for summary judgment in Mike Shoemaker’s case in January using that no evidence because we won't give you any evidence argument. Watch this weekend for a special blog post on Mike’s Story -- Or The Naked Priest.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Pedophile-Pederast Priest Attorney Can't Force Himself on Plaintiff Depositions in Civil Case Preparing for July 9 Jury Trial

AND NOW HE'S HEADING FOR OREGON AND SACRAMENTO to barge in on more depositions?

03/20/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012O
Motion for Protective Order ((PAPERS FILED ON 3/02)RE: BC307934)

BC307934 #6 on the sheet of paper taped outside the door of Judge Fromholz’ court this morning.

Each week the calendar grows shorter as attorneys usually work these motions out before the hearings but every once in a while something comes up that attorneys can’t resolve out of court.

BC307934 is part of the jury trial scheduled for July 9, 2007:
07/09/2007 at 09:30 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

Sitting to my right on the bench outside the courtroom this morning was a boisterous man, calling out to another attorney on a bench a good hundred feet away. “Yeah, I’ll be off to Oregon from here and then on to Sacramento. Big stuff happening in Sacramento.” the other attorney demurred an encouraging answer and Boisterous on my right went on to say, “Yup, and I was supposed to be retired.”

Nice enough guy, I thought and asked, “are you here for the clergy cases?” He said yes. I asked, ‘Which side?”

Boisterous broiled out, “Why the only side there is, of course.” Big voice, big presence, this man reminds me of retired military officers living in Texas, “the only state there is of course,” and he’s representing “the only side there is of course,” I guess he thinks he’s on God’s side by defending the archdiocese in these cases?

Taken aback, I asked, why are you going to Oregon and Sacramento then, and Boisterous boasted out, “To do a deposition, you hear that? A deposition. I’m going to Oregon to do a deposition and then to Sacramento to do a deposition.” He was definitely talking for the benefit of attorneys on the other side of the hall.

Turns out the motion for protective order filed and come to a hearing this morning was about just that, Mr. Manning showing up at depositions.

Here are quotes from the motion:

“On the day set for plaintiff’s deposition attorney Michael Manning with Guzin & Steier appeared,

“Manning appeared, stating that he represented non-party Beckett and intended to sit in on the Plaintiff’s deposition.

"In deposition plaintiff’s most private information will be exposed….his sexual history and about how being sexually abused by pedophile priests has affected his relationship with his wife…

“Plaintiff’s counsel informed Mr. Manning that the deposition would not proceed unless he left. Mr. Manning in turn, informed Plaintiff’s counsel that he did not intend to leave.

“No acceptable resolution could be reached.”


iSo this morning in court Manning there for "the only side there is," pederast priest Brother Beckett alias Monsignor Loomis was arguing that his client would probably be mentioned in the deposition so he needed to be there. …

However, in the deposition transcript which I read after the hearing Manning says, quote:

MANNING: …It seems to me it would be hard to forecast what would come up in these proceedings…the allegations made against us are very germane. That's why we're here for this deposition."

Then he justifies his presence there because “any time your client is going to mention anybody as an alleged perpetrator, that you would have to expect that that person who is an alleged perpetrator would have an interest and may very well want to come here to hear what has been said.”


That was my reaction reading documents in Room 106 later and apparently it was Judge Fromholz’ reaction as well as this morning’s motion was granted and Manning is not going to be allowed to sit in on the plaintiff’s very private testimony as an attorney for defendant Beckett alias Loomis.

So is he headed now to Oregon and Sacramento to burst in unannounced at more private plaintiff’s depositions?

Representing “the only side there is,” sounding like he’s representing God himself, Manning’s client in this proceeding is:

Richard Loomis

is mentioned in the original complaint for Case BC307934 as #13, under Administration, Discipline and Personnel.

“Richard Loomis – vicar for clergy in the late 1990s through 2002. Before he became a priest he taught at Pater Noster High school and was known as Brother Beckett. While teaching at Pater Noster he routinely molested children. In his capacity as Vicar for Clergy Loomis had a direct hand in receiving complaints regarding priests and administrative actions from those complaints."


When Case BC307934 comes to trial in July a jury will begin hearing about criminal behavior at the hierarchy level as this case delves into events at Queen of Angels Junior Seminary.

BC307934 alleges that priests running the seminary were pederasts who recruited young boys into the seminary and into sexual shenanigans at the same time. The result was an entire generation of pedophile-pederasts priests who were then turned out into the California countryside.



FROM1955 through 2002 at least 28 high ranking priests within the defendant doe archdiocese inner circle have been accused or convicted of sexually molesting children. These priests occupied the highest positions in education and administration within the archdiocese. While sexually molesting an untold number of children well placed priests including … Bishops Juan Arzube and G. Patrick Ziemann (who) used their prominence in the archdiocese administration to cover up for other prietss who sexually molested children and to funnel these priests into positions of prominence. Priests involved in education such as Leland Boyer and Gerald Fessard utilized their positions of authority to gain access to victims and then to funnel the children they molested into seminaries and the priesthood.

“These 28 prests and likely many others occupied positions as auxiliary bishops, vicar for clergy, etc. Elevation of child molesters to these positions helps explain why so many child molesting priests were protected by the defendant doe archdiocese.”

Quotes from the deposition February 22, 2007, where Michael Manning, attorney for a pedophile priest, burst in and tried to force himself on a plaintiff’s deposition.

Q: State your name?
A: My name is Gary…

EYERLY: Hold on, Gary. I’m going to object. There is a nonparty individual in the room, Michael Manning, who’s representing Loomis who is a third-party perpetrator.

MANNING: on behalf of the nonparty Richard Loomis, we believe we have an interest because we are an alleged perpetrator: therefore we're not a mere entrant without any entrance. … And it’s our contention that if the deposition were not to go forward because of our presence then a motion needed to be made before this deposition took place…

Hence this morning’s motion granting the plaintiff’s right to keep Manning from sitting in on his deposition.

I walked out of court wondering, who the heck is Brother Beckett alias Richard Loomis?

The man who Manning represents as “it’s the only side there is.”

from Bishop Accountability:

Loomis Richard A.
Sued Diocesan
Sued 2003.
Accused of abuse of 1 from 1968-1971. Another incident in 1974 becomes known in 2004. Placed on leave 2004. Loomis served as canonical investigator for allegations of abuse beginning 2001.
Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles Times 2.07.04; LA Archdiocesab Report 2.17.04 page 2
LA Archdiocesan Report Addendum 11.15.05; LA Times Database 4.20.06

Sorry City of Angels Lady is not yet computer savvy enough to import his picture....

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Bankrupties Allow Catholic Church to Hide Criminal Activity re Pedophile-Pederast Priests and its Aiding and Abetting

Evidence of criminal aiding and abbeting in the handling of prolific pederast priest Edward Anthony Rodrigue could be buried by the bankruptcy of the San Diego archdiocese.

The Hearing on the calendar 3.13.07 would have been Motion to Compel Deposition forcing "the Catholic Bishop of San Diego to produce the persons most qualified at depositions” and “said person be required to submit to deposition matters specified in plaintiff’s deposition notice.”

Instead last week's bankruptcy put an automatic stay on all civil case hearings.

Bankruptcy lets the archdiocese ignore orders from civil courts to produce documents and witnesses. Those witnesses, many of whom are eager to testify, would expose criminal activity in the rectories and resorts of the church nationwide, evidence that could lead to RICO, organized crime, national hearings and investigations of the church.

So on March 13 no one showed up in civil court for the hearing in case GIC823004, a case filed by victims of Rodrigue that was set for trial June 1, 2007. Tuesday's hearing would have been one of many hearings where church attorneys would throw out more contradictory arguments. Churh attorney pleadings were starting to be more and more fatuous.

When the church cooperated enough to respond it was claiming attorney client privilege regarding its refusal to produce witnesses – and plaintiffs were pointing out that these were witnesses not clients.

I wonder if what the church is saying is anyone they produce as a witness is going to end up being the criminal attorneys’ clients.

The church was arguing “work product” privilege regarding sex charges against its priests and now that would have been an interesting hearing to attend.


Lawyers for Plaintiffs in case GIC832004 requested witnesses and documents several times in November and December. They pleaded to the court saying the defendant the church is trying to “assert a blanket privilege over the entire investigation of plaintiff’s claim”

“Despite two meet and confer letters defendant failed to offer any reason for its failure to appear nor a position on any of the compromises offered by plaintiff on January 10 2007” wrote Michael Kinslow of Zalkin & Zimmer, plaintiffs’ attorneys in San Diego.

I guess by January San Diego church attorneys already knew the bankruptcy would make all these pesky civil cases just go away.


Some background on GIC823004,

There is already evidence of the church negligence in how it handled reports that Father Rodrigue was fondling little boys. In at least two documented incidents persons tried to call Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish in El Centro to report Rodrigue’s preying.

In one case a female who answered the phone told the caller, “You should not speak that way about a priest” and hung up. The next week the head altar boy tried to report his own molestation and the man then answering the archdiocese phone demanded the caller’s name and then hung up when the Caller asked to be anonymous.


Deoisutuib testimony in this case shines a light on life in the rectories around San Diego.

On one occasion a visiting priest knocked on Rodrigue’s door unexpectedly. Rodrigue scurried the little boy in his bed into the bathroom and answered the door only to find the visiting priest needed to use the bathroom. The visiting priest went inside and found the naked little boy hiding in Rodrigue’s bathtub.

The priest has admitted this about Rodrigue in sworn deposition testimony. In fact there is one anecdote after another. In one case, the plaintiff testifies that he himself went to Father Gill and told him Father Rodrigue was touching him wrong. Father Gill's eyes glazed, he did not respond, and instead "walked on up the hall."

There is a 642 page document filed by the church attorneys "lodgement of exhibits" on one of the 300 plus screens of documents in the Clergy Cases II JCCP4297 in Los Angeles Superior Court Room 106, or available at the court’s web site to view with a credit card. There is also a sworn deposition where the admitted pedophile is trying to talk about his activities and his own attorneys keep trying to stop him.


Here is his criminal resume:

Sentenced to probation in 1979 for abuse of 1 youth. Sentenced in 1998 to 10 yrs prison for abuse of youth in 1997. Released from prison Jan. 2006. 1st suit set for trial 6/07. Judge has ruled that Diocese of San Diego may be assessed punitive damages if found liable.
-- bishop accountability dot org

Thursday, March 8, 2007

Catholic Church Attorneys Try to Use New SOL Law In Defense of Pedophile Priest Michael Baker


Baker's Criminal Case to Slide Into Graphic Definitions of Child Molest Acts as the Pervert Priest Looks On From His Cage

Yesterday all the hearings in the clergy cases went off calendar but down the street in criminal court Michael Baker was up to more dirty tricks.

When pedophile priest Steven Michael Baker was arrested as he returned from a Thailand vacation in 2005, his prosecution was possible because of new law passed in the California Legislature opening a window in the statute of limitations on child molest cases. Now Baker and his LA Catholic Archdiocese attorneys are claiming the new wording of penal code 803 (f) along with other irregularities in the penal code on different acts of child rape are grounds for charges against the pedophile priest to be dismissed.

Defense attorneys for Baker are trying to take advantage of that very confusion in child molest law to get their client set free. The recent demurrer Donald Steier filed on behalf of Michael Baker will now cause the Baker trial to get bogged down in arguments where grown men in suits pick apart the difference between oral copulation and vaginal sex, if it’s sodomy is it statutory rape or sexual assault if the child is 14 to 16 years old, and since a pedophile who preys on little boys can’t possibly penetrate a vagina, the entire law is unconstitutional as it doesn't treat gays equally.

That is how bizarre the criminal trial of Michael Baker is going to be on March 13th at 1 PM (coincidentally there are several hearings for civil cases against the L.A. Archdiocese a block away in Superior Court March 16 at 8:30 AM, and anyone who comes on either side, we can all go to lunch in between.)

UPDATE: Baker's hearing where this motion will be argued is March 16, Friday at 1:30 PM.

‘It discriminates against me because I’m a homosexual. ‘ -- Baker

In California if the crime of child molestation is sodomy the sentence and post-time registration are different than if the crime is vaginal penetration. Therefore the law discriminates against homosexuals, according to ex-priest Michael Baker and his Cardinal Mahony appointed attorney Donald Steier, (postulating by the way that homosexuals are the same as men who rape little boys).

Baker was probably looking forward to these arguments that will have to take place in open court describing sodomy and vaginal penetration when he grinned like the demon he is from behind the prisoners’ barricades in L.A. Criminal Court yesterday. Thanks to this legal challenge of the constitutionality of the California penal code law, PC803 (f) specifically, as it was amended in 2005, a California prosecutor and Baker’s attorney will be going over details of these crimes, specifically as they apply to different age groups of minors while the priest beams from behind his barricades, enjoying another manipulation of California’s screwed up criminal codes.


Coincidentally, what Michael Baker is trying to do in criminal court right now would no longer be possible if a bill in the state legislature this year AB 261 passes and becomes law. AB261 would remove the statute of limitations entirely in cases involving sex assault, thus removing the current confusion in prosecution and sentencing due to complicated wording in current law.

The very words that Baker is challenging as unconstitutional would be removed from law under Assemblywoman Nancy Lieber's AB261, bringing unity and clarity to sex molestation sentences and follow-up registration laws when the pervert is released and turned back out into the population.

Remember it is the statute PC 803 (f) signed into law in 2005 that allowed the pedophile priest to be prosecuted in the first place.

Thanks to an accidental paperwork snafu on the part of the court itself the hearing on Baker’s demurrer was postponed Wednesday and will continue March 13th at 1 PM.

That afternoon prosecutor Michael Beart will be reduced to arguing this demurrer filed by Baker's attorney Donald Steier. The pedophile priest and his attorney claim the following language of California Penal Code 803 (f) language is unconstitutional:

(f) (1) Notwithstanding any other limitation of time described in
this chapter, a criminal complaint may be filed within one year of
the date of a report to a California law enforcement agency by a
person of any age alleging that he or she, while under the age of 18
years, was the victim of a crime described in Section 261, 286, 288,
288a, 288.5, or 289, or Section 289.5, as enacted by Chapter 293 of
the Statutes of 1991 relating to penetration by an unknown object.
(2) This subdivision applies only if all of the following occur:
(A) The limitation period specified in Section 800, 801, or 801.1,
whichever is later, has expired.
(B) The crime involved substantial sexual conduct, as described in
subdivision (b) of Section 1203.066, excluding masturbation that is
not mutual.
(C) There is independent evidence that corroborates the victim's
allegation. If the victim was 21 years of age or older at the time of
the report, the independent evidence shall clearly and convincingly
corroborate the victim's allegation.

That language only became part of PC 803 in 2005 and coincidentally Assemblywoman Nancy Lieber from Mountain View introduced AB261 last month which would remove that very language. When AB261 passes there will no longer be a statute of limitations in sex molestation crimes.

Filed February 7, 2007, AB261 has to be published 30 days before a committee hearing so in mid-March the bill should come before the Public Safety Committee in the California legislature.


Perpetrators should not be able to benefit from a time limit, and victims should not be penalized for a reporting delay rooted in the trauma of the crime itself.

The many exceptions and different limitations on each sex crime create the potential for confusion or inconsistent application of the law—to the detriment of the victims.

A District attorney would need very compelling evidence for a case filed many years after the crime in order to prove guilt. The emotional suffering of victim does not end when the statute of limitations expires

QUOTES FROM WORDING OF THE BILL AB 261 about to be debated in Public Safety Committee, then Appropriations Committee, in California Legislature

This bill would add specified sex offenses, including rape,
sodomy, lewd or lascivious acts, oral copulation, continuous sexual
abuse of a child, forcible acts of sexual penetration, and flight of
a sex offender to avoid prosecution, to the list of crimes for which
there is no statute of limitation for prosecution.