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.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN NANCY LIEBER'S AB261 WOULD REMOVE SOL

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.

QUOTES FROM NANCY LIEBER, CALIF ASSEMBLYWOMAN FROM MOUNTAIN VIEW RE AB216 TO ELIMINATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR SEX CRIMES

FACT SHEET QUOTES:
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.