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
Jury Trial (HAGENBACH CASES)

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.”
=================

MOTION GRANTED ON PART OF THE PLAINTIFF

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.”

HUH?

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."

JURY TRIAL COMING IN JULY

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.


QUOTES FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE AS FILED:

INTRODUCTION:

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
Source:
Los Angeles Times 2.07.04; LA Archdiocesab Report 2.17.04 page 2
Assignments:
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....