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

Monday, April 9, 2007

Church invades plaintiffs’ privacy, evades questions, ignores subpoenas, and keeps trying to have it both ways in Pedophile-Pederast Priest Rape Cases

Graphic words about plaintiffs' sex lives are now available online for anyone to read, thanks to defense exhibits filed by church attorneys in March. Showing flagrant disregard for privacy, church attorneys Hennigan Bennett & Dorman lifted graphic answers by plaintiffs and filed them as exhibits in a motion to strike against those very plaintiffs’ cases.

Attorneys for both sides meet in judge’s chambers twice this week, for status conferences on the civil cases as they “fast-track” to jury trials this summer.

Plaintiffs also request a Discovery Referee, and apparently one is badly needed. Here is what it’s like to try to get answers out of the church, from an attempt to depose Msgr. Arthur J. Lirette of Glendale CA a few months back:

TONY DEMARCO: Monsignor, in your experience in the archdiocese would it have been suspicious for improper sexual relations with a minor, among other things -- if a priest were to allow a minor to stay overnight with them in their living quarters in a rectory?

CHURCH ATTORNEY HABEL: I’m going to object.… calls for speculation lacks foundation incomplete hypothetical.

DEMARCO: You're instructing him not to answer?

HABEL: As posed I am.

QUESTION: Monsignor, again, in your experience with the diocese if a priest at one of your parishes had allowed a minor to be alone with them in their living quarters for an appreciable length of time would that also have been suspicious to you, among other things that they might be engaging in inappropriate relations--


CHURCH ATTORNEY BLANCARTE: Misstates prior testimony there’s no foundation for his having made a prior response to that effect

CHURCH ATTORNEY RIVERA: And same objection. Instruct not to answer.

CHURCH ATTORNEY BLANCARTE: your word “also” it presupposed that he had previously answered the question --

DEMARCO: Monsignor Lirette has spent over half a century in parish life, much of which was spent in a senior capacity as administrator of a parish. His testimony on what specific conduct of parish priests would have raised concerns of child molestation are appropriate and deal with the most central issues of these clergy sexual molestation cases.

A Motion to Compel Monsignor Lirette’s testimony is on calendar for May 16, Dept. 20 Superior Court, 8:30 AM.


While always claiming privacy rights for priests…

Here’s something alarming.

Personal, sexually specific testimony of plaintiffs in deposition is now online for anyone with a credit card to read thanks to church attorneys’ careless filing of 575 pages of exhibits in a motion for summary judgment filed March 26.

I open one document, looking through the exhibits, and all of a sudden I’m reading very private graphic words of a plaintiff thinking where’s the warning "contains graphic sexual matter"?

Without meaning to I'm reading about the sexual identity crises he had as an adolescent. In another defense exhibit a plaintiff describes not being able to perform as an adult, another shows he had sexual problems with his wife when they first got married, another describes how as a young adult he was afraid his penis would crack…

In some cases the plaintiff’s full name is also on these exhibits

filed by Hennigan Bennett & Dorman, attorneys for the Los Angeles archdiocese.

Remember this firm from the Orange County bankruptcy of the nineties, not the archdiocese, the government. They specialize in corporate bankruptcies and “The bedrock of HBD’s Complex Litigation group’s practice is our ability to try and to win large business and commercial cases,” reads their website.

Church attorneys excerpted select pages of plaintiff deposition testimony with just these explicit graphic descriptions in the plaintiffs’ words and filed them as public documents -- as exhibits to support the church’s motions to dismiss these very plaintiffs’ cases -- and as prurient reading material for any pervert looking for new kicks to find on the internet.

That's harassment of plaintiffs and blatant violation of privacy -- by attorneys defending the church --

These same attorneys try to claim the priests and their bosses have a right to privacy and don’t have to testify about criminal sexual predatory acts committed by priests.

Surprise surprise. . .



I go document diving for felonies again -- open any case file

Also in those 575 pages of exhibits filed by the church March 26 is a description of what one priest did over a period of two years to an altar boy, again in the plaintiff’s own words, you can read what the priest did to him.

It’s eerie how to me this sounds almost like a child in the confessional:

Q: Describe what you have termed as sexual abuse.
A: {Listed}
Sexual talk, cursing and gambling 3 to 6 times a month.
Wrestled and played “grab ass” (Often)
Fr. Warned me not to tell
He carried weapons.
He hugged me in sexual manner (Often)
Would bring me to his bed during molestation (6-8 times a month)
Fondled my buttocks and body over my clothes and skin to skin (6-8 times a month)
Touched my anus with and without penetrating (4 - 6 times a month)
Masturbated himself in my presence
Made me masturbate him over my clothes and skin to skin
Oral copulation
Simulated intercourse over clothes and skin to skin
Anal intercourse (6-8 times a month)

Now church attorneys at Hennigan will argue a Motion for Summary judgment June 6 in this case, not claiming the crimes didn't happen, but claiming statute of limitations problems.



April 18 Katherine Freberg faces Donald Steier in case BC307225 where the archdiocese is refusing to produce seminary files of the following priests:

Hagenbach and

This is the case where Helmut Hefner showed up for a deposition without the subpoenaed seminary files. ( See post dated March 28.)



Eight motions for summary judgment filed by Hennigan firm for the church on March 26 are on calendar for June 6, hearings. The church here claims statute of limitations weren’t met even under the new 340 civil code that created the window to file cases in the first place.

It’s amazing how often Hennigan and other church attorneys use Civil Code 340 as the priests’ defense when in appeals courts they also argue that 340 isn’t even constitutional.

Always trying to have it both ways.



Unless resolved earlier:

April 17 - eight (8) demurrers and motions to quash and dismiss.

April 18 - Seventeen (17) Motions to Strike (and dismiss)



Q: So if you had found out after the fact that the parish housekeeper knew that Father so and so was sexually molesting a child and she hadn’t said anything to you, you wouldn't be upset with her?

CHURCH ATTORNEY GODFREY: Misstates testimony

CHURCH ATTORNEY HABEL: Misstates his testimony. Again his specualtion Lacks foundation is an incomplete hypothetical, lacks foundation, it. You've gone far enough with the what ifs and with the scenarios…..

DE MARCO: I’m not trying to raise my voice, Jim, please ratchet down. I understand. We have differing positions. I just want to make sure we make our record.

More to come…

No comments: