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

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

When to start statute of limitations when victim represses memory of crime for decades and other topics at pre-trial hearings re LA Archdiocese

. . . .
As Clergy Case hearings began this morning Judge Fromholz knocked back motions to strike by the church and at one point tempers got short. Tony DiMarco stepped up to say, “Your honor, we provided those certificates and we aren’t getting served when motions are filed.”

Lee Potts jumped in: “We did what's required.” Di Marco returned: “It wasn’t faxed, emailed, mailed, personally delivered.” Judge Fromholz literally threw his hands up in the air saying, “This is an argument for another day.”

He was about to grant a motion to strike and dismiss in another case when plaintiff attorney Tim Hale stepped up, “Your Honor, this is a case of clear repressed memory. Hightower is so off point in this case.” And the judge said, “Okay, we'll take it under submission.”

The hearings over, DiMarco bristled, and stayed in his seat. He was waiting for Donald Woods church attorney to show up. DiMarco had a deposition with Monsignor R the next day in Santa Barbara only now Woods is arguing he has to file a privacy claim on behalf of Monsignor R first.

So DiMarco sits in court with a stack “this thick” of printed emails and other proof that the church is not cooperating. And church attorney Woods does not show up. DiMarco says, “I’m going to have an ex parte with the judge.”

Three other church attorneys hover over DiMarco making excuses for Woods, “He’s at a doctor’s appointment,” “He’s going to file privacy papers anyway.” DiMarco mutters he’s been trying to get this deposition for months. Finally Lee Potts says, “I can argue anything,” they confer in chambers, and DiMarco takes off with a signed order to depose the Monsignor in Santa Barbara Wednesday.



And bringing up repressed memories

Down in room 106 I look up the Santa Barbara repressed memory case. Hale wrote:

"The Perpetrator's death in April 2002 ultimately ended Plaintiff’s repression of the memories.

"He began trying to recall his good memories of spending time with the Perpetrator. Much to Plaintiff’s shock and dismay, his efforts began to bring back memories of the Perp’s abuse. Ultimately plaintiff was unable to work.

“At one point the Plaintiff found himself having driven to the mountains above Santa Barbara screaming the perpetrator’s name and asking why and how this man he completely trusted could have done this to him.”

(I know what that's like. Therapists told me for years, your brain won’t give you more than you can handle. Repressed memories come in when you are ready for them.

(A jarring event can bring up memories. In 1997 after an encounter with the woman I know murdered my father but the sheriff couldn't prove it, I was sitting on the motel room bed with a remote control in my hand and suddenly I was in Father Horne’s rectory at age five. The whole room filled with it.

(Then last weekend, all of a sudden again, I’m in Father Horne’s rectory at age five only this time dancing. . . .and now I understand where some of my weirdest compulsions came from, that one time, with Father Horne, that I remembered just last Saturday night, after writing about these cases since January.

(In both cases my brain’s capacity for horror had to expand first before the thoughts and memories could come in.

(But how do you fix a time to start a statute of limitations when a person doesn't remember the crime for decades? And then the memories take another couple decades to revive?

(What do you do? You blog.)

MORE FROM the Santa Barbara Case file:
“This law firm has been litigating childhood sexual abuse cases against various California entities of the Roman Catholic church including these defendants since 1998," wrote Tim Hale.

“Defendants have never asserted that schools or parishes were somehow separate and independent entities themselves, nor that they had been ‘held in trust for the parishioners’ by defendants as their counsel now assert."

PERPETRATOR in this case if Father Matthew Kelly, deceased

This case may has been thrown out today?

JUDGE: I’ll take it under submission.


Another version of
Winging It Transcripts

Re Motions to Strike from April 24, 2007, hearing:

JUDGE: You may not be aware of it --

POTTS: (bursts out laughing)

JUDGE: I’ve had a constant stream of motions to dismiss based on certificates of merit.

DIMARCO: We'll raise it in a different context.

JUDGE: Mr. Potts, there was another one taken off calendar last week because of the same arguments.

DIMARCO: We had provided them with an answer, we had provided those certificates some time back and reprovided them again and Mr. Potts was cordial enough to take the motion off yesterday -- it wasn’t for a lack of diligence.

JUDGE: Please be mindful of that gentlemen.


1 comment:

Troy Gray said...

Here's my comment on an article from Colorado about the Denver Archdiocese trying to throw out cases due to statutes of limitations but the judge saw it differently and that the statutes apply ONLY to cases where it involved the perp directly. Cases against the Archdiocese are "seperate" cases and new statutes apply. I feel it's the same with L.A. and these lawyers and judges need to know this:

Now this is what I like! We're not talking about the "actual" assaults by the priest here, but the "breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent supervision, negligent retention, fraud, fraud-intentional nondisclosure, and conspiracy" by the Archdiocese. And because it was recently learned by the victims of the Archdiocese's misconduct, the statutes for the assaults do not apply. I like how the Judge defined this and threw a curve ball at the Archdiocese! This is how ALL cases need to be looked at now! So if you ask me, there are no statutes, or the have just started, in cases "against the church", but there are against the actual perp.


Briefs: Archdiocese loses move to dismiss suits
By The Denver Post Staff
Article Last Updated: 04/19/2007 02:25:13 AM MDT

A dozen lawsuits filed against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver and the late Rev. Harold Robert White can go forward.

District Judge Robert Hyatt ruled Tuesday against an archdiocese motion to dismiss the claims.

Hyatt found that the plaintiffs' claims are not for the acts of abuse, which allegedly occurred between 1959 and 1978, "but rather for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent supervision, negligent retention, fraud, fraud-intentional nondisclosure, and conspiracy" by the archdiocese.

The claims assert that the plaintiffs "only recently learned of the archdiocese's and parishes' misconduct" and statutes of limitations concerning when the abuse took place do not apply, he said.