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

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Rucker pleas for immunity before he talks in deposition; Rucker cases jury trial December 3, 2007

By City of Angels Lady

I’m breathless but have to go for one more Document Dive. At the Bottom of Page one, going down the JCCP documents in descending order, I find this plea re case BC307410 filed 5.23.07. “Motion for protective order and grant of immunity for defendant George Neville Rucker” -- 21 pages. I also have yet to report that Tony DeMarco was on his way to depose Wempe after court yesterday. Plus I found Kreutzer Cases jury instructions, evidence, and lists of witnesses. (See next post.)

The hearing on immunity for Rucker is on calendar for July 10, barring unanticipated date-shuffling. Rucker pleas for immunity as a way of “Protecting him and immunizing him from criminal prosecution. . . .

“In particular Defendant moves (for) Order immunizing him from prosecution for any act of child molestation, sexual abuse of a minor, and any conspiracy to commit or conceal such acts by Defendant or any other person . . .

Rucker asks for immunity re: “Conspiracy to defraud the public, failure to report, aiding and abetting any criminal act, acting as an accessory after the fact as to any criminal act, (any participation in) continuing criminal enterprise in any manner.”

(Hmm. What does Mr. Rucker want to say?)
Let Me Interview Him!!!

(Mr. Steier, as I’ve asked you before, set me up in a room with George Neville Rucker and my tape recorder. If he wants to talk, let him talk to me, and so directly confess to all the world through this blog. I’ll interview Mr. Rucker, transcribe it verbatim, and post it here for everyone to read.

(And we can all pass the hot coals* buck up, so to speak. The priests are not the guilty parties here, it’s the bishops and higher. Parishioners should not be paying for settlements, it should come from the Vatican.

(So, please, Mr. Steier, bypass conventional communications and set me up to interview Rucker, or Wempe or Baker or one of your other priest criminal defense clients.

(I’ll get their story out. You can count on that.)

(Copy typing by Kay)

“Defendant does not want any of his testimony in this matter to be available to support either a genuine or false accusation that he committed a crime. At Defendant’s age, the concern is literally one of life and death.

“…Conspiracies alleged to be ongoing.”

In 2002 a Rico act suit was filed alleging “that the Los Angeles Roman catholic Archdiocese is a ‘continuing criminal enterprise’ in violation of federal civil and criminal laws (commonly called the ‘RICO Act’).

“If Defendant (Rucker) were to be charged at any time in the future for a sexual offense not yet committed or alleged, any evidence of the sexual offenses contained in these complaints would be admissible against him. Thus his answers to deposition questions about past acts have a real potential to incriminate him in the future.

“The Fifth Amendment protects Defendant against such use of his testimony. It is clearly not impossible for him to be accused of a criminal act, whether he commits such an offense or not.

“It is important to note that the gravamen of the allegations against him in the overwhelming majority of claims against Defendant in these cases involve alleged lewd touching with the hands, which does not require the ability to…”

(Sorry it gets real sexually graphic in the next sentences. Don’t even want to go there.)

. . . . .
Once a Pedophile Always A Pedophile?
Oh that old wives’ tale, no, not a mantra*

“Indeed Plaintiff, their attorneys, and other advocates have often recited the mantra (sic) ‘Once a pedophile, always a pedophile.’ Without debating the veracity of that cliché, it is clear that one cannot determine that it is impossible for Defendant to be charged with a sexual offense in the future, and that is the standard required by the Supreme Court. . .”

* I wish people with no knowledge of eastern religion would stop co-opting words like mantra. Oh and how about Investment Guru? Really irks my wrath. . .

Document Quotes Continued:

Rucker’s testimony about past acts has “the potential to make Defendant an unwilling witness against himself in any future prosecution for a sexual offense that occurred any time after 1967.”

“Two Motions to Compel Rucker to testify in deposition have been heard, and the court has issued two orders for him to answer certain questions and yet to be propounded ‘follow-up’ questions.

“Defendant submits it will be much more expeditious to grant him immunity from future prosecution related to his testimony, and against use of his testimony in any future prosecution unrelated to his testimony. . . so that these matters may proceed without undue delay.

Signed Donald H. Steier
Guzin & Steier
For Defendant George Neville Rucker

Next blog: Kreutzer Case Exhibits and Witnesses

** Re: Hot Coals:
Romans 12:20-21

“If your enemies are hungry, feed them.
If they are thirsty, give them something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap
burning coals of shame on their heads.”

21 Don’t let evil conquer you, but conquer evil with good

Yay! Flower Power!
More to Come. . .

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Mahony’s Hearing Vanishes, Still He May Testify in Kreutzer Cases Jury Trial. Transcript of Potts-Fromholz Banter in Today's Hearings

By City of Angels Lady

The motion to compel Roger Mahony to respond to Interrogatories 1 through 8 “accidentally” fell off calendar this morning, but the Cardinal’s written responses may now be a moot point. Plaintiff Witness Number 17 in the June 11 Jury trial re Paul Kreutzer, Catholic school math teacher/predator, is Cardinal Roger Mahony.

So Roger Mahony may testify on the witness stand in front of a jury in the Kreutzer Cases, trial date June 11th. Katherine Freberg was gracious as she explained the way Mahony’s interrogatories hearing slipped off calendar today as “one of those things that happen.” She’s only been after Mahony’s answers to these eight questions since last August with endless delays, continuances, and non-response answers.

Freberg explained: She’d filed five motions in one day, four of them to continue hearings re Hagenbach cases and one re this Caffoe case and Interrogatories 1 through 8.

Someone somewhere in the Court system made an error and the Mahony hearing got moved off calendar. But sitting outside for a smoke later in the park between the statues of Christopher Columbus and George Washington it hit me.

Why was there no attorney for the church there for the hearing on Mahony's answers to Interrogatories 1 through 8?

If the moving attorney Freberg didn't know the hearing was off calendar, if it was so accidental and sudden, why was there no attorney for the church in court today?

As of 12:30 PM PST today May 30th the hearing is still on calendar at the Los Angeles Superior Court website:

(Copy and pasted here at 12:35:)

Future Hearings

05/30/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012


Oh wait there it is, "cont to 6/16" those little words just slipped in there when no one was looking. So we'll probably never find out what happened to Mahony's Phantom Interrogatories 1 through 8 Hearing.

What Mahony avoided answering in writing he will end up saying as soon as June 2007 on the witness stand.

Some direct transcript from today’s several hearings:

Courtesy of City of Angels Winging It Transcription

There were unusually long and involved hearings today re two issues: Sanctions in one case and Demurrer and Motion to Strike in another.

From the hearing on demurrer and motion to strike the judge granted the church’s request but the resulting argument appeared to raise the judge’s blood pressure, understandably:

JUDGE FROMHOLZ: Grant the motion to strike as stated in the written tentative which I’ve provided.

LEE POTTS: With respect to the demurrer --

And he was off.

Hearing on Demurrer (AND MOTION TO STRIKE(PAPERS FILED ON 3/07)**CONT FROM 4/25**RE: BC291179)

(as listed on LA Superior Court website, Case Summaries, Case #JCCP4286)

POTTS: Third paragraph from bottom toward the end of the third line it can be inferred: Successor Judge Fromholz approved under false pretenses.

Judge Fromholz glares at Potts then gives a difficult smile

POTTS: What was presented to this court, that certificate of merit was based on a need to amend ordered by Judge Lager(??)

(someone in Orange County or somewhere). . .

POTTS (cont’d): It’s possible the court may have not dug through its files and found that order, I doubt that was done.

JUDGE FROMHOLZ: (face is red) I understand your point.

POTTS (cont’d): The Court grants the motion to strike then once it’s granted this defendant has been removed from the case. This defendant should be dismissed. Strike the first amendment complaint and grant motion to suppress. Certificates of Merit in 2004, excuse me certificates of corroborative facts --

(Here I hit my b-b-b “hot-key” and “blah-blah-blah” printed out on the screen. I use that hot key a lot during Church Attorney testimony. I mean most of this from Mr. Potts was something I’d have to read later to understand. They already won the motion --)

Personal Aside re Lee Potts:

I was really glad to see him in court today. I was afraid I'd demolished him.

Riding home on Metro one day last month I passed the crumbling remains of a Catholic Church from the city’s founding years, on the near East Side across from Pico House. As we passed I thought of Lee Potts and felt a tinge of guilt because I’d rapped on him in an earlier blog, said he acted like someone with PTSD himself. I was biting my lip as I thought of it, hoping I didn't cause him any problems.

Then last week on The Massage (see bottom of blog re KJLH) the message over and over again was Romans 12 and these verses 19 and 20 have played over and over again in my head.

19Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave the way open for [God's] wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay (requite), says the Lord.(C)
20But if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.(D)

Source: Amplified Bible

It’s not my place to do the wrath. Someone Else is taking care of that. Plus I really like that image of burning coals on their heads.

Back to the Today’s Hearing:

About 5 minutes later Potts is still talking:

(By City of Angels Winging It Transcription)

POTTS: Certificates of Corroborate Fact are an entirely different procedure. Not just the compliance with filing part but the court is weighing evidence and making adjudication on the merits. No other court has held that COCFs can be amended. Can you say “Those facts are different, we now have new facts”?

JUDGE: I think it was the statement of location of the witnesses in this order.

POTTS: But--

JUDGE: Excuse me, sir, that's one of the requirements.

Fromholz fixes Potts with a glare and Potts starts stuttering:

POTTS: Um, but again even if it’s a statement of a necessary element this is a judicatory decision . . . they lose. This is a demurrer to the evidence as they used to have in common law days.

JUDGE: But --

POTTS: Court has found insufficient facts to form --

JUDGE: Why can’t it be amended?

POTTS: That's a whole new area opening up that we need to direct.


It went on like that for another five minutes. At one point DeMarco goes through the gate and whispers to the plaintiff attorney (whose name, sorry, I did not get).

The room gets quiet as all attorneys and the judge dig through their six-inch thick document of papers for this case, all of them leafing through the pages at the top.

POTTS: It’s Exhibit 8.

(Extraneous verbiage deleted)

POTTS: June 8 order says denied.

JUDGE: (Throws thick document down behind him) Okay.

Judge Fromholz folds his hands over his mouth and stares into Potts.

JUDGE: I guess it’s a question of whether I can be relied on by the court.

POTTS: The other thing is they're also playing a bait and switch game.

(I’d like to throw up my hands and say I just hit the b-b-b hot key here “blah-blah-blah” but I didn't. I transcribed a whole 8 or more pages of this oratory that will doubtless be useless for future ages.)

(Excess verbiage deleted)

Next Post: Within Next 24 Hours

George Neville Rucker pleads for immunity so he can testify in deposition “so that these matters may proceed without undue delay,” per Donald Steier’s motion. Hearing July 10th.

More to Come. . .

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Sexual Privacy Rights of Priests and Other Aberrations of the Constitution in LA Civil Cases Against the Roman Catholic Church

By City of Angels Lady

For comparison sake, since we spent the day critiquing a Defendant’s motion, now let’s look at the May 18 Plaintiffs' reply brief re privacy objections concerning Franciscan Friars. Document diving I found this pearl, filed by Timothy Hale of Nye, Peabody & Stirling in Santa Barbara.

Saying the Franciscans have “crossed the line of reasonableness in advocating for the privacy rights of pedophile priests,” Hale quotes Church Attorneys for the Franciscans arguing in court:

THE COURT: So pedophilia is protected by the right of privacy?

CHURCH ATTORNEY HELDT: Yes, Sexual behavior --

THE COURT: Of any kind?

HELDT: Well it has to be in a private setting. . .

Church Attorney Logic: You can’t question a priest about his sex activities because they took place “in a private setting.”

I’m curious why Tim Hale is filing this document this month, so breeze to the second to the last page and read:

“This is not ancient history. These are relatively recent events. . . It involved repeated, credible accusations of childhood sexual abuse against a man who, at least as of Father Harris’ deposition in May 2005, was still a Franciscan priest. Yet, according to the Franciscans and their counsel, Father Kain’s privacy rights outweigh the compelling state interest in protecting children from childhood sexual abuse.”

You go, Tim.

More from May 18 Plaintiff’s reply brief re privacy objections

"IV. Conclusion.

"(These lawsuits are) not about, ‘moral vindication’ or 'to enable vigilante action’" as the Franciscans argue.

"It’s about Public Safety. It is about giving parents and families the information that allows them to make informed decisions regarding who poses a risk to their children.

"For too many years such knowledge and such decisions have been concealed by and under the exclusive control of agents of the Roman Catholic Church. The results have been disastrous.”

Yeah, go, Tim.

I go to Bishop Accountability and look under K and don’t find any reports on a Father Kain.

More Document Diving
Oh here’s a good one.

May 2 Church Attorneys Hennigan et al filed a slew of declarations why Monsignor Arthur J. Lirette should not have to testify in deposition. The Plaintiffs motion was granted at the May 16th hearing despite Church Attorney litigation skills displayed below in their own document.

For the record, these are quotes from church attorney Hennigan's “Separate Statement of Questions and Answers in Dispute” opposing Lirette’s deposition arguing for the Defendant. . . .

CHURCH ATTORNEY HABEL: I’ve let this go on too long with the hypotheticals.

DEMARCO: Seeing as we've run across this issue many times before--

HABEL: And do you know what? And frankly--

DEMARCO: I’m not trying to raise my voice. Please ratchet down.

(Tony DeMarco once again the sound and sober voice up against a Church Attorney’s rantings.)


According to Church Attorney Logic

DEMARCO: (wants to know) why it is a lay witness or a non-expert is forbidden from offering opinion testimony regarding things that might be within their experience. I would love to see some authority to that. In fact, I’m unaware of any authority to that effect.

HABEL: Let me answer that. They can be asked if they have had certain experiences. A lay person can’t be asked their opinion about -- for opinion testimony.

Timothy Hale Document To the Franciscans was Addressed
To Coordination Trial Judges Haley Fromholz and Hon. Ronald Sabraw

Saying Franciscans have “crossed the line of reasonableness in advocating for the privacy rights of pedophile priests.”

More Document Diving:

The Church's March Fishing Expedition Produced a Few Plaintiff Cases on Their Snarled Hooks

A few motions to strike and dismiss filed by the church were granted this month because certificates of merit re mental health weren’t filed correctly. This really bugs me because obviously someone with mental health problems is going to have trouble filing certificates of merit correctly.

Maybe I’m naïve.

Filed May One and Signed By Judge

Motion to Quash and Dismiss Case #bc308213

"Plaintiff’s action must be dismissed because the April 9, 2004, certificates were untimely filed," wrote Judge Fromholz.

The March fishing expedition by Church Attorneys where they filed streams of motion to quash and dismiss based on this argument got a few cases thrown out of court. Using cut and paste legal skills Church Attorneys argued in this stream of motions that certificates of merit weren’t filed on time after December 2003 when most the LA cases were opened and put on "fast track."

In this case plaintiff apparently tried in February and April to redo the certificates of merit, but just couldn't get it right. (I know how that is. I sent crumpled and smashed pieces of paper just last April to the IRS.)


May 1 2007, Defendant Doe 2’s answer to plaintiff’s first amended complaint for BC308297

(This case concerns one female plaintiff and Doe 2 is St. Joseph School, Pomona.)

Defendant denies everything.

The complaint fails in everything

The Doctrine of Church Autonomy, derived from the Religion “Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution bars all of plaintiffs’ claims.”

(It really rankles my tentacles to read this abuse of my American Constitution which I trust and hold dear so much more than I do the thugs who run the Catholic Church.)

Several Motions to Strike are also on Calendar for hearing tomorrow.

More to come. . .

LA Cardinal Mahony's responses are like gangster movie dialogue in civil cases heading for jury trial next month

Pretrial hearing on Mahony's non-answers May 30th
By City of Angels Lady

Trying to keep Cardinal Roger Mahony from answering questions in interrogatories, Church Attorneys put forth Orwellian Newspeak full of contradictions, and in one case even blame an inconsistency on a typographical error, in a motion filed May 17 to keep the cardinal from talking. One excuse they make is: “Defendant (Mahony) stands by those responses already given.” As posted here April 16th, Mahony’s answer to almost every question in interrogatories so far has been:

“Responding party objects to this request. It’s broad, burdensome, harassing, not relevant. Violates religion clause of First Amendment, physician patient privilege, lawyer client privilege, and work product doctrine.”

Now LA’s noble Cardinal “Stands by those responses”? Is he standing, or is he bent over falling down and finally landing flat on his face?

Another excuse put forth by Church Attorneys:

“Defendant’s investigation is ongoing and it does reserve the right to supplement its responses.”

What investigation?

If they’d conducted an investigation decades ago this entire imbroglio would not even be happening today. (And a lot of people like me would be functioning much better.)

More Ways To Keep Mahony from Talking

(NOTE: All these quotes from Defendant Archdiocese can be read out loud using a B-Movie Gangster voice.)

“Defendant concedes that it has been slow to get Plaintiffs the verification; however, Defendant has never refused to provide one.”

That’s great. They've postponed and postulated all over the place to keep Mahony from responding but they never came right out and said they refuse to answer.

And then this double-speak wherein the church explains why a report was in one file and then not in another one. Blame it on a typographical error:

"In its ongoing investigation Defendant located another report that it needs to include in its responses. Defendant preferred to verify the supplemental set that removed the typographical error and included the additional report.”


All the quotes from this May 17 motion in opposition to the Plaintiffs motion to compel can be read in a b-movie ganster dialogue voice. Try it: "Defendant concedes that it has been slow to get Plaintiffs the verification; however, Defendant has never refused to provide one.”

They give these excuses for non-response regarding specific priests:

Re: Father John Lenihan:

He was a priest with the Orange Diocese, not Los Angeles.

(They still call these guys Father????? Well they sure can’t say “Most Reverent.”)

Re: Father Lynn Caffoe

Defendant did not include Father Caffoe as information pertaining to the 1975 incident was included in response to Interrogatory 9.

RE: Paul Kreutzer

“Sister Francis is deceased and therefore cannot be interviewed.”

Father John Kenney

Father Christopher to whom the report was made: “has not been in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for over 20 years.”

(Sure and they have no idea where he is now. . .Where do they send his checks?)

Father Thomas Havel

“A report was allegedly made to a Father Michael Smith who is deceased.” (Like Sister Francis, "deceased and therefore cannot be interviewed.)

(Oh is that why the church is taking so long? They're waiting for all the witnesses to die before they get deposed.)

Re: Father Llanos:

Defendant disputes this report was made. Further, the alleged report was not even made by the plaintiff himself but is based on multiple levels of hearsay.

(That report wasn’t made. And it was made to a different person.)

This tag line is at the end of each one of these priest entries:

“Defendant does not have a duty to admit that a report was made just because a Plaintiff alleges the same in an interrogatory response.”

Can’t you just hear that on a junior high school playground, like a chant?

I don't have to tell you that,
Just because you asked me.
Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.

The Biggest Excuse Of All:
Priests' Right To a Private Sex Life?

Church Attorneys say priests should have the same rights of sexual privacy as plaintiffs.

“Plaintiff objects (to questions of sexual history) because it seeks to obtain information which is not relevant, nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

That's true if you're talking about investigating the plaintiffs’ private sex lives, not the defendant’s.

More ways to keep Mahony from talking

You'll laugh out loud when you read this in a Tony Soprano b-movie from the 1950s voice:

“Defendant concedes that it has been slow to get Plaintiffs the verification; however, Defendant has never refused to provide one.”

In other words: I know you've been trying to get these answers since last summer but just because we haven’t answered yet doesn't mean we ever refused to answer. . . .

Was it a typo, a filing error, or just a lot of double speak?

Their way of explaining how a report showed up in a second version of a document and not the first:

"In its ongoing investigation Defendant located another report that it needs to include in its responses. Defendant preferred to verify the supplemental set that removed the typographical error and included the additional report.”

Oh that's where it came from,

(All of this weak defense could be called “passive aggressive”: saying you mean to do one thing while you are doing another.)

“Defendant will provide a verification and “recognizes that this should have been done more promptly.”

Just like they never really refused to provide a verification they just kept not giving one.

We’ll see what happens in the hearing tomorrow

NEXT BLOG: You can’t question a priest about his sex life because obviously sexual activities “took place in a private setting.”

QUOTES IN MAY 28 BLOG are from Motion filed May 17, 2007, by Kneafsey Tostado Church Attorneys: “Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Interrogatories”


Like what you read here? Send me a high five. Click on the Donate button in the top left corner and send five or fifty or five hundred or. . .

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Weird things happen when you blog about the sins of the LA Archdiocese -- for one, a document disappeared re the Paul Kreutzer cases

By City of Angels Lady

Weird things have been happening to me since I started writing this blog in January. For example author Randy Engel sent me a promo copy of her book The Rite of Sodomy. First it took a real long time to arrive. Then it disappeared from my home. It’s about a 10-12 pound book, huge, and I had set it aside to use like an encyclopedia as I write this blog. You don’t accidentally throw away a 12-pound book.

Then there’s the document I found on May 23rd where Paul Kreutzer was trying to get a damaging piece of evidence removed from his cases which begin jury trial June 11th. I wrote about the document here and by May 25th the document was gone, disappeared from the screen. In that case it could just be that Baker Baker Fink et al church attorneys just quietly withdrew their motion.

However, weird things have been happening to me since last year when I started posting on the SNAP message board. I lost my job last July in almost the same pattern of circumstances as I lost my job this month.

Last July and again this May I was working, thriving, then all of a sudden the work slowed down almost to a stop. Both times, clients just quit sending jobs to the company I worked for. Both times the stress and fear of homelessness freaked me out so bad I went 5150 into a hospital. Both times when I got out of the hospital a week later, my job was gone.

During the time between when Randy Engel’s book arrived and I realized it was gone, for a while the sliding glass door to our apartment did not close. (LA has little earthquakes every few days, the land shifts.) It took the landlord more than a month to finally do the repairs to get the lock to hook with the latch, so for weeks anyone could have broken in to our home.

One day I came home and could tell someone had been in the house by the way the door wasn’t closed. But it didn't look like anything had been stolen.

About a week later I realized Randy’s book, The Rite of Sodomy, was gone. They didn't steal my out-of-date video equipment or any of my “priceless” little statues -- just that one book which details sex crimes in the Catholic Church for centuries. As soon as I have 27 dollars I’ll buy another one, but circumstances in my life right now are also making all the money disappear. . . .

Having recently been 5150d to a mental institution I don't want to sound like I have Narcissistic Personality Disorder and everything centers on me and the church has hired dirty tricksters to mess with my life. There are probably other explanations. I just think weird things have happened since I started writing this blog.

For more background read May 23rd post

Several plaintiff cases have progressed so far in discovery that they can now file “Amended Complaints for Punitive Damages.” They file a motion listing the evidence found so far in Discovery and as Judge Fromholz did May 23, if there’s enough evidence to show that “the plaintiff will prevail” in the lawsuit, plaintiffs can begin to “discover” the financial assets of the defendant for reference in future settlements.

That is what happened in the hearing May 23rd, although the only thing mainstream media has written about is “the missing videotape” in Lynn Caffoe’s case, which is just one item in a long stream of damaging pieces of evidence against the church and its handling of Caffoe’s crimes and victims.

(As you may not know LA does not really have a newspaper right now, just some over worked reporters at the Times doing the work of five people trying to produce profit for whoever owns the paper this week. So it’s understandable that the only thing they wrote about was the “missing Lynn Caffoe videotape” as that's what excites the readers’ salacious appetites.)

Stop Rambling, Kay, and Write About Kreutzer

This document written by Baker Baker Fink et al Church Attorneys appeared right after a Kreutzer case (BC308065) filed its Motion to Amend Complaint to add punitive damages. Apparently Church Attorneys, as always representing their client’s best interest, were going to try to get a major piece of damaging evidence thrown out before the June 11th trial.

In 2003 two FBI agents interviewed Paul Kreutzer with a tape recorder running in full view, and the former Catholic school teacher who liked his girls prepubescent must have said some damaging things on that tape. So now Baker Baker Fink et al Church Attorneys were going to try to say Kreutzer was lying to the FBI

(Yeah, people always lie to the FBI in taped recorded interviews)

In trying to prove Kreutzer was just saying what the FBI agents wanted him to say, Baker Baker Fink et al Church Attorneys submitted this testimony of Kreutzer obviously saying what the church attorneys wanted him to say in an April 23rd deposition :

CHURCH ATTORNEY: Okay, But in that interview that was tape recorded, were you truthful in that interview?

KREUTZER: No I wasn’t.

Q: You were saying things that were --

A: I was agreeing.

Q: Alright. Let me ask the question.

A: Okay

Q: You were agreeing with the questions so that you could help Lucie?

A: Absolutely.

Q: When asked did you feel that Sister Frances Catherine knew or should have known that you were -- tape skips -- touching the children?” and you say “She should have known.” Was that true or false?

KREUTZER: No that was not true.

Here is More on the Kreutzer case going to trial June 11
As none of you readers will likely end up on the jury:

In 1975 to 1976 school year at Our Lady of Peace Elementary School in North Hills, California, Paul Kreutzer taught math & science to fifth graders.

(*Both he and Sister Frances Catherine had come from CHICAGO to North Hills at the same time and they knew each other in Chicago and I know there’s much more story there. )

When the female plaintiff, then a fifth grader, tried to report the way Kreutzer was molesting her she was beaten by Sister Frances Catherine because “she continued to insist on the truth of her allegations,” reads the complaint.

The fifth grade girl was then forced along with another plaintiff to go to every classroom and apologize in front of all the students and Paul Kreutzer for accusations made against him.

(Kreutzer and Sister Frances must have been quite a pair. He’s the predator she’s the sadist?)

Most creepy about this case:
After the preteen plaintiffs had been forced to apologize in front of the entire school, Kreutzer now had free and clear access to the girls.

He continued to rape them, “knowing that now no one would believe her if she reported it.”

He continued to molest the plaintiff “even in the classroom after school.”

“Rather than doing any investigation or even telling (plaintiffs’) parents that a similar accusation had been made by another parent, Sister Frances Catherine literally beat a 10 year old girl into ‘confessing’ to a lie and thereby allowed Kreutzer to continue and escalate his molestations,” reads the complaint, filed by Steven J. Brady, attorney for the plaintiff in San Rafael.

Note of explanation: What is happening with these amended complaints for punitive damages?
Based on Code of Civil Procedure sec 425.14

When “Plaintiff has established evidence which substantiates that plaintiff will meet the clear and convincing standard of proof...

“The court may allow the filing of amended complaint for punitive or exemplary damages.”

On June 5 there will be a hearing on amended complaint for punitive damages in this Kreutzer case similar to the one on May 23 regarding a Caffoe case and a Rucker case. So things are moving along for the plaintiffs.

Especially to Phillip Baker, the second Baker, Church Attorney

While document diving Friday I opened another motion filed by Baker Baker Fink et al Church Attorneys. The original document was scanned on the screen and there was Phillip Baker’s signature.

I know he was trying to write a “PB” but the signature jumps right out from the page and says “DAD.”

Dear Phillip Baker, you don’t have to continue representing the church just because your dad signed the archdiocese as a deep-pockets client. I know from your signature and the expression on your face, indeed your every move in body language, that Dear Mr. Phillip Baker, you really don’t want to be in court. You’d rather be at the beach. You really don’t want to defend the archbishop, you really know the plaintiffs are right here and your client is wrong.

So come over to the right side, Mr. Baker, it’s not too late. You can still save your soul, come over to the right side, come over to the right side. . . and bring some files with you and contact me as soon as you get a conscience.

You can work with the plaintiffs, Mr. Baker, and maybe heal your damaged soul.

It’s not too late, you still have time, come over to the right side, Mr. Baker, come over to the right side. And bring me those files. Bring me the story, bring me the story

NEXT POST Tuesday May 29th
“Lots and Lots of Document Diving”

More to come. . .

Friday, May 25, 2007

Pretrial Hearing May 30th - To Compel Roger Mahony to Respond in LA Civil Cases Against Roman Catholic Church

By City of Angels Lady

Wednesday May 30 is a hearing to get Cardinal Roger Mahony to respond to interrogatories at LA Superior Court Dept 20 8:31 AM. On May 16th counsel for the church and plaintiffs met in the Jury Room on orders from the judge to meet and confer on this motion now continued to the hearing Wednesday. The "Motion-Compel Further Responses (by Defendant Doe 1) to Standardized Interrogatories 1-8" regards case BC307225, and predator priest Lynn Caffoe.

Some background: The archbishop’s responses are “evasive or incomplete” writes Katherine Freberg in the Motion to Compel filed April 14th. Interrogatories 1 through 8 ask about archdiocese employees accused of sex crimes. Mahony needs to respond writes Freberg, “to see archbishop’s response to complaints about Father Caffoe” and whether he “failed to take steps to implement reasonable safeguards.”

Answers to these interrogatories will reveal if it’s true as Mahony has said that “the known incidents of abuse were few in number and generally perceived not to be indicative of a pattern.”

Direct quote from the motion: “The Archbishop so far has been unwilling to verify the truthfulness of his responses in a verification signed under penalty of perjury, nor has he been willing to provide complete answers to interrogatories.”

Date of this hearing May 30, trial date August 7th.

***** Commercial Break

Kickoff of the High Five Campaign

And I still need 300 dollars to pay June rent.

We aren’t totally rescued from slipping through the cracks, although Bob Hoatson’s Rescue and Recovery International in New Jersey sent me 500 dollars which is half the rent. Several other people clicked on the button and sent from six dollars to a hundred so I’m hoping the new High Five Campaign will take off.

Rescue and Recovery International provides help directly to survivors of priest rape as it goes without saying persons who have this experience, as children all the way up to adults, are going to have problems. So Many Thanks to Rescue and Recovery International for paying half my rent by putting cash in my Pay-Pal account.

The High Five Campaign:

If you like what you read here send me five dollars by putting it on my Pay-Pal account.

If 60 people send me five dollars I’ll have the rent for June.

I’m doing a PBS-Public Radio style campaign. If you like the content, please support the blog…




On Motion To Compel Mahony to Respond

August 17, 2006 court ordered archbishop to respond with answers to interrogatories 1 to 8 for the time period 1965 to 1982.

December 15, 2006, archbishop served “unverified” responses -- about a total of 11 priests with information that had already been provided in the archbishop ’s public papers.

January 19, 2007, plaintiffs requested verification for the unsworn responses to interrogatories.

Again requested verification in letters February 1, 6, 12, and March 7, 2007.

Finally plaintiffs submitted motion to compel because “to date, none of these documents have been received.”


Blogs Coming Memorial Day Weekend:

SATURDAY: Father Falvey and Blessed Sacrament in the heart of the birth of mainstream porn movies in Hollywood

SUNDAY: Weird things happen since I’ve been writing this blog

(Like remember this from May 23rd blog? Paul Kreutzer saying oh I lied in 2003 when I was talking on tape to the FBI. )

“Kreutzer is trying to get a major piece of evidence thrown out a taped interview he gave to the FBI. In their opposition papers to the amended complaint for damages filed May 21, Baker Baker Fink et al Church Attorneys say Kreutzer ‘submitted in his April 23, 2007 deposition that he lied in his June 27, 2003, interview with federal agents (that) he lied in the subject statements in an effort to protect one of his alleged victims.’

(Well that document has disappeared from the screens. I was document diving today and could not find it. It just disappeared.)

Paul Kreutzer’s case will be the first in a series of jury trials opening June 11th same date as the 2nd season premier of Big Love on HBO.

MONDAY: Lots and lots of document diving


Calendar of hearings next week:

Direct from LA Superior Court website (their typos not mine)

05/30/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 MOTION - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (BY DEFENDAN DOE 1 TO STANDARDIZEDINTERROGATORIES 1-8;cont from 05-16-07;RE: BC307225;)

05/30/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Hearing on Demurrer (AND MOTION TO STRIKE(PAPERS FILED ON 3/07)**CONT FROM 4/25**RE: BC291179)

05/30/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Quash (AND DISMISS(PAPERS FILED ON 3/07)**CONT FROM 4/17**RE: YC048257)

05/30/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion for Sanctions ((PAPERS FILED ON 4/27)RE: BC308665)

05/30/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

05/31/2007 at 08:30 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference (KREUTZER CASES)

More to Come. . .

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Court orders “Financial Discovery” on LA Archdiocese as in two cases “plaintiffs likely to prevail.” Kreutzer changes story to contradict evidence


By City of Angels Lady

Good news: forward movement for the plaintiffs in hearings Wednesday morning. There’s now a court order to conduct financial discovery on the Los Angeles Archdiocese, because two cases have such a preponderance of evidence that it’s “likely plaintiffs will prevail.”** The two orders are for a Caffoe case (trial date August 6) and a Rucker case (trial date December 3) but the resulting audit of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles Health and Welfare Corporation will apply to all 500 cases moving through the court system, with the first jury trial June 11 (the Kreutzer cases).

Judge Haley Fromholz granted the motion saying: “Plaintiffs’ evidence establishes a substantial probability that plaintiffs will prevail on the punitive damages claim.” Concerning the Lynn Caffoe case, BC307225, Katherine Freberg’s office cited as evidence: testimony of a priest and housekeeper, another priest’s description of a videotape taken from Caffoe’s room of the priest filming minors having sex, numerous reports from parents and parishioners to a priest and at least one monsignor, complaints by a school principal to the chancery, Caffoe’s commitment to St. Luke’s Institute, reports from the Redondo Beach Police, and finally, plaintiff’s testmony.

Church attorneys did not even try to argue back. The other case that opened archdiocese financial records Wednesday was BC307410, where several attorneys along with Freberg’s office built a similarly concrete case involving George Neville Rucker. Here one plaintiff reported to her first and second grade teachers in the early 1960s that Rucker was molesting her and she had pain in her “private parts.” Another plaintiff went to a nun on behalf of herself and a group of girls and the nun “slapped (her) in the face several times and told her not to talk about Father Rucker like that."

An unidentified mother reported Rucker in 1965 to the principal of St. Anthony’s and the principal reported the allegations. In 1967 Bishop Timothy Manning “suppressed a police investigation into sex abuse by Father rucker.

Rucker was not finally removed from ministry. . . .

Until 2002, more than 40 years after the first report in 1959 that he was abusing children. By 2002 George Neville Rucker had more than 40 known accusers.

Rucker spent a few months in prison before the Stogner Supreme Court decision in 2003 set him free and he is now living somewhere in Los Angeles. So once again a preponderance of evidence makes it “likely plaintiffs will prevail” in this case.


How can I check if Freberg is the Attorney in BC307410?????

Or: Why I Have A Donate Button in the Upper Left Hand Corner of this Blog

Patrick Laurence from Freberg’s office was in court today for the Rucker case, so I’m pretty sure this is a Freberg case.

I’d call Freberg’s office to confirm but I no longer have long distance on my phone so I can no longer even call the 714.

In fact, everything in my life is falling apart, again, or, as I put on the new “donate button” in the upper left corner of this blog, we are slipping through the cracks.

Two months ago I had two sources of income and I was thriving, with time in my schedule to cover hearings and enough cash coming in to pay the rent and bills.

I even saved up and bought a laptop.

Within days of each other in April both sources of income disappeared. If I were narcissistic I’d think it was the church attorneys playing dirty tricks to mess with my life and keep me from writing this blog, but it’s just Governor Arnold discontinued one benefit I was getting from the state and the company I was working for as a transcriber just, went out of business, and the work disappeared.

So I right now I have about 9 dollars left and if I don't have the rent by June 5, I will have to give 30 days’ notice and start having a yard sale to sell everything but a few boxes to put into storage,

And become homeless, yes homeless, once again.

I will become a homeless blogger.

This blog and the donate button may have to be my only source of income for a while.

There’s a chance I’ll get state EDD disability again in a few weeks. . . but I’m not counting on it.

So on advice of a friend and my daughter I am doing an NPR or PBS style fundraiser. If you like this blog and have a few dollars, please put it on my Pay-Pal account and maybe I’ll be able to keep a roof over my head. If you like this blog and have a lot of money, please put a whole lot of cash on my Pay-Pal account and maybe I won’t lose my apartment.

I’m actually not scared to become a homeless blogger as

I’m finding this is a new lifestyle to be any number of professions and homeless in California.

It won’t be that bad. I’ll be able to live in these weekly hotels around town, and maybe occasionally crash at friends’ homes. I’ll make it. I’ll continue writing this blog even if I have to get a wireless card and move into a cardboard box. Nothing can stop me now.

I think I’ve gone off on a tangent.


I didn’t start this blog intending to ask for money but. . .

Anyway, I no longer have a visible means of support. My blog and my donate button are all I have for now. Oh, and the tons of cash I’ll get from the yard sale I’ll have in June to make moving out of this apartment easier…

So anything my readers can send to the Pay-Pal account on the donate button in the left hand corner will help a lot.


Paul Kreutzer Lies about Lies to Try to Save Archdiocese Cash

Paul Kreutzer has decided he lied to the FBI in 2003

One reason the two motions passed easily Wednesday morning was the church filed no objections. But in BC308065, a case involving Paul Kreutzer, where the plaintiff filed a similar request to file an amended complaint for punitive damages, the church is fighting, saying Paul Kreutzer was lying in 2003 in a taped interview with FBI agents “to protect the victim.”

Saying he lied to the FBI is Kreutzer’s and the church attorneys’ way to get this damaging piece of evidence, a taped interview with Federal Agents, thrown out of court. . . . so lame, so lame, these church attorney flailings about in obvious lies and obstruction of justice. Right. Kreutzer decided he was lying, or maybe he’s lying that he was lying and he really wasn’t lying which would mean he’s lying now. . .

Kreutzer is trying to get a major piece of evidence thrown out, a taped interview he gave to the FBI.
In their opposition papers filed May 21, Baker Baker Fink et al Church Attorneys say Kreutzer “submitted in his April 23, 2007 deposition that he lied in his June 27, 2003, interview with federal agents (that) he lied in the subject statements in an effort to protect one of his alleged victims.”
They submit this quote from Kreutzer’s April 23 deposition testimony:

Q: Okay, But in that interview that was tape recorded, were you truthful in that interview?

A: No I wasn’t.

Q: You were saying things that were --

A: I was agreeing.

Q: Alright. Let me ask the question.

A: Okay

Q: You were agreeing with the questions so that you could help Lucie?

A: Absolutely.

Q: When asked did you feel that Sister Frances Catherine knew or should have known that you were -- (tape skips) -- touching the children?” and you say “She should have known.” Was that true or false?

KREUTZER: No that was not true.


Final status conference for Kreutzer cases is supposed to be May 31st with the trial already set for June 11.

I don’t see a hearing yet on calendar for this motion to file an amended complaint where the church will try to argue that Kreutzer couldn't be lying now because he was lying in 2003 instead.


They're still trying to get Frances Weber to testify in deposition:

For case BC307225, the Caffoe case with an August 6 trial date the church is still trying to keep Monsignor Weber from testifying.

Church attorneys filed yet another objection May 1 (declaration of Sean Kneafsey of Kneafsey Tostado & Associates one of the many firms recently added to these cases and many others by Church Attorneys).

Hearing on getting Weber to testify is May 30th.


I don't know what happened to the motions to compel Roger Mahony to answer interrogatories from May 16th. If anyone knows please email me.

Wait until you hear the whole story of Sister Frances Catherine and Paul Kreutzer, a predator pair who moved to California from Chicago . . .

More to Come. . .


** Amended Complaints for Punitive Damages are based on Code of Civil Procedure sec 425.14, audit of defendant may begin when in discovery evidence shows plaintiff is likely to prevail.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Wempe’s civil jury trial set for October 9; Baker’s January 7, plus one more attempt to get Mahony to talk; some Blessed Sacrament (Falvey) background

By City Of Angels Lady

The pace is accelerating and content changing as pretrial hearings get within one month of the first Jury Trial in civil cases against the LA Archdiocese. Roger Mahony says on his website he “prays daily for a generous payout from the insurance companies" but he's ready to sell some real estate to settle local claims. I fantasize they’d sell several of their crumbling churches and start a foundation for ALL victims of priest rape walking around the world seeking the rebuilding of their souls, whether they're in California or Illinois or Boston, with the Vatican chipping in a couple gold columns from its vestibules. But I’m a dreamer.

Jury trials are now on calendar for survivors of two currently incarcerated priests: Michael Edwin Wempe’s jury civil trial will be October 9, 2007; and Michael Stephen Baker’s, January 7, 2008. (See the calendar of 15 jury trials so far for 2007-2008 at left.) Both men were serving time when the 2003 Supreme Court decision set them free, and both men were re-arrested when new crimes came out that fit the statute of limitations. I wonder if they'll walk into the courtroom hand in hand in chains. Will they even be at their civil trials? I don't know.

A schedule of hearings for the coming weeks is copy and pasted below. Two motions by defendant the church to make plaintiffs produce medical records were to be heard Tuesday May 22 but were removed “per moving party.”

I think most significant coming up: “MOTION - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (BY DEFENDANT DOE 1 TO STANDARDIZED INTERROGATORIES 1-8; cont from 05-16-07; RE: BC307225;)” per the LA Superior Court website Case Summary section.

(Just type in JCCP4286 to keep track of changes in the calendar.)

Continued from May 16th means this might be the hearings concerning Roger Mahony himself. I will have to go document diving early next week to double check. But Monday I get started with my new therapy. Thanks to everyone who wrote me with concern. I’m really doing great.

If not May 30th I'm sure there'll be more attempts to get Mahony to talk under oath. Hope he testifies in a jury trial. Going to bring a sketchbook. . . . --------


Last Thursday afternoon I took a walk up Sunset Boulevard and stood in front of Blessed Sacrament Church.

This LA institution in the middle of Hollywood is part of my story, because in the 1980s in one of my many attempts to come back to the church I was singing in the choir there. I also felt compelled to schedule a long private personal Confession with one of the priests there. I know he and I were in a room together for at least a half hour, maybe longer, and I told him a long story, but I can’t remember a thing I said. It’s like a blackout. So I’ve been thinking about trying to contact that priest just to find out what the heck I said to him. I have a feeling he’d remember. I know he left the church a few weeks after that, transferred. . . .

So I walked all the way around Blessed Sacrament Church Thursday and then came home to find out the cases against Mark Falvey of the same Blessed Sacrament Church were settled that afternoon. According to the LA Times: “Jesuits Agree to Sex Case Payout, Nine People Who Say They Were Molested by Father Mark Falvey between 1959 and 1975 Will Divide $16 Million from the Order - By John Spano”

Click http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2007/05_06/2007_05_18_Spano_JesuitsAgree.htm to read the entire story.


It’s so weird. I’d just been standing there looking at the church and then walked all the way around it that afternoon.

You see the building right next door is Crossroads Of The World, a particularly garish Sunset Boulevard landmark.

You can tell from the nearby and surrounding architecture plus the fact that Crossroads sits right smack in the center of the church and parochial school parking lot -- it’s obvious the church at some time back in the 1930s or so had something to do with the development of this particularly atrocious building (it sort of looks like a tugboat with flags on it and the second floor offices look like they're on a yacht).

I’m particularly interested in this piece of real estate because in 1968 and 1969 it housed Pretty Girl International Modeling Agency, a specialty agency that casted the up and coming mainstream porn movies and magazines that were just coming out. They even advertised in Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter classified sections: “Casting, beautiful men and women willing to do total nudity, split beaver, simulated sex.” Everything was simulated at that point -- it was in 1968-1969 that the industry standard segued from simulated sex to real sex and then blossomed into the thriving “sex industry” we have today.

The porn revolution in Hollywood was born right there at Crossroads Of The World office development -- a proud next door neighbor sharing a parking lot with Blessed Sacrament Church. It’s interesting that some of the sex crimes that were committed by Mark Falvey took place apparently during that time that Pretty Girl International agency was processing newly arrived beautiful men and women to Hollywood into the “legal and socially accepted” porn movie and magazine industry that was developing.

Right there in that building that the church might even have still owned, I could have been looking out the window from what is supposed to look like Captain’s Quarters but was really the casting agent’s office, looking out the window right at Blessed Sacrament church. From that angle the church belfry stands right alongside the "ship's flagstaff" so they are like twin towers over Sunset Boulevard. I got some of my first porn modeling assignments there myself.

There's even a statue there, in the middle of Crossroads of the World, that's plainly from the church's missionary era, may have even been a fountain. Crossroads of the World, location of the birth of the porn industry in 1969, was right there on the lot with the rest of Blessed Sacrament buildings.

Hmm. . . .



Here is the schedule of hearings leading up to the first Jury Trial June 11, 2007 copy and pasted from the LA Superior Court website (their typos, not mine):

05/23/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Motion to Amend (THE COMPLAINT(PAPERS FILED ON 5/01)RE: BC307225)
05/23/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Motion to Amend (THE COMPLAINT(PAPERS FILED ON 5/01)RE: BC307410)
05/30/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 MOTION - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (BY DEFENDAN DOE 1 TO STANDARDIZED INTERROGATORIES 1-8;cont from 05-16-07;RE: BC307225;)
05/30/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA Hearing on Demurrer (AND MOTION TO STRIKE(PAPERS FILED ON 3/07)**CONT FROM 4/25**RE: BC291179)
05/30/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Motion to Quash (AND DISMISS(PAPERS FILED ON 3/07)**CONT FROM 4/17**RE: YC048257)
05/30/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Motion for Sanctions (PAPERS FILED ON 4/27)RE: BC308665)
05/30/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Hearing on Demurrer (AND MOTION TO QUASH AND DISMISS(PAPERS FILED ON 3/07)**CONT FROM 4/24**RE: BC308556)
05/30/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Motion Pro Hac Vice **plaintiff name deleted** (PAPERS FILED ON 5/03)RE: BC307685)
05/30/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Motion Pro Hac Vice (**plaintiff name deleted** (PAPERS FILED ON 5/03)RE: BC308017)
05/31/2007 at 08:30 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Final Status Conference (KREUTZER CASES)
06/05/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Motion to Amend (**plaintiff name deleted**’S COMPLAINT;(PAPERS FILED ON 05-16-07)RE: BC308065)
06/05/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Motion to Compel (PLAINTIFFS TO RELEASE OF RECORDSJOINDER BY DEFT DOE 1 ON BC308364AND BC307232(PAPERS FILED ON 5/10))
06/06/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Motion for Summary Judgment ((7X)(PAPERS FILED 3/26)RE: BC286703, BC304657, BC305515,BC307934, BC307949, BC308294 ANDBC308555)
06/07/2007 at 10:30 am in department 322 at 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005 Further Proceedings (-Further Briefing re Privacy Rights-)
06/11/2007 at 09:30 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Jury Trial (KREUTZER CASES)

*Pro Hac Vice re those May 30 hearings: has to do with bringing in an attorney from out of state.


From bishop accountability dot org http://bishopaccountability.org re Baker whose jury trial is January 7 2008:

Accused of abuse. 2 brothers settled in 2000 for $1.3M. Criminal charges dropped due to Supreme Court ruling. LA archdiocese counts 23 accusers. Arrested again 1/06. Laicized 12/5/2000 per LA Times Database. Included in Dec. 2006 $60 mil settlement re22 priests which covers all of the cases involving molestations that occurred since Mahony was named head of the diocese in 1985. Facing additional criminal charges 12/06 re 2nd victim

From Bishop Accountability dot org re Wempe whose jury trial is October 9, 2007:

Accused of abuse of 13 from 1972-1995 per archdiocesan report. Sued several times from 2002 to 2003. Original criminal charges dropped due to Supreme Court ruling.Re-arrested 2003. Convicted 1 count 2006. Sentenced to 3 yrs prison in May, 2006. Included in 12/06 $60 mil settlement re 22 priests which covers all of the cases involving molestations that occurred since Mahony was named head of the diocese in 1985.


More to come. . .

Friday, May 18, 2007

The raving of Church Attorneys reminds one of a psych ward as civil cases re sex criminal priests in LA head for jury trials


So much happened on the 16th that I’m writing another post, mostly copying and pasting from my notes.

Church Attorney Donald Woods objects saying why do plaintiffs need to ask other rectory residents if there were young boys in the room alone with a pedophile priest, when we already know the priest was raping the boy at the family’s home, why do we need to know what was going on in the rectory -- or words do that effect. You see what I mean about twisting logic into knots?

The church can’t find real legal arguments to fight its case so it inundates the court, through hundreds of attorneys filing thousands of motions, creating a cacophony of crooked talk that goes on and on and on until --

Tony DeMarco for the plaintiffs steps in, his face pulsating red, and says a line like:

DEMARCO: Knew, had reason to know, or was on notice. Those are the relevant issues in the statute of limitations law.

When DeMarco said those words it was a pivotal moment in court Wednesday. The church attorneys as usual had been droning on like schizophrenics and DeMarco brought it back down to the law.

The room literally went quiet after he said that. Then Fromholz said:

FROMHOLZ: Okay. Hold to granting the motion.


Church Attorneys Make Up For Incompetence With Sheer Numbers

Hundreds and hundreds of droning air-puffed arguments.

Before court started only plaintiff attorneys were in the room. I wandered into the hall to see who was there from the church side, and as usual, it’s about three to one -- there in the hall in a little tight circle stood four guys and two girls -- the youngest recent graduates from the bottom of their law school class no doubt.

The last few weeks it’s been real obvious the church can’t get quality attorneys so they make up for it in quantity, scads and scads of barely competent attorneys filing hundreds of inept motions. Just now in the hallway the two females turn their back to me and whisper, not knowing I have almost sonic hearing after 8 years as a transcriber. I hear “shh, shh, shh, shh, do you know who that is?” Just like junior high.

Here is a sampling of one of these female church attorney’s off the cuff litigation skills. This was said almost in one breath:

CHURCH ATTORNEY YOUNG: Mental reservation with all due respect, let me tell you the problem I perceive. Counsel should not be permitted to inquire of the witness into the doctrine of mental reservation and the witness only permitted to answer yes or no.

They ask, Did you study mental reservation in the seminary. Or what is your understanding. Or if you did you employ it, would you even be able to tell us? Then plaintiff parlays that into the fact that Catholic priests are all lying to protect the church.

(Me: Duh)

CHURCH ATTORNEY YOUNG: (continuing) We disagree that it’s the same as with Heavenly (she cited “Heavenly Something” here and I missed it. . . )

We would have to put witnesses up to explain the doctrine. This is a quagmire re the entire doctrine.

If the doctrine is you're allowed to lie to protect scandal and that is not what it is and we would have to put a witness on to explain the doctrine.

She really did say all that -- filling lots of air saying nothing. Oh it’s a quagmire for witnesses to have to testify?????



I’m reminded of schizophrenics walking up and down the hall in the psych ward where I spent six days and seven nights last week. Droning on and on and on, repeating themselves, speaking to an audience that really isn’t there, but somehow keeping themselves the only person speaking in their little world. . . .

Ms. Young by the way is the one who later said Mental Reservation is no more than a lie to say a dress is pretty when it really isn’t.

I was going to say, So call her or better yet call her boss and declare open season on Church Attorney Young, like I did Brandy Cody Thompson the San Diego attorney a couple months back. But I’m in Anger Management now.



As is becoming the pattern, Tony DeMarco stepped in after the church attorney drivel had gone on a few minutes and with a few words brought the room back to legal logical dialogue:

DEMARCO: We've seen this argument raised over and over again that we can’t inquire into religious doctrine. We're entitled to find out if it’s relevant to these proceedings -- That's at the heart of this motion.

JUDGE FROMHOLZ: And onto the issue of Weber?


I’ve seen this church attorney now maybe five times and have yet to get his name as he mumbles at the beginning of the hearing when asked to say his name. He has a bland face, wears bland clothes, has a bland expressions most of the time so I’ve decided to call him Nonamenoface. One time he did get animated was as this hearing began and he heard the tapping of me on my laptop keys. He jerked around like somebody pulled a weapon on him, hmm.

And when it came time for him to argue why Weber shouldn't have to answer questions, it was right after DeMarco made that statement above. He was defeated. He didn't even try to argue.



All of that above is verbatim. I work for reality TV shows and we have to transcribe this stuff perfect so except for a phrase left out for inanity, those are all verbatim quotes.


Tim Hale, Santa Barbara plaintiff attorney who has been advocating for priest rape crime victims for more than a decade, was in court with DeMarco Wednesday and got his argument into the record that plaintiffs have found witnesses who contradict much of what priests have said so far, emphasizing the need for more depositions of church hierarchy. Katherine Freberg was there Wednesday as well, but she did all her lawyering that morning in the Jury Room where everyone went for the hearing regarding Cardinal Mahony.

I’m thinking, well I’m the only person here who is even close to the press. Is Mahony that scared of me and my posting what his attorney says about him verbatim here that they have to take this hearing behind closed doors? Hmm.


It’s funny to finally find success as a blogger. The guy who coined the word blog, indeed the guy who started the first web log back in the early 1990s has been seen recently on the streets of San Francisco. He’s homeless and he carries a sign: “I coined the word blog and didn't make a dime.” He still blogs, he just has his laptop and wireless card. I read about him with interest as I may become a homeless blogger myself in the next few weeks if Arnold S‘s cuts in state disability programs affect me. Oh well at least I know how to do it this time. Last time I was homeless I was clueless. Ah, life as a priest-rape survivor, if only they knew….

They should have known. . .


Here is another direct quote of drivel from Ms. Church Attorney Young’s litigation:

CHURCH ATTORNEY YOUNG: He said yes, but, but, you know, that .. that's a very superficial question and answer, and if what that testimony is going to be used for is to suggest that these people are lying to protect the church from scandal in the case of child is a -- That’s not, you know, we can’t just stand there --

And she stumbles off into total unintelligible sputtering.



During a trucking case he was hearing before the clergy cases:

“I always expect counsel to be professional in all its discovery activities.”

More to come. . .

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Would a priest or bishop lie under oath? Mental Reservation debated in court Wednesday re church witnesses refusing to answer in depositions


Attorneys debated “mental reservation” in court Wednesday in hearings on motions to compel, and Catch 22’s were flying all over the place. Ms. Young appearing for the archbishop repeated several times that if a priest says he doesn't remember, he doesn't remember (much like a Bushie testifying before the US Senate). DeMarco for the plaintiffs pointed out, “Defendants have brought Code of Canon Law into court when it suits their purpose and they argue Canon Law, but we're not allowed to inquire at all into church doctrine or law.”

Donald Woods for the church said, “These witnesses already said they saw nothing, heard nothing, nobody ever reported anything to them.” Tim Hale for the plaintiffs replied that one priest answered yes without hesitation when asked if mental reservation “is a doctrine that protects the church from scandal.”

Then Ms. Young tried to say mental reservation is no more than “lying and saying that's a pretty dress when really it’s not,” and I am so glad I’ve recently gotten on medication and joined an Anger Management group. In fact throughout this hearing I wanted to jump up and start yelling, “Look at my case, my case, my case, my case.” Because Mental Reservation was the church’s MO way back in 1955 when Cardinal Stritch in Chicago stood over me and told me I had to lie in order to protect a greater good.

Plus, church attorneys Young and Woods both seem to believe that a priest would never tell a lie, especially under oath. Even Judge Fromholz pointed out that plaintiffs seem to have evidence that these priests are lying.

FROMHOLZ: “Plaintiffs argue that there is contrary testimony that he was given notice.”

When Anthony DeMarco spoke the room fell silent, because his was practically the only rational voice.

DEMARCO: Under the statute of limitations it’s if they knew, had reason to know, or were on notice, and that's the relevance.

WOODS: Did he know. Not whether he was suspicious or would have been suspicious.

DEMARCO: Knew, had reason to know, or was on notice. Actual knowledge is not the issue.

The rest of the attorneys went silent.

Fromholz granted the plaintiffs motions and depositions will now go forward on these six monsignors.



When the motion to make Cardinal Mahony respond came up, the attorneys went into the jury room. A clerk explained to me that the judge had ordered them to “meet and confer” on that motion. So anything that was said about Cardinal Mahony was said behind closed doors. It will take more document diving next week to find out what happened there.

Still church attorneys didn't stop trying to twist the truth and tie logic into knots, like Ms. Young for the archbishop saying, “If I ask a witness if he’s perjuring himself how many are going to say yes?” I’m going “Real smart, church attorney lady, that's the plaintiffs’ point exactly.”

Church hierarchy witnesses are perjuring themselves because they think they're answering to a higher authority.

Church attorney Donald Woods even said, “The doctrine is that there is some higher value, not just the church.”

At one point Woods had his arms up like an evangelical stupefied in prayer as he contradicted himself right there in public for everyone to see:

(From City of Angels Winging It Transcription Service)

FROMHOLZ: Why can’t they answer what their understanding is? Some of them may think it’s a
doctrine that permits them to state other than the truth in order to protect the church.

WOODS: That's not what the doctrine is.

FROMHOLZ: What the witness believes may be significant.

WOODS: But it’s clearly not implying that. And we submitted the catechism. Doctrine is that there is some higher value, not just the church. This is just a plaintiffs’ prejudicial argument that sidetracks us into giant red herrings, it’s just -- it’s just prejudicial.

FROMHOLZ: Almost all evidence is prejudicial.

WOODS: I don't know what evidence it would lead to. It’s speculative. How does it lead to admissible evidence?

FROMHOLZ: Plaintiffs argue that there is contrary testimony that he has given notice.



City of Angels Lady recently realized it’s not safe for me to cover these hearings without being in therapy at the same time. I freaked last week, lost it and ended up 5150 in a mental ward. Because as I write this blog about Los Angeles cases details of my own case are popping into my head in what I’ve learned now to call “flashbacks” as opposed to memories. Every now and then a detail in these cases makes my own case so vivid in my head. And I’m SOOOOOOO Angry.

But I never stop praying, in fact at this point in my life I try to stay in prayer 24 hours a day, it’s the only way I can stay alive. In the mental health unit I adapted to the medicine and did everything the way they said to do it, and they lifted the hold on me Monday. I was able to get home in time to get to the hearings Tuesday. It was a God thing all the way. Now I’m leveled a little on meds and have joined a PTSD group and an Anger Management group with occasional time with a shrink to help me get through this.


More Church Lies

When Mahony took issue with the LA Times for its March 26, 2007, article about mental reservation, he announced on the archdiocese website: “The Times allows the lawyers suing the church to take a centuries-old theological discussion (it isn't doctrine) over what constitutes the telling of a lie, and fashion it into the ‘doctrine of mental reservation.’ The term isn't even found in the Catechism.”

But Donald Woods stood before Judge Fromholz Tuesday and said, “We submitted the catechism,” as his way of explaining away mental reservation. After the hearing Mr. Woods and I spoke and he assured me that all you have to do is google a catechism then type in mental reservation to read about it.

Well I did go to several online catechisms and typed in mental reservation and they all said, “no documents found, no documents match your query.” Plus I believe the catechism is for the parishioners, not the priests, isn’t it?

And as Ms. Young for the archbishop stated, these lies about pedophile priests are no more than lying about whether or not that's a pretty dress.

Gotta get to Anger Management class, more later.



Church Attorney Donald Woods re whether hierarchy witnesses are silently invoking mental reservation:

"This is more gamesmanship and speculation to create issues that don’t exist.”

Onward, more to come . . .

Thursday, May 3, 2007

4 Hearings May 16 as plaintiffs get aggressive arguing Motions to Compel answers in depositions and interrogatories. LA jury trials begin in June

Next hearings are on May 16th, several motions to compel depositions and responses as plaintiffs try to get the church to cooperate with discovery:

05/16/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
(PAPERS FILED ON 4/13)RE: 01131929)

05/16/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
**CONT TO 5/30**RE: BC307225

05/16/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

05/16/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

05/16/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

(City of Angels Lady is taking a break and will return shortly.)
More to come. . .