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

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. . .

No comments: