====================
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.”
Huh?
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. . .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment