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

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. . .

No comments: