Access still denied to public documents; a CHALLENGE to Church Attorneys; plus priest psych records are private, plaintiffs' aren't

*****
By Kay Ebeling
Friday Roundup: If anyone thinks I’m not being fair and only portraying Church Attorneys doing stupid things, I want to make it clear. I’m reporting on what they are doing. If there were any legitimate logical legal arguments in any of their documents, I’d report it. Although this afternoon the ArcScanWeb was down once again so I wasn't able to look at anything. Once again as everyone else in Room 106 merrily viewed their screens, mine were all blank white or "access denied."

The blank white screens are the creepy ones. First time one of those came up was May 31st when I was trying to find a copy of Mahony’s subpoena or something briefed about it. I clicked a promising document, Java opened and -- a blank white screen. I felt a chill like Mahony's ethereal footprint. The entire month of June I'd say 80 percent of the times I went to the JCCP Documents it was Access Denied, and I’ve been document diving since January. Everything was seamless until ArcScanWeb, a private contractor hired to maintain the Clergy Cases documents did an upgrade May 31st, a week after Mahony’s subpoena.

Plus lately even when Church Attorneys do file documents, even the title does not show up in the public access database. In every hearing last week, the "papers filed by defendant" that created the hearing just were not in the database at all. The Calendar says Hearing based on papers filed by Defendant June 6 and when you go to look from June 4 to 9 there’s nothing there at all filed by defendant for that case.

So proud is the LA Archdiocese of the work of its 15 or so legal firms.

CHALLENGE TO ANY ATTORNEYS DEFENDING THE LA ARCHDIOCESE
Would a Church Attorney please forward me a brief or a motion that makes a good case for the archdiocese?

Are you proud of your work?

I will glady write a balanced post saying here is the church’s side on this. Just give me a logical praiseworthy brief to read and I’ll report on it.

Instead it’s amazing how Mad Hatter the Clergy Cases have become. Remember last week’s rancor in court as Church Attorneys demanded more and more from plaintiffs about their psychiatry records? Well for Friday’s roundup I spent some time reading a document forwarded to me by a loyal reader.

Here Church Attorneys defend their right to keep accused and even convincted pedophile priests’ psychiatry records secret. So they can have free reign over plaintiffs' psych records but convicted pedophile priests can keep whatever they say to their psychiatrists secret.

For quotes from this brief see below.
But I'm serious. Anyone with an interesting brief, or motion, pertaining to these cases, please send them to my email, which is on the left under My Profile and in a couple other places.

I’d also like someone with credit card access to the documents to let me know if you are having the same Access Denied problem. I’d really like to know that.

*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
I hope you enjoy reading this blog. It’s time for me to pass the Internet Hat. This blog paid my rent the last two months. The more I make from the blog, the less hours I have to spend transcribing. For more coverage of Clergy Cases 2007 hit the “Donate” button in the top left column.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

It’s hard to see it now but the LA Archdiocese used to be rural, as recently as the 1970s. It stretched all the way from the Mexican border up through the inland desert, then from Fresno all the way to the beach. With the nationwide pattern of transferring pedophile priests to rural areas, Southern California was a virtual dumping ground.

Plus at least two Southern California seminaries were run by men with, well, sexual problems, who recruited young boys, groomed them, and turned them loose on the population as parish priests over a 20-year period.

It’s hard to believe Cardinal Mahony really wants these 15-plus jury trials to take place. Out of every document I’ve read in seven months of document diving I’ve yet to find any legitimate legal argument from the church for anything about anything.

The Catholic Church in LA needs to sell about half of its secular properties and establish a foundation for survivors of priest rape along with a heartfelt, sincere, genuine admission that something horrible took place and they're horribly responsible and now here are all the wonderful things we are going to do to make this up.

Anything short of a total turnaround in its approach to this problem will be institutional suicide. LA has an opportunity here to do something to save the church’s face, save the failing faith, by just saying, yes. We did this horrible thing. It wasn’t just a few priests here and there, it was a network of filth and disgusting life-ruining behavior that we let carry on in our properties for at least 50 years, maybe longer.

_____

Brief filed by Church Attorneys in Santa Barbara totally contradicts what Church Attorneys say in Los Angeles

Considering that last week psychiatry records came up a lot in the Clergy Cases -- one case in Vermont became a mistrial after a Church Attorney grilled a plaintiff about his psychiatric records and Mahony’s attorneys in LA were demanding more acceess to plaintiffs’ psychiatrists’ notes, these arguments about how important it is to maintain the privacy of accused and convicted pedophile priests is particularly interesting.

Quotes From:
Objections to Public Disclosure of Private and Confidential Records
By Howie & Smith, LLP, in San Mateo, representing five perpetrator priests from the Santa Barbara Franciscans.

“Petitioner objects to the public release of documents relating to healthcare, including medical and mental health care treatment on the ground that these records are confidential and private and constitutionally protected from disclosure.”

“Confidential patient/physician/psychotherapist communications are protected by the Federal and California state rights to privacy. The constitutional right of privacy applies to a party’s medical and psychotherapeutic history. (cites a 1979 case)

“The right of privacy may even be invoked as a ground for refusal to answer questions that constitute an unreasonable intrusion upon that right.” (cites a 1989 case)

But even more twisted logic comes in when they argue that once a case is settled the need for documents from discovery is gone.

“With the settlement of these cases the purpose for the disclosure of these private and confidential records has been fulfilled, and cannot be extended to other purposes.”

To do that now would be “denying due process” to the perpetrators, say the Church Attorneys. In other words since they avoided prosecution and settled out of court, they can now avoid any disclosure of psychiatry records.

Remember, these psychiatry records pertain to criminal behavior. These same attorneys -- they all serve one client -- want to finger through every page written by a doctor about plaintiffs who are crime victims, while keeping those same documents about the crime perpetrators sacred, oh, I mean secret. . .

So do priests now have to reveal their personnel records even though they've settled out of court? So far the court ruled against it, but only in the Franciscans cases from Santa Barbara. The ruling from June 18th will likely be appealed and it does NOT apply to all 550 Clergy Cases.

Even though the LA Times article led you to think so.
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
I hope you enjoy reading this blog. It’s time for me to pass the Internet Hat. Please put a high five or more on my Pay-Pal Account so I can start feeling like a professional. The more I make from the blog, the less hours I have to spend transcribing. So to see more coverage of Clergy Cases 2007 hit the “Donate” button in the top left column.
PS I want to use PayPal money to get a video camera so I can start posting videos.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

“That's only the Franciscans. What about the Jesuits?” asked my friend Tina re the post about privacy rights last week.

Another whole brotherhood of pedophiles in the Jesuits thrived in Santa Barbara at the same time as the Franciscans. I’m not sure where Judge Lichtman got the number of 41 in his ruling on the Franciscans.

It gets confusing. So many priests, so many parishes, so many predatory techniques.

FRIDAY ROUNDUP CONTINUED:

Here is next two weeks’ calendar. All take place at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 except Hagenbach cases Jury Trial begins July 9 at 9:30 AM PST.

From Superior Court website at http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civil/07/03/2007

Hearing on Demurrer (AND MOTION TO STRIKE(PAPERS FILED ON 6/07)RE: 03CC00698)

07/09/2007 at 09:30 am Jury Trial (HAGENBACH CASES)

07/10/2007 Motion for Protective Order ((PAPERS FILED ON 5/23)RE: BC307410)

07/10/2007 Motion for Sanctions ((PAPERS FILED ON 6/08)JOINDER BY PLAINTIFFS ON BC307917,BC308555, BC291941 AND 03AS04125RE: BC306507)

07/10/2007 Motion to Quash (SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT(PAPERS FILED ON 6/11)RE: BC307033)

07/10/2007 MOTION - COMPEL DEPOSITION (ANSWERS FROM MONSIGNOR LAWRENCE J.PURCELL;(PAPERS FILED ON 06-04-07)RE: BC308395)

07/11/2007Motion for Leave (TO ALLEGE PUNITIVE DAMAGES(PAPERS FILED ON 6/18)**cont to 7/18**RE: BC308301, BC308555 ANDBC338363)

(AGAIN: Would a reader with a credit card please go to that website and type in one of these documents and pay $4.95 to view it? I can’t do that right now. I want to see if documents are accessible to persons with credit cards and just not accessible in Room 106 of the courthouse. Type in any of those BC numbers and search for the “papers filed” re hearings next week, and see if you are able to see them. And if you can see them, copy them and forward them to me, please?)
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
I hope you enjoy reading this blog. It’s time for me to pass the Internet Hat. Please put a high five or more on my Pay-Pal Account so I can start feeling like a professional. The more I make from the blog, the less hours I have to spend transcribing. For more coverage of Clergy Cases 2007 hit the “Donate” button in the top left column.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

Announcement:
This blog paid my rent in June and July 2007. The crisis is past, the transcription work is back. But the more the blog makes, the less hours I need to spend transcribing.

There’s going to be a big story here, even if all the LA Cases settle next week. So I’ll keep the Pay-Pal button up there and you can push my button just to send me a high five anytime. Onward--ke

Meantime this weekend I’ll be buried in tapes: from "40 Crimes of Fashion" for E! and oh my god, it never fails. One of the jobs I have to do this weekend is an interview with a bishop. . . hope it’s a Baptist.

More to Come. . .

Church Attorneys request more psychiatry records, more discovery, and use other stall tactics; most motions denied, tension high at hearings June 27.

*****
A Mad Tea Party in LA Superior Court, (see below)

By Kay Ebeling
I started out the day stunned to read about the Vermont clergy case mistrial as a result of a Church Attorney grilling a plaintiff on the stand about his psychiatric records. Then in LA Superior Court Wednesday morning there were rancorous hearings, with Church Attorneys pushing for more access to plaintiffs’ psychiatric records in the Hagenbach cases. Even though discovery has been going on for years, all of a sudden the archdiocese needs more addresses, more names, dates. In the Miani case hearing, the Church Attorney acted like she had no idea there was more than one perpetrator in the Salesians, and now that she knew, the cases had to be severed.

Two hearings Wednesday could have resulted in trials slipping to later dates if the archdiocese had its way. Instead, the judge muddled through obstructionist motions filed by the church and served up compromises. The truth is, Church Attorneys keep delivering lines and logic right out of Alice in Wonderland.

It’s getting nasty. I find myself glaring darts at Sean Kneafsey, for the defendant archdiocese, when my mouth isn’t hanging opened astonished. Today’s debate was a blatant stall tactic, the church demanding backwards steps in six Hagenbach cases (Jury trial July 9th), because plaintiffs in interrogatories couldn't say for sure if they’d need psychiatric care in the future. This hearing has been on calendar several times since June 16th and over and over again the judge has ordered attorneys to meet and confer and resolve the issue.

Throughout the pursuit of more psychiatric records, I couldn't help thinking there’s a connection between the mistrial in Vermont yesterday and the hearing this morning about psychiatrist notes about Hagenbach victims two weeks before trial. However, plaintiff attorneys I spoke to later said no it’s just more of the same archdiocese stall tactics.

Defense Astounded and Immobilized at Learning There’s More Than One Perpetrator in the Salesians
See Below
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
I hope you enjoy reading this blog. It’s time for me to pass the Internet Hat. Please put a high five or more on my Pay-Pal Account so I can start feeling like a professional, and you can get even more coverage of LA Clergy Cases 2007. Use the “Donate” button in the top left column.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

Church Attorney Acts Shocked at “New Information” that Plaintiff Was Raped by More than One Priest.

Hearings this morning began with an attorney for the Salesians trying to convince the judge to restructure the Miani cases which are now set for trial in late September. It seems she just found out the plaintiff claims he was raped by more than one priest at John Bosco High School.

That one plaintiff’s case in the Miani trials needs to be severed from the rest, now says the church, as this new information changes everything.

Tony DeMarco, his face beating red, tried to steer the argument to sanity: “There may have been some new statements recently,” he said, “but they've had his questionnaire for years where he identified other perpetrators.”

“Making us try this case twice outweighs any weight on the defendants,” DeMarco said, his entire head now beaming red. “The fact is there were a slew of perpetrators at Bosco High School at that time.”

No one else could speak as he continued: “As a pattern and practice the institution sheltered and aided and abetted pedophiles, that is the substance for notice.”

CHURCH ATTORNEY: Well the original claim did list three perpetrators--

(THEN WHY ARE WE EVEN HAVING THIS HEARING?????)

--but now we need information about the plaintiff’s background, employment, witnesses, he alleges [STAMMER-STAMMER] he said someone made comments which showed they knew that he was being abused…. (Her voice trails off.)

(The LA Times guy behind me sighs and shifts in his seat. He isn't taking notes.)

CHURCH ATTORNEY: There’s a significant amount of discovery that needs to be done in two months.

DEMARCO: Like in every other case we have trial dates. We aren’t going to continue every single trial date.

JUDGE FROMHOLZ: These cases have been around for a very long time so the tentative is the order.

Hearings over,
AN ATTORNEY BURST OUT OF THE JURY ROOM
MORE ATTORNEYS APPEARED FROM THE HALL.
They all plodded into the jury room, because the judge had ordered yet another meet and confer; re church’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories from plaintiffs
More after this:
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
I hope you enjoy reading this blog. It’s time for me to pass the Internet Hat. Please put a high five or more on my Pay-Pal Account so I can start feeling like a professional, and you can get even more coverage of LA Clergy Cases 2007. Use the “Donate” button in the top left column.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

Plaintiff and defendant attorneys went into the jury room to try once again to hash out discovery problems the church brought up in the Hagenbach cases two weeks before trial.

Anger Management was just Yesterday
So why am I Shaking like this???
As the attorneys met and conferred, the LA Times guy and I talked. He insisted the Times puts “a great deal of resources” into this story and when something newsworthy happens it’ll make page one.

I wanted to make him see the total picture in the few minutes I had. “You know, Southern California was rural, in the 1950s and even ‘70s so it follows that same pattern as nationwide. The church dumped their problem priests in our canyons, deserts and beach towns.”

But it’s so hard to talk about this topic in polite society. My hands started to shake and I got shrill and loud. “It was an epidemic,” I continued. The clerk asked me to lower my voice. I swallowed and looked down. There were white bumps bursting out on my arms.

I was trying to get it across to the Times guy, this is a Pulitzer level story, and local newspaper is barely there. But I think I may have been foaming at the mouth or something. Spano backed away from me, holding his reporter’s notebook in front of him as if to defend himself. He excused himself and backed away while I was spewing out more and more about one of the many conspiracies….

He got out of there as fast as he could. I have this effect on people. . . .
==========
They Met and Conferred and Could Not Get to Resolution

When the attorneys emerged from the jury room, they were all beaming red. There would have to be a hearing before the judge. This is what transpired:

(The LA Times guy didn't come back.. . . )

CHURCH ATTORNEY SEAN KNEAFSEY: Plaintiffs are refusing to provide records that are in plaintiffs custody. In some cases from treatment in the past year.

JUDGE: The Issue is treatment records?

DEMARCO: One of many issues. In some cases they want medical providers who have nothing to do with abuse. And, Your Honor, we do not have these records in our custody.

DeMarco is mad and it shows every time he speaks:

“Plus we've filed motions to compel every time we need a document, and there is no level of cooperation from defendants.”

JUDGE: This is a waste of time. This fighting over procedures. There doesn't seem to be any question the moving party is entitled and we're just fighting over procedure. I’m surprised you gentlemen think we have time for this.

DEMARCO: We don’t. These plaintiffs have all been deposed. The information has been given. These motions are knee jerk.

(KNEAFSEY’s HEAD jerks to the right and he glares at DeMarco.)
HERE IS WHERE THE MAD TEA PARTY BEGINS
Following this:
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
I hope you enjoy reading this blog. It’s time for me to pass the Internet Hat. Please put a high five or more on my Pay-Pal Account so I can start feeling like a professional, and you can get even more coverage of LA Clergy Cases 2007. Use the “Donate” button in the top left column.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

A Mad Tea Party in LA Superior Court

CHURCH ATTORNEY: The argument is plain as day. The plaintiffs cannot tell us today if they will need to see a psychiatrist sometime in the future as a result of this issue or perhaps for some other issue

And a very merry un-birthday to you to you

We asked plaintiffs over and over again and then over and over again again whether they would need to see a psychiatrist in the future and do you know what one of them answered?

“I don't know the exact nature of what was recommended.”

NoW I tell you, Your Honor, and please, no mustard, let’s not get carried away.

Shall I continuuuuuuuu?????

How are we to know from these complicated words: “I don't know the exact nature of what was recommended” whether the plaintiff knows or does not know? Does he know he is going to know, or worse yet, does someone else --
A PSYCHIATRIST!!!!
-- know that in the future the plaintiff will or will not need to see--
A PSYCHIATRIST!!!!
Oh and have another cup of mad tea!!!
A Very Merry Un-Birthday To YouUUUUUUUUU
=========
I’m thinking the plaintiffs sure will need shrinking after going through these trials.

HERE IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED:

KNEAFSEY: Uh, uh, the third issue is future treatment. In interrogatories 46 - 50 we asked plaintiffs if they need future treatment.

DEMARCO: Each of the witnesses have answered these questions in deposition. How is “I don't know” an insufficient response? If they don’t know now, they won’t know at the time of trial. If they suddenly have a flash of light on the stand and say now I know I’ll need it three times a week, then Defendants can question them about it then. . .

What is this question that Plaintiffs didn't answer clearly enough for the Church Attorneys?
Read it after this:
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
I hope you enjoy reading this blog. It’s time for me to pass the Internet Hat. Please put a high five or more on my Pay-Pal Account so I can start feeling like a professional, and you can get even more coverage of LA Clergy Cases 2007. Use the “Donate” button in the top left column.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

In interrogatories and depositions, when asked “Did a therapist recommend or suggest you might need future psychiatric treatment,” many plaintiffs answered

"I don't know."

And if that wasn’t bad enough, one plaintiff had the nerve to say:

“I don't know the exact nature of what was recommended.”

For this, Defendant Archdiocese wants plaintiffs now to take trips across the country and track down names and addresses of every therapist they've seen since 1963.

For this plaintiffs risked another looooong delay in justice as the Hagenbach cases toppled on the precipice of falling into delay, to a new date for the trial. Because if the defendants are denied the answer:
Will plaintiffs need a psychiatrist in the future?
They'll have to conduct all their depositions all over again and maybe we could just reschedule this trial to sometime next year?

The scary thing is Fromholz was considering the church’s motion. DeMarco had to keep jumping in with one reason after another why the church attorneys’ demands were unreasonable. “These people have been deposed,” he said repeatedly. They've been deposed over and over again. If they don’t know, then the true answer is ‘I don't know.’”

DeMarco fumed and also repeated several times, “This is a knee jerk motion. This is a knee jerk motion.” The first time he said it Sean Kneafsey jerked a few inches in the air in surprise. Maybe it was his knee.

Anything other than Yes or No Means I don't know.

In keeping with the Mad Hatter Tea Party tone, Judge Fromholz, ever the civil mediator, proclaimed his order:

“Anything other than yes or no will be construed to mean, ‘I don't know.’” So the Hagenbach cases trial is still set for July 9th, in spite of another attempt by Church Attorneys to slip a trial date, as you know the next thing they’d ask if they’d been granted this motion was for a delay in the trial so they could “gather needed discovery.”

At one point the judge said to both plaintiff and defendant attorneys, “I know you people have been working on this a long, and my first thought was,

WHEN DID KNEAFSEY TOSTADO SIGN ON TO THESE CASES????
If I remember right they were added as counsel just recently
I go downstairs to find the Notice of Adding New Counsel.

I go to open the document and
It’s a blank white page
ArcScanWeb the private sector contractor that manages the database for JCCP cases, i.e., the Clergy Cases,
Is down again

I watch everyone else in Room 106 access their civil cases documents and decide to try another day.

More to Come.

Archdiocese tries to “sever” cases re Titian Miani, Mahony’s colleague from Stockton; as well as exclude critical evidence. 9 hearings Wednesday 6.27

*****
By Kay Ebeling
Aka City of Angels Lady
Hearing Wednesday June 27th to “sever and reschedule trial” in cases BC308301 and BC308555, cases concerning Titian Miani aka Father Jim. At this point the jury trial in the Miani cases is September 24.

Defendant Roman Catholic Archdiocese filed this document May 30th but their actual “motion to sever and reschedule” is nowhere to be found in the public documents. Too bad. I would have given equal time to their case. You can however look at the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Church Attorneys 6.18.07 for those two cases as well as BC308363, another Miani case, where the church denies all charges.

Then there are several declarations supporting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment written by:

Reverend Ralph Murphy SDB
Father Maurizio Girolami
Michael J. Alvarez
The Salesian Society and Bosco High School itself
Reverend Ralph Murphy
Jeffrey S. Koenig

Let’s give them a hand for going down in infamy as swearing their support for a pedophile priest over his victims. Clap-clap-Clap-clap-clap.

COULDN'T FIND THE MOTION TO SEVER FILED MAY 30

But I did find another Notice of Association of Counsel for those same three cases:

(To be read in the voice of the guy who introduces the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland.)
Be very officious and British like speaking through a moustache as you read:

"Please take notice that Thomas Delaney and Alexandra McDermott Wilcox of the law firm of Dedgwick Detert Moran & Arnold LLP have been associatedad as co-counsel for Defendants the Salesian Society and St John Bosco High school with Foley & Lardner LLP.

More document diving below:
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
I hope you enjoy reading this blog. It’s time for me to pass the Internet Hat as I don't have the rent for July. I spend hours doing research and writing, hearings start at 8:30 AM. Please put a high five or more on my Pay-Pal Account so I can start feeling like a professional, and you can get even more coverage of LA Clergy Cases 2007. Use the “Donate” button in the top left column.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

LOTS OF GEMS IN THE DOCUMENT DIVE THIS WEEK:
For a long time today I couldn't open any documents in the ArcScanWeb. As I've reported before, data management for the Clergy Case files is outsoucred to a private sector firm, separate from all other civil cases in LA Superior Court. So almost every time I go diving, I watch people all around me in Room 106 reading their civil case documents with no problems, but the Clergy Cases database is down about half as often as up.

However, reading the titles tells a story itself:
=====
RECENT DOCUMENTS
Show Church Attorneys Trying to Get Evidence Excluded:

In BC308294
Church’s attempt to exclude evidence “of any other victims of any other priests or lay employees of defendant Doe or etc.”

Filed June 15
The defendant is trying to exclude evidence of church doctrine, practices, or beliefs and plaintiffs in three cases are trying to keep them included.

Another one.
6.15.05
Defendant trying to “exclude references to defendants secret archives or etc.”

Same three cases another one
Defendant filed motion to “exclude reference to the Report to the People of God

Do you notice it’s all the church trying to prevent things from coming out and the plaintiffs fighting back. The plaintiffs are always on the defensive.

Shouldn't it be the other way around with the defendants on the defensive?

For plaintiffs’ side on these three cases, see below.

*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
I hope you enjoy reading this blog. It’s time for me to pass the Internet Hat as I don't have rent for July. I spend hours doing research and writing, hearings start at 8:30 AM. Please put a high five or more on my Pay-Pal Account so I can start feeling like a professional, and you can get even more coverage of LA Clergy Cases 2007. Use the “Donate” button in the top left column.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

Here is the plaintiffs’ side of cases BC308301 and BC308555 and BC308363
Which the church is trying to “sever and reschedule trial,” hearing Wednesday June 27th

From Plaintiffs argument against motion for summary judgment filed by Boucher and Drivon, these cases concern the following Salesian Clergymen:

Father Titian Miani
Brother John Verhart
Brother Anthony Juarez
Brother Mark Epperson
Father Larry Lorenzoni

“II: THE NUMEROUS, EGREGIOUS ACTS OF SALESIAN CLERGY CLEARLY ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE"

“A more detailed look at the history of Father Titian Miani exemplifies exactly how the Salesian Order ignored warning signs, reports, and complaints and knowingly allowed so many of its pedophiles to prey on countless children.”

Miani was “known by the Salesians to be a danger to children long before he was even ordained as a priest.”

Miani went by the name “Father Jim.”

His “first documented incident of child molestation took place in 1947.”

On a retreat with other clerics he “attempted a dishonest act” with a 13 year old boy who “knew how to resist.”
(From Miani’s personnel file, translated into English)

Several other documents from the 1940s from Reverends with Italian names, have been translated and will be put into evidence in the Titian Miani (aka Father Jim) cases.

He was ordained in 1955 into the Salesian order even though there were already several reports of his flagrantes, one written in 1955 describes his activity as “having his hand on a boy’s crotch,” and that's pretty blatant for 1955.

From the Plaintiffs, cont’d: “Once at St. John Bosco (1958) Miani immediately began molesting children and targeted 8th grader (Plaintiff).”

Apparently the Salesians sold themselves in those years as allowing “no two alone,” but Miani “repeatedly isolated (plaintiff), abusing him in his ‘off-limits’ bedroom in the priests’ quarters, as well as on a trip to the Salesian campsite at Arrow Bear.

Plaintiff reported Martini I mean Miani to another priest and “No one stepped in to save him.”

Then two other pedophiles on the school faculty, joined in. Lorenzoni and Brother Ralph Murguia and raped the plaintiff repeatedly. I have to warn you. This is going to come up a lot in the Clergy Cases as they go to trial, terrible truths about how involved the network of pedophiles was in the church, and how horrible some of the experiences these kids had at the hands of sick men who should never have been priests in the first place.

But as I’ve said so many times and will again: Pedophiles were drawn to become priests because it was so easy to be a pedophile in the church. Cloistered in isolated places alone with vulnerable children.
-----------
Wonder why Mahony is Working So Hard to ‘Sever’ This Case? Here is from an LA Weekly report

"A review of personnel records during Mahony's tenure as bishop of Stockton suggests he was more involved with priest pedophilia problems than he admits. Clergy Personnel Board minutes from December 12, 1984, concern a man named Father Titian Miani. "[Miani] seems to be causing dissension in the parish," the minutes state. "Reports have come from very credible witnesses. We have no process to deal with priests who act unprofessionally, nor a way to listen to credible witnesses in such cases." Miani was charged in 2003 with two counts of committing a lewd act on a child in the mid-1960s. Charges were dropped in 2003 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down California's statute of limitations for child sex abuse.

From Cardinal Untruths
Mahony's Testimony in Sex Scandal Clashes with Earlier Statements and Reality

By Jeffrey Anderson
LA Weekly
December 15, 2004
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/cardinal-untruths/1101/

[BishopAccountability.org has linked quotes from the Mahony deposition to the relevant page in the deposition itself. At the end of this article, see links to the full Mahony deposition and four exhibits.]

More on Miani and the Salesians below:
COMMERCIAL BREAK
I hope you enjoy reading this blog. It’s time for me to pass the Internet Hat as I don't have July's rent. I spend hours each day doing research and more hours writing, hearings start at 8:30 AM. Please put a high five or more on my Pay-Pal Account so I can start feeling like a professional, and you can get even more coverage of LA Clergy Cases 2007. Use the “Donate” button in the top left column.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****
=========
From the Plaintiffs in Miani Cases
I’d report the church’s side but they didn't post their motion on the public board. Too bad.

“Miani went to work at Salesian High School in Los Angeles until 1968 and then came back to St. John Bosco to “once again to work under his friend and Director, Father John Malloy.”

He was promoted to Prefect as well as Latin teacher.

He molested at least one more boy and two females who are all plaintiffs here now in this case. Plus there are other victims who will be witnesses.

Miani got to these children at Arrow Bear Camp, in hotel rooms on overnight stays, in his car on trips to Sebastapol, in Miani’s office during the school day, behind closed doors at St. John Bosco High School. And in the children’s family homes.

Malloy obviously knew about Miani’s proclivities in 1967 by his letters. “Despite 20 years of knowledge that Miani was a dangerous pedophile, the Salesian Order allowed Miani to leave the salesians “for personal reasons” reads the plaintiffs’ argument.

He went to the Stockton Discese in 1974 and nobody warned anybody in advance.

Finally arrested in 2003 and released weeks after due to the Stogner Decision.

“To this day, Father John Malloy states that Miani was a ‘model ‘priest’ and that he ‘never had any reason to read his personnel file.’”

PLAINTIFFS’ ARGUMENTS AGAINST MOTION TO SEVER MARTINI CASES, CONT’D.
Hearing June 27 along with seven other motions

The cases against The Salesians and St. John Bosco High School “are not only examples of quite possibly the most dangerous and despicable child molesters in the Catholic clergy, but they also exemplify the moral hypocrisy and compete conscious disregard for children which has sadly come to characterize the Salesian Order,” write plaintiff attorneys.

The irony is the Salesians are supposed to exemplify Giovanni Melchior Bosco who is known for his dedication to guide and protect vulnerable youth in 19th Century Italy.

Plaintiffs argue the Salesians make a mockery of Giovanni Bosco’s memory: “by knowingly permitting its priests to engage in egregious and outrageous practices towards children in their parishes.

“Miani, Verhart, Juarez, Epperston, and Lorenzoni as well as every Salesian Priest and Brother who knew of their habitual molestation of children used and manipulated the respect and reverence given to Catholic clergy in order to prey on innocent young boys and girls.”

What's coming next week, after this:
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
I hope you enjoy reading this blog. It’s time for me to pass the Internet Hat. Keep in mind I spend hours each day doing research and more hours writing, hearings start at 8:30 AM. Please put a high five or more on my Pay-Pal Account so I can start feeling like a professional, and you can get even more coverage of LA Clergy Cases 2007. Use the “Donate” button in the top left column.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

HEARINGS 6.27.07
Copy and pasted from http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civil/ type in JCCP4286 as the case number

06/27/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion for Summary Judgment ((PAPERS FILED ON 4/11)RE: BC308395)

06/27/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MOTION - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENTS(PAPERS FILED ON 6/06)RE: BC286703)

06/27/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MOTION - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENTS(PAPERS FILED ON 6/06)RE: BC305515)

06/27/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MOTION - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENTS(PAPERS FILED ON 6/06)RE: BC307934)

06/27/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MOTION - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENTS(PAPERS FILED ON 6/06)RE: BC304657)

06/27/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MOTION - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENTS(PAPERS FILED ON 6/06)RE: BC308294)

06/27/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion (TO SEVER AND RESCHEDULE TRIAL(PAPERS FILED ON 5/30)RE: BC308301 AND BC308555)

06/27/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Quash (SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT(PAPERS FILED ON 6/11)**cont to 9/25**RE: BC307145)

06/27/2007 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MOTION - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENTS(PAPERS FILED ON 6/06)RE: BC308555)

06/28/2007 at 08:30 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference (HAGENBACH CASES)

MORE DOCUMENT DIVING:

For a long time I couldn't open documents Tuesday, but the titles tell a story themselves: Notice how much the church is on the offense and the plaintiffs are having to be on defense. It’s jarring, but blatant and obvious and hopefully no judge or jury is stupid enough to buy into this:

These documents were filed in just one day May 30th:

BC304657
Defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a protective order

BC307685
Plaintiffs ex part application for an order compelling a non party to comply with a subpoena

BC308556C
Demurrer of defendant doe 1 and motion to quash and dismiss

BC291179
Special demurrer and motion to strike by defendants the archdiocese of Los Angeles and the roman Catholic Bishop of Los Angeles.

BC308665
Motion of defendant doe 1 for evidentiary sanctions

BC325552
Notice of filing of notice of removal

BC308065
Plaintiffs opposition to defendants motion to quash subpoena

BC304657
Plaintiffs ex parte application for an order compelling a non party to comply with a deposition or subpoena, etc.

BC304657
defendant doe 1’s opposition to plaintiffs ex parte application to compel deposition

How the press used to cover this story, after this.
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
I hope you enjoy reading this blog. It’s time for me to pass the Internet Hat. Keep in mind I spend hours each day doing research and more hours writing, hearings start at 8:30 AM. Please put a high five or more on my Pay-Pal Account so I can start feeling like a professional, and you can get even more coverage of LA Clergy Cases 2007. Use the “Donate” button in the top left column.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

Here is an article that was in LA Weekly in 2004. Where are they now:

Cardinal Untruths
Mahony's Testimony in Sex Scandal Clashes with Earlier Statements and Reality
By Jeffrey Anderson
LA Weekly
December 15, 2004
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/cardinal-untruths/1101/
[BishopAccountability.org has linked quotes from the

Mahony deposition to the relevant page in the deposition itself. At the end of this article, see links to the full Mahony deposition and four exhibits.]
Confidential documents and sworn statements by Cardinal Roger Mahony were released last week, ending two years of legal maneuvers to shield "his eminence" from examination in the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal. The cardinal's testimony, memos and letters offer a rare glimpse into Mahony's formative years as a priest and young bishop in Fresno and Stockton from 1962 to 1985, and reflect on his moral standing as shepherd of 5 million Catholics in Los Angeles and ranking prelate in the United States.

Mahony emerges as a man of contradictions and memory problems. A man who claims never to have known a priest to have sex before 1968, who struggles to remember steps he took — or did not take — to address a pedophilia crisis of epic proportions. A man whose fitness to lead must now be examined in light of whether he is telling the truth or not.

Compelled by the court after months of resistance, Mahony was deposed recently at his lawyer's office in downtown Los Angeles. Five lawyers representing hundreds of sex-abuse victims questioned Mahony for six hours about how he responded to accusations that priests in his charge had molested children. His stubborn refusal to answer all questions with candor was a virtual dare to his adversaries to dig deeper for the truth.

Victims who witnessed the deposition struggled to contain their emotions as Mahony's attorneys coached the cardinal and cajoled victims' lawyers, who in their blunt questioning conveyed a sense of moral outrage on behalf of people whose lives were ruined by a priest who might have been stopped had the cardinal done more. At stake was not only the tenuous negotiations of hundreds of lawsuits alleging sexual abuse, or the pending prosecution of a few rogue priests, or even the possibility of broader conspiracy charges against Mahony and his colleagues, but the credibility of the last remaining symbol of influence, power and authority in the U.S. Catholic Church.

The result is 265 pages of testimony that shows Mahony distancing himself from his own career. "As I get older, more distant things I can't remember," he says. Like a crooked screw, his story just doesn't fit, no matter how hard he twists.

For instance, despite new, damaging evidence, Mahony insists he did not lie when he testified in a civil trial in 1998 that he dealt with just one priest accused of molestation while he was the bishop of Stockton from 1980 to 1985. He says he simply forgot about memos in his own hand in 1981 and 1984 that show him lowering the boom on two previously undisclosed priests accused of molestation. Meanwhile, in 1984, he transferred a pedophile priest to a new parish where he molested again. Church personnel documents are cryptic but suggest a broader problem than the one Mahony denies remembering.

Such evidence undermines Mahony's credibility as a witness and an administrator. After his sworn testimony, lawyers accused him of perjury, and sent a transcript to prosecutors in Northern California for investigation. Fallout could reach Los Angeles, where his decisions to leave priests in ministry after he knew they had molested children are being investigated. A criminal trial of one, Michael Wempe, begins in January, and prosecutors know of key witnesses who could revive charges against another, Michael Baker.

"No amount of public relations can turn this into a poor memory," says A.W. Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist, author and former priest. "For a man of his background and administrative capability to make such a claim is disgusting. We're scratching at the surface of his character here. And you are seeing the philosophy of the Catholic hierarchy, which is, ‘I only lie when I have to.' "

Mahony's credibility will be an issue in 544 lawsuits headed for settlement in Los Angeles. Lawyers for abuse victims have shown they will relinquish the fight for accountability if the price is right. They recently settled 87 lawsuits with the Diocese of Orange for $100 million, after the diocese promised not to conceal documents that likely will emerge only after lawsuits are dismissed. While attorneys contend a large enough settlement could cost Mahony his job, Sipe believes the truth could be more effective. "If the real story gets told, lay people will realize that Los Angeles is more corrupt than Boston," he says.

Some of the discrepancies may appear small. For example, the Catholic Church for decades has called upon a variety of institutes to evaluate and treat priests with sexual disorders. Mahony, in his deposition, said he had no knowledge of them until 1985. Likewise, he seemingly was rising through the ranks of some other Catholic Church when the Vatican was disseminating procedures for dealing with priests accused of solicitation and pedophilia in the 1960s. Mahony was ordained in 1962, and was a licensed social worker in Fresno from 1964 to 1970. He served there as a chancellor and a vicar between 1975 and 1980. Yet he barely acknowledges being aware that the church was rife with molestation. He even denies knowledge of priests breaking their vow of celibacy until after the Second Vatican Counsel, in 1968. "I wouldn't have any way of knowing," he said.

"Mahony would have to be deaf, dumb and stupid not to have known of priests breaking their vows in the 1960s," says a member of the clergy in Los Angeles. "Having sex is one way many found out whether the priesthood was the right calling for them." Father Thomas Doyle, an Air Force chaplain and canon law expert says, "As chancellor and vicar, the number one issue that takes up your time is dealing with problem priests."

One case that Mahony had trouble recalling is illuminated in confidential memos from 1970 that show him overseeing the transfer of Monsignor Anthony Herdegen from one parish to another. Mahony, in his deposition, denies any knowledge of reports that young boys visited Herdegen in his private residence in the rectory. He says Herdegen was transferred for being too conservative. But in December 2003, the Fresno Bee reported that two brothers accused Herdegen of sexually abusing them in the 1960s and 70s. Herdegen served in 10 parishes before retiring in 1985.

More explicit records from the Diocese of Stockton show Mahony knee-deep in personnel problems. Yet he maintained in his deposition that three accused molesters were reported to him before 1985 — a claim that contradicts trial testimony he gave in 1998, in which he admitted only one. Personnel records suggest there may have been more than three.

The subject at trial in 1998 was Oliver O'Grady, a pedophile Mahony transferred in 1984, despite a 1976 letter of apology from O'Grady to an 11-year-old molestation victim, and a psychiatrist's report stating O'Grady had a "severe defect in maturation in the matter of sex and social relationships." Mahony claims he never looked in O'Grady's confidential file, however, so he could not have possibly seen the letter. And, he said that he did not consider the psychiatrist's report to pose a serious problem.

Even if true, such indifference is shocking. Sources say O'Grady was the subject of numerous molestation settlements before Mahony arrived. But again, as incoming bishop, Mahony says he never inquired about the fitness of the priests in his diocese. He says he didn't even have a key to the confidential-file cabinet, which is odd, because such files are kept secret from most everyone except the bishop. O'Grady was convicted of lewd conduct involving a child in 1993 and later deported to Ireland. At the 1998 trial Mahony was asked if any other priests were involved with any kind of sexual misconduct with children. Mahony replied, "I cannot recall another case." Jurors, some of whom said they did not believe Mahony, awarded $30 million to O'Grady's victims. A judge later cut the award to $7 million.

In fact, O'Grady, who responded to a recent lawsuit with a 10-page anatomical explanation claiming he could not have anally raped a boy 150 times based on his own "medical research, including the Internet," was not the only accused priest Mahony dealt with at Stockton. Newly surfaced documents, some handwritten by Mahony, show that he took swift action against two accused priests visiting from Mexico in the early 1980s.

In 1981, Mahony learned of families who complained that Father Antonio Munoz had taken their sons to Tijuana and "had some type of sexual misconduct." Mahony fired the priest. "Your assignment and your faculties were canceled because of problems of a very serious and grave nature," he wrote to Munoz in 1982. Mahony then met with a family in 1984 that claimed their two boys drank beer with Father Hector Camacho in his bedroom, where the priest later molested them. Mahony typed a five-page memo of his firing of Camacho. "It is my intention to take every possible step to be certain that no other young person is harmed," Mahony wrote. Mahony also wrote two letters to the Modesto police and letters to the bishops in all of the western states warning them not to hire Camacho, who returned to Mexico under threat of prosecution. [See one of Mahony's letters to the police.]

At his deposition Mahony was asked why he did not acknowledge these incidents at O'Grady's trial in 1998. "It was some 13 years after I had left Stockton," Mahony said. "We had many events in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and I was very preoccupied. We had the visit of the [Pope]. We had earthquakes. We had riots. We had everything. I simply did not remember everything that happened in Stockton."

Sipe, who witnessed the deposition, was astounded. "Lawyers might call that perjury, but a lay person would say, ‘My God, that's a lie.' Even if he had a genuine memory lapse it raises questions about his ability to lead." Such perceptions devastated Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston, when a judge ruled that his deposition testimony did not appear truthful.

A review of personnel records during Mahony's tenure as bishop of Stockton suggest he was more involved with priest pedophilia problems than he admits. Clergy Personnel Board minutes from December 12, 1984, concern a man named Father Titian Miani. "[Miani] seems to be causing dissension in the parish," the minutes state. "Reports have come from very credible witnesses. We have no process to deal with priests who act unprofessionally, nor a way to listen to credible witnesses in such cases." Miani was charged in 2003 with two counts of committing a lewd act on a child in the mid-1960s. Charges were dropped in 2003 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down California's statute of limitations for child sex abuse.

Then there are cryptic entries such as one about a priest who "is back after visiting missionaries. He'll try to use moral persuasion. We are informing anyone from Welfare, etc., to use civil arm of Stockton to deal with him if necessary." And this, related to another priest: "OK right now, not bad-bad." Sipe, the author of the book Celibacy in Crisis, says, "‘Bad' means alcohol problems. ‘Bad-bad' means fucking kids."

After scandal erupted in 2002 Mahony admitted to leaving eight accused molesters in ministry as cardinal in Los Angeles. That includes Michael Baker, who admitted to Mahony in 1986 that he had molested several youths, but who Mahony kept in ministry for 14 years. Baker was charged with 34 counts of molestation, which were dismissed as a result of the Supreme Court ruling. And it includes Michael Wempe, who faces new criminal charges after 42 counts of sex crimes were dismissed last year.

Yet Mahony states that even in the 1980s he knew he must remove priests from ministry when he received credible allegations of molestation. "I knew that we wanted priests serving in our parishes who were not going to be a danger to anybody," he testified. But he also said that O'Grady's admitted sexual urges toward a 9-year-old would not lead to his removal. Last Thursday, Mahony told a reporter from CNN that the protocol of the 1980s was to leave accused priests in ministry because, "We misunderstood pedophilia to be a moral weakness or a sin, something that could be dealt with through spiritual counseling. We now know that is inadequate." Mahony has offered similar explanations to explain Baker, Wempe and others who remained in ministry well into the 1990s.

Thomas Brandlin, a deacon in Los Angeles, has a theory about Mahony. In 1986, Brandlin was accused of molesting a boy in Santa Barbara. Even after Brandlin obtained a declaration of factual innocence from the Santa Barbara District Attorney's Office, Mahony denied his full faculties for 10 more years, until Brandlin hired a canon lawyer and brought his case to the Vatican. "He has no plan," Brandlin says of Mahony. "He does and says what he needs to get out of whatever situation he is confronted with."

Maybe Mahony should stick to memory loss after all.

Don't you miss real reporting in the mainstream media?
MORE TO COME. . .

Convictions of priests 'elusive,' many released by Stogner decision so public interest in personnel files 'may be even stronger' Privacy Order 6/18/07

*****
41 accused clergy in Santa Barbara alone

By City of Angels Lady
Aka Kay Ebeling

It’s fun to hear a church attorney put his foot in his mouth. At the June 7 hearing that may lead to the opening of some accused priest personnel files came this dialogue:

JUDGE PETER LICHTMAN: What about the need of the state in this instance to protect children from further molestation?

CHURCH ATTORNEY NICHOLAS HELDT: We have institutions for that and they're not in this courtroom. They get this information under Megan’s Law or under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.

JUDGE LICHTMAN: The argument then is these priests are not convicted, not registered, so there’s all the more reason to find out information about them. If they're registered with Megan’s law, we don’t need further information. There are other individuals out there still in the shadows of society and they still pose a danger to society.

Then in the June 18 Court Order Lichtman continued,

“Convictions of many priests… have been elusive due to the passage of time. Numerous clergy were arrested under California’s former law allowing for retroactive criminal prosecutions for child sex abuse.

“The vast majority…were released when the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Stogner v. California.”

The public’s interest in private personnel files “may be even stronger,” writes Judge Lichtman, “because these alleged perpetrators are not known to the communities and often have unlimited access to children.”

Why So Many Predator Pedophile Priests in Santa Barbara?

More Evidence of the Dumping of Problem Priests in Rural Areas

“A troublesome history of child abuse in the Santa Barbara Area”

Plaintiffs’ counsel submits sworn testimony that outlines a troublesome history of child abuse in the Santa Barbara area which clearly implicates the Friars,” writes Judge Lichtman.

“Plaintiffs have identified 41 child abusing clergy transferred to and/or allowed to live in Santa Barbara County at various times from 1960 to the present. Of the 40 or so perpetrators, 24 of them were Franciscan preists or brothers.

*****COMMERCIAL BREAK:
It’s time for an NPR-style fund drive. I don't have the rent for July. I will be back on my feet in August as transcription jobs are coming back in. But they don’t pay ‘til August. So please hit my Pay-Pal button with a few bucks so I can stop stressing over the rent and concentrate on the blog.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

Don’t expect full coverage from the LA Times.

Unless someone mentions something dirty. . .

Out of the 22-page order from Lichtman the Times reported a few paragraphs, including several quotes from attorneys, saying, “Yup gee great.” And of course they had to include this paragraph:

"In sworn testimony, Becker testified about his attraction to boys, his interest in the Man-Boy Love Association, his leanings toward being attracted to post pubescent boys, and that he gave names of people to the Archdiocese that might come forward with allegations," Lichtman wrote.

Got to get that Man-Boy Love Association quote in there to get your readers salivating.

HERE’S ONE FOR THE CHEERLEADERS:

When I read the top of page 20 I let out a victory whoop.

“There can be no doubt that in the matter presently before this Court, there exists legitimate public concern regarding how church officials have allegedly covered up and concealed the sexual abuse of children for years. This concern grows more pressing as additional individuals may be harmed by identical or similar action.

“This public concern clearly weighs in favor of allowing these documents to be made public.”
=========

Should California’s Policy Favoring Settlements Provide a ‘Safe Haven’?

Specifically with cases that settle out of court, Lichtman writes: “Can the fact that the actions have settled derail dissemination of the document simply because the parties have availed themselves of California’s public policy favoring settlement? Can the act of settlement turn off the scrutiny switch? The answer to each of these questions has to be no.”

He affirmed that if the settled cases had gone to court, “discovery of these documents would have been ordered.”

To me this is important because it’s an area where the Church’s “above the law” behavior is backfiring in constitutional law, but because the church’s behavior was so horrible and went on so long, this step backwards for privacy rights has to be taken:

Lichtman writes in the order: “Privacy interests are not absolute and must be balanced against other important interests. Intrusion into constitutionally protected areas of privacy is appropriate where there is a balancing of the privacy right with a state interest and a finding that the state interest is compelling and outweighs the individual’s privacy right.

“In this regard, courts have also recognized an interest in making documents public which show coverups and concelment of the truth so as to provide the transparency necessary to ensure a cessation of this type of conduct in the future.”

CHURCH AIDING AND ABETTING NOW BACKFIRES ON PRIVACY RIGHTS

I knew there was a reason I wasn’t celebrating, in truth this rubs me wrong, but it’s inevitable as a result of the church’s crimes.

If the church had reported and removed pedophiles instead of aiding and abetting them for 50-plus years, we wouldn't need hearings and orders today that push back our rights of privacy in order to protect the public good. The Church not only turned generations of predators loose on a population of children, they are now causing the pendulum to swing away from privacy rights many Americans cherish. The Church’s failure to protect children is resulting in more state power over privacy.

I knew there was a reason I was having trouble writing this post. I’m not really that happy with this decision, or I should say, I’m not happy that an institution the size of the church was able to carry on like organized crime in this country for so long that the only way to clear up the damage is create law that could impact personal privacy in the future.

I also don’t really think the pedophile priests belong in jail. I think they're the scapegoats. I think Mahony and the other bishops think they are satisfying the public by letting a few pedophile priests sit in prison.

The real criminals here are the bishops and monsignors who helped sex crimes take place in their rectories, behind their altars, in the dark of the confessional. Their lax policies created a safe haven for pedophiles, indeed it’s probably why some of these sick men decided to become priests in the first place.

Believe me, pedophiles communicate with each other. Once, say in the 1950s, word got out on their networks that Catholic priests have open prey on young boys and girls, they signed right up.

It was open season on us kids as a result.

Now Mahony let’s Baker and Wempe and a few others sit in jail and I bet the Cardinal thinks if he settles the LA Clergy Cases that make it through adjudication, this problem will all go away?

I don't think so.

In February 2007 in numerous Boston bishops and monsignors were called in front of a Grand Jury to explain their decades cover up activities.

It’s only a matter of time.
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK:
It’s time for an NPR-style fund drive. I don't have the rent for July. I will be back on my feet in August as transcription jobs are coming back in. But they don’t pay ‘til August. So please hit my Pay-Pal button with a few bucks so I can stop stressing over the rent and concentrate on the blog.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

More from City of Angels Winging It Transcripts

Hey, I’m a journalist not a typist. It’s as close to verbatim as you're going to get:

CHURCH ATTORNEY BRYAN HANCE: This person has not been before the court, has not had an opportunity to litigate anything. To submit he’s now a danger to society, the court acts as prosecutor, legislator and everything.

JUDGE: It’s not a simple as that. Sit down. (All the attorneys sit down.)

JUDGE LICHTMAN: We have a particular entity that is aware. The archdiocese. That entity steadfastly has maintained through all these settlements, we have no objection. We do not take a position on it. They're not objecting, yet they're the depository of information in regards to society.

They now come forward and say well we are asserting our right to privacy. You can say these are individuals that have never been to court, never tried, never had due process of court. Therefore should not be tainted with this brush, stigma of these allegations. Shouldn't lose their rights to privacy.

As Mr. Hale has pointed out and Mr. DeMarco, it is because of their failure to do what they were obligated to do that we have this situation.

*****COMMERCIAL BREAK:
It’s time for an NPR-style fund drive. I don't have the rent for July. I will be back on my feet in August as transcription jobs are coming back in. But they don’t pay ‘til August. So please hit my Pay-Pal button with a few bucks so I can stop stressing over the rent and concentrate on the blog.
THANK YOU
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

More to come. . .

Now church wants to exclude what happened in the rectories from trials; and Mahony is still evading Interrogatories 1 - 8; plus quotes from Tom Doyle.

***
By Kay Ebeling

I went to court yesterday as a hearing on Cardinal Majony’s answers to Interrogatories 1-8 was on calendar again. On the taped sheet outside the door the hearing on Mahony’s answers was again off calendar but the clerk had apparently penned it back in. Then during a different hearing, Church Attorney Lee Potts said, “Your Honor, there’s a hearing on the calendar and it’s not supposed to be” referring to BC307225 re Interrogatories 1 through 8.

After the hearings I went down to Room 106 to document dive and again found “arcscanweb is having difficulty please try later.” I went back upstairs to get a copy of an order, and lo and behold there was a hearing going on.

Church Attorney Sean Kneafsey had been in the hallway pacing on his cell phone earlier, a look on his face like twin towers were tumbling down inside his head. He was now in court against Tony DeMarco and Patrick Laurence for the plaintiffs. Apparently an ex parte in the jury room had gone so bad it was brought now before the judge unexpectedly. It was the hearing on Interrogatories 1 through 8, that elusive hearing that keeps going off calendar and on and off and on again.

I didn't have my laptop out so didn't get verbatim quotes. But Kneafsey said Church Attorneys did everything they could to locate priests to be deposed about their memories of Clinton Hagenbach. Kneafsey said they’d sent letters to the parishes, something like, “the parishes are the structure we have for contacting priests.”

Tony DeMarco spoke up: It’s our understanding the archdiocese continues to provide health insurance and other benefits to these priests, Your Honor. So they have a current address on these men.

COMMERCIAL BREAK*****
When I was a hippie I traveled with my guitar. I'd sing and pass the hat from town to town. Now I'm doing the same, passing the internet hat. Please put a few bucks on my Pay-Pal account to help support this blog.
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

So in the next few days there should be a declaration from Church Attorney Sean Kneafsey re all the documents and answers the archdiocese is finally going to provide in the JCCP documents available to the public in arcscanweb’s database. Right.

The Continuing Saga of Missing Documents.

And the amazing things you still can find, despite attempts to block access

There were 340-plus screens in April. Now there are 178. The emptied files are not a result of database managers cleaning out the garbage. You still see streams of Civil Deposits and 1-page servings.

So what was taken out of the database May 30-31, we'll probably never know.

However, later in the afternoon when the database went back up I found a stream of opposition motions filed by plaintiffs, as statements of support, etc, concerning:

Defendant’s motion to exclude references to purported internal church policies regarding minors in rectories.

Here’s the latest tactic from those bottom of the law school graduating class members of Cardinal Mahony’s legal team (9 firms and counting)

These church attorneys are oh so caring and concerned about the well being of children, they don’t want any references church policy re what took place in rectories when priests were alone with children to be brought up in court. Here is how Katherine Freberg and her team of attorneys is responding:

“Day in and day out for 17 years Father Hagenbach brought boys to his rectory living quarters and abused them behind closed doors. . . .

“Evidence regarding the existence of these church policies is extremely relevant. . . . It’s clear: Defendants had such policies in place. They existed specifically because of a concern for the abuse of minors. The policy was routinely violated by Hagenbach and defendants’ employees knew.

“The only thing that is prejudicial about this evidence is that the plaintiffs as children had to suffer while religious leaders turned a blind eye.”

REPEAT: “WHILE RELIGIOUS LEADERS TURNED A BLIND EYE”

People often say to me, get over it. I think all survivors have heard that. So you were molested, so were a lot of kids. Get on with your life.

For me it’s not the abuse for which I need justice. It’s the way the bosses handled it. I can live with the fact that a molester got to me at an early age and it messed with my life.

I need Anger Management because pedophiles' bosses knew they were pedophiles, in my case knew I was being molested, and didn't do anything about it -- except pay off my father and arrange for us to move two thousand miles away.

“While religious leaders turned a blind eye” is why we are in court today.

COMMERCIAL BREAK*****
When I was a hippie I traveled with my guitar. I'd sing and pass the hat from town to town. Now I'm doing the same, passing the internet hat. Please put a few bucks on my Pay-Pal account to help support this blog.
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****
-----
“Their methods were extremely troublesome” -- FATHER THOMAS DOYLE

In his support statement for plaintiffs on including policy re priests and children in the trials:

So now the church wants to exclude any evidence of how it handled what the priests did in the rectories with children. (Maybe someone in the archdiocese has exclusive rights to the videos?)

Father Thomas Doyle is among those filing their support for plaintiffs to include church policy re bedroom shenanigans in trials. In his statement of support he wrote:

“The Code of Canon Law states that there is to be a secret archive in every diocese where more sensitive materials are kept. Procedures are to be kept in the secret archive. The specific canons are the revised Code of Canon Law 1983.

“As one of the witnesses that appeared before the national Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People, I have a personal knowledge of their findings. They found the methods used by the Church to avoid scandal particularly troublesome.”

Doyle continued: “To shield these types of documents from legitimate inquiry is both illicit and inappropriate”

Doyle describes how the church handled sex abuse complaints:

“To shield evidence of scandal from discovery throughout the period circa 1990 it was suggested that if the documents had not been subpoenaed that they could be courierred to the office of the Vatican Ambassador, in Washington.

“To bring them under the shield of diplomatic immunity, Bishop Quinn even suggested that unsigned letters alleging misconduct should be expunged. To shield these types of documents from legitimate inquiry is both illicit and inappropriate.

“Defendants seek to exclude all evidence that defendants had policies that prohibited priest from having minors in their rectory living quarters or alone with them on trips. Defendants’ argument is based on the proposition that violation of such policies could not be relevant."

Hearing June 28 on whether or not to include evidence of what went on in the rectories. Hagenbach jury trial is July 9th.

More to come. . .

Phew, that's the first time I typed "father" in front of a name and didn't get panicked. Must be progress.

Why Mahony Has To Testify: Even though he wasn't cardinal during some of the criminal activity -- from the attorney who authored the subpoena

*****
By Kay Ebeling
aka City of Angels Lady

Some blogs and even the Los Angeles Times have shown confusion as to why Cardinal Mahony has to testify in the Kreutzer Cases jury trial. Those incidents took place in the 1970s and Mahony didn't become Archbishop of Los Angeles until 1985.

Steven Brady, San Francisco attorney, issued the subpoena because Mahony signed as author, The Report to the People of God, February 17, 2004, even posted it on the archdiocese website. He outlined how the church handled reports of pedophilia in the priesthood in the previous decades.

“Plaintiff has subpoenaed the person whose signature appears on the document, Cardinal Roger Mahony, with notice to produce the original of the document,” writes Brady in his opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Quash Subpoena. “The document details not only the current Church policy regarding the handling of alleged pedophiles, it also states the historical policy of the Church regarding same and covers the period of time relevant to the instant case. Aside from authenticating this document, this witness who is the head of the defendant corporation sole can testify as to information and sources of information in that document.”

Mahony Can Testify As To "Motive, Plan, and Knowledge"

Paul Kreutzer, a pedophile on the loose at one elementary school in one LA parish, was hardly the only predator turned loose on Southern California in the last decades preying on children as Catholic priests. Brady wants Mahony’s testify so the cardinal can explain the church’s policies:

“In the present case, the abuse of plaintiff by Paul Kreutzer was only one instance out of many, some occurring earlier and some later, in which the defendant hushed up accusations of sexual misconduct and allowed the perpetrator to continue his predations in order to avoid embarrassment to itself,” writes Brady. “The Report shows both the existence of the motive and plan, knowledge of the various occurrences and an absence of mistake or accident regarding Church policy of burying complaints of molestation.”

Conduct of Defendant and Its Agents Made It Possible for a Monster Like Kreutzer to Prey

“In the present case, showing only the conduct of Paul Kreutzer and the actions of Sister Catherine grossly understates the culpability of defendant,” Brady writes. “The very thing that made it possible for a monster like Kreutzer to prey on children at Our Lady of Peace was the conduct of defendant and its agents toward other priests and lay employees who were accused of similar misconduct.


COMMERCIAL BREAK: Thank you to everyone who supports the blog. Please keep clicking my button. The more the blog supports me, the more I can write the blog.
--Kay
END COMMERIAL BREAK


Brady's Pursuit of Mahony, continued. . .

"Accordingly, this evidence is highly relevant, has a great effect on the issues, and any emotional reaction it may arouse is due solely to the outrageousness of defendant’s conduct.”

It’s Not Like Mahony Was Asleep Until the 1980s. . .

“Mahony became bishop only nine years later.”

“Defendant makes much of the fact that Cardinal Mahony was in Northern California when Kreutzer abused plaintiff,” Brady writes. “What defendant does not mention is that Cardinal Mahony became Archbishop of Los Angeles only nine years after this abuse occurred, when many of the participants were still alive. It is apparent from the language of the report itself that Cardinal Mahony, as the sole signatory to the report, was familiar with the system of dealing with perpetrators and victims as it existed in the 1970's.”

Even John & Ken on KFI were questioning why Mahony would have to testify about older cases on this afternoon drive-time talk radio. The LA Times got it totally wrong. So as soon as I got a copy of Brady’s document filed May 30, 2007, I wanted to share it with readers of this blog.

(The document was not on the public access screens, by the way. It was there May 30, I saw the title, but the sun was out. . . . When I came back June 6 the document was gone from the network in Room 106.)

Here it is in its entirety:

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 17, 2004, the "Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Office of the Archbishop" issued a report summarizing the incidents of child molestation committed by Roman Catholic priests and lay employees during the previous 74 years and the manner in which the Church officials had reacted to these incidents. This document was signed by Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, and was thereafter posted on the official web page of the Archdiocese.
Plaintiff believes that the document is self-authenticating because it has been posted on the defendant’s own archdiocese web page. Partly in response to defendant’s Motion In Limine to exclude the records, plaintiff has subpoenaed the person whose signature appears on the document, Cardinal Roger Mahony, with notice to produce the original of the document. The document details not only the current Church policy regarding the handling of alleged pedophiles, it also states the historical policy of the Church regarding same and covers the period of time relevant to the instant case. Aside from authenticating this document, this witness who is the head of the defendant corporation sole can testify as to information and sources of information in that document.
Irrespective of the Report to the People of God itself, it is apparent from the document that he was involved with the investigation into the actions of the Church at the time when the abuse occurred in this case. Further, defense counsel has stated that the Cardinal would need to be present for other reasons during this trial. Defendant has now moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that neither Cardinal Mahony’s testimony nor the report can be relevant evidence on any issue at trial. Defendant’s view of this case seems to be that the single issue of any relevance is whether Paul Kreutzer molested Cheryl Buser. If defendant will stipulate to such issues such as notice, course of conduct, the policy of the Church regarding the handling of alleged molestation and the like, then perhaps the case can be simplified and Cardinal Mahony’s testimony dispensed with. However, defendant has not done so and therefore the report and Cardinal Mahony’s testimony are both very relevant and essential to proving the plaintiff’s case.

II. THE REPORT TO THE PEOPLE OF GOD IS RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE

Evidence Code section 210 defines "relevant evidence" as follows:

"Relevant evidence" means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.
Defendant contends that because plaintiff’s case requires proof of abuse by Paul Kreutzer while he was employed by the Archdiocese at Our Lady of Peace, evidence regarding any other abuse is irrelevant. Defendant’s view of relevance is overly restrictive.
Defendant is being charged with intentional misconduct in concealing the wrongdoing of Paul Kreutzer from plaintiff’s parents and from law enforcement officers. Under Evidence Code section 1101(b), evidence of defendant’s conduct regarding other accused priests and lay employees is admissible to show "that a person committed a crime, civil wrong, or other act when relevant to prove some fact (such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident." Such evidence is also relevant to show conscious disregard under Civil Code section 3294(b). See Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1159 [74 Cal.Rptr.2d 510].
Additionally, Evidence Code section 1105 provides that "otherwise admissible evidence of habit or custom is admissible to prove conduct on a specific occasion in conformity with the habit or custom." Evidence regarding the manner in which defendant handled other complaints of abuse is therefore relevant to show that it handled plaintiff Cheryl Buser’s complaints in the same fashion. Specifically, defendant’s habit and custom of concealing evidence of sexual misconduct by priests and lay teachers in other cases, including defendant’s efforts to compel victims to recant, is admissible to show its conduct toward plaintiff in conformity with this institutional habit and custom.
In the present case, the abuse of plaintiff by Paul Kreutzer was only one instance out of many, some occurring earlier and some later, in which the defendant hushed up accusations of sexual misconduct and allowed the perpetrator to continue his predations in order to avoid embarrassment to itself. The Report shows both the existence of the motive and plan, knowledge of the various occurrences and an absence of mistake or accident regarding Church policy of burying complaints of molestation. It further shows a habit and custom of defendant in its manner of dealing with such incidents. Moreover, it shows the conscious disregard by defendant for the harm it was doing to plaintiff and others like her. The Report is thus directly relevant to both liability and damages issues in tis case.
Defendant, somewhat understandably, also seeks to exclude evidence of its admission under Evidence Code section 352 on the ground that it would be prejudicial. The evidence excludable under section 352, however, is that "which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues." See People v. Rucker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1119-1120 [25 Cal.Rptr.3d 62]. Defendant cannot claim prejudice merely because the evidence is damaging defendant’s case. Id.
In the present case, showing only the conduct of Paul Kreutzer and the actions of Sister Catherine grossly understates the culpability of defendant. The very thing that made it possible for a monster like Kreutzer to prey on children at Our Lady of Peace was the conduct of defendant and its agents toward other priests and lay employees who were accused of similar misconduct. Accordingly, this evidence is highly relevant, has a great effect on the issues, and any emotional reaction it may arouse is due solely to the outrageousness of defendant’s conduct.
Defendant’s contention that undue consumption of time would occur is also overblown. The evidence which needs to be introduced is the report itself(and possibly some explanation of the terms used in the document), and not testimony from every perpetrator and every victim. Introduction of the Report and Cardinal Mahony’s testimony will serve the interests of judicial economy and will assist the jury.
III. THE TESTIMONY OF CARDINAL MAHONEY IS RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE
Even aside from the authentication of the Report to the People of God, Cardinal Mahony’s testimony is highly relevant. Defendant makes much of the fact that Cardinal Mahony was in Northern California when Kreutzer abused plaintiff. What defendant does not mention is that Cardinal Mahony became Archbishop of Los Angeles only nine years after this abuse occurred, when many of the participants were still alive. It is apparent from the language of the report itself that Cardinal Mahony, as the sole signatory to the report, was familiar with the system of dealing with perpetrators and victims as it existed in the 1970's.1
The point which defendant seems to ignore is that Cardinal Mahony is in a position analogous to that of the president of an ordinary domestic corporation, and the president of a corporation has always been an entirely proper witness to call regarding corporate practices. See, e.g., Tulare Irr. Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irr. Dist. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 489, 551 [45 P.2d 972] (corporation president testifying as to irrigation practices). Cardinal Mahony does not receive a free pass merely because his corporation is a religious corporation sole; indeed, this fact would seem to indicate that his knowledge of corporate practices should be even more extensive than that of a normal chief executive officer. Cf. Simmons v. Ratterree Land Co. (1932) 217 Cal. 201, 208-209 [17 P.2d 727] in which the Court found incredible that a vice-president could be unaware of fraudulent activities by corporate sales agents.
Defendant’s professed discomfort at the thought of testimony by Cardinal Mahony and its urging of Evidence Code section 352 as a basis for excluding this evidence is absurd. The evidence excludable under section 352 is that "which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues." See People v. Rucker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1119-1120 [25 Cal.Rptr.3d 62]. Defendant cannot claim prejudice merely because the evidence which may be obtained through the cross-examination of Cardinal Mahony is damaging defendant’s case. Id.
IV. CONCLUSION
Both the testimony of Cardinal Mahony and the document entitled Report to the People of God are relevant and admissible in this case. Defendant has raised no objection to the manner of giving of notice to appear and produce this document, and its objections based on relevance and prejudice are without merit. The motion to quash should be denied in its entirety.
DATED: May 29, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

BRADY LAW GROUP
And
RICHARD L. KATZ, INC.
By____________________________
Steven J. Brady, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Thank you to everyone who supports the blog. Please keep clicking my button.
(I am working again now, but will not have July's rent unless some of my readers come through. Thank you.)
--Kay

More to Come. . .

First Amendment Free Exercise Clause warped to mean priests can rape children; plus 6 priests molest 55 kids and church has more questions for victims

*****
By Kay Ebeling, aka City of Angels Lady

I’m still reeling. In a document I read this morning was a Church Newspeak creation: "Ecclesiastical Cognizance:" where the right of priests to rape children is guaranteed by First Amendment Free Exercise Clause.

Archdiocese Attorneys make such a joke of the First Amendment -- not only do I want these lawyers to lose their cases, I want them deported, their very citizenship revoked.

In: “Answer of Defendant Doe 1 to the Complaint of Plaintiff” re a case with a hearing tomorrow, Bonne
Bridges et all declare: “The complaint is barred by the Doctrine of Church Autonomy derived from the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment.”

Right. When the Founding Fathers crafted religious freedom into the Bill of Rights it was so pedophile priests could use the sacraments to rape children. Church Attorneys argue that the archdiocese can keep secret what happens with its children, even when it amounts to learning to talk dirty and give oral sex, because of its free exercise of the First Amendment?

ECCLESIASTICAL COGNIZANCE:

These are all matters of "Ecclesiastical Cognizance"
Church Attorneys Bonne Belle, I mean Bridges continue:

“Plaintiff’s claims are matters of ecclesiastical cognizance, including selection, training, supervision, assignment and retention of a priest.” Church Attorneys for archbishop argue “the content of Church teaching and evangelizing of its youth” are at stake and this complaint threatens “communications between parish and parishioners.”

We've really come full circle when lawyers twist the words of law so far backwards they nullify it, just to defend a paying client. Apparently it’s okay for attorneys in court to not only flout local and state law and ethics, but let’s see how we can blaspheme the American Constitution.

When you go to the Church Attorney firm Bonne Bridge’s website you see pictures of their lead lawyers, air-eyed blond females. I get the idea the church is hiring right from the bottom of recent law school graduating classes so the archbishop can put forward these ridiculous legal concepts, hoping no one will notice(?)

How else can this be explained? These fems aren’t smart enough to even see how bubble headed the notion is that pedophile priests are somehow protected by First Amendment religious freedom rights.

How much did they get paid to say that?

And what about the American Constitution?

Anyone who defecates on the very revered legal concepts that are the basis of American Government like these Church Attorneys do should be deported. Nothing less, and their citizenship revoked.

Anger Management Class is tomorrow thank God.

=============
Six Priests Rape 55 Children and Church Attorneys Have More Questions for the Plaintiffs (Victims, Now Adults)

Also On calendar for tomorrow June 19, Defendant (the church) filed a stream of Motions to Compel Further Responses in case BC304904, 17 one-page motions filed May 9. In this case 17 plaintiffs from Santa Clara parish in Oxnard, say there “at least 55 childhood victims of sexual abuse by these six priests have come forward.”

Here are the six priests who are involved with BC304904 with quotes from the original case document filed in 2003:

DONALD PATRICK ROEMER
Throughout the 1960s Donald Patrick Roemer was a fixture at Santa Clara Parish as he attended St. John’s Seminary. He began molesting boys in the seminary.
Accusations followed him to Goleta, to Santa barbara to Thousand Oaks.

In 1981 finally a criminal investigation

"During this rampage Donald Patrick Roemer has either been accused of molesting or has admitted to molesting not less than 30 children.”

GEORGE MILLER
Came to Santa Clara Parish in 1984 after being removed from a parish in Pacoima, Defendant Doe 3 parish, Finally arrested and charged in 2002 but released thanks to the Stogner decision in the US Supreme Court.

CARL SUTPHIN
At Catholic Hospital in Camarilla, Defendant Doe 7, and Santa Clara Parish “after molesting children at three different parishes”
Hawthorne - Defendant Doe 4
Maywood - Defendant Doe 5
A parish in Camarillo is Defendant doe 6

RODERIC GUERRINI
"Arrived unannounced at the doorstep of Santa Clara parish in Oxnard in 1976. Soon after he began preying upon the young girls of the community that took him in. Despite complaints being made to the Pastor at Santa Clara about his alcoholism, womanizing, and molesting of young girls, Guerrini was not only allowed to continue at Santa Clara, he was praised by his superiors.

STEPHEN HERNANDEZ
At Santa Clara in Oxnard from 1984 through 1985 and molested numerous children in that short time.
“Hernandez routinely pulled children out of their classes to molest them in his rectory office and elsewhere. “Left Santa Clara and went to Monterey Park and then Our Lady Queen of Angels Junior Seminary from 1987 to 1990.

“Hernandez has been accused of molesting numerous boys up to 2002.”

GERALD FESSARD
1977 - 1980 at Santa Clara molested “at least two children and likely many more.”

1981 Appointed Associate Superintendent of Elementary Schools for Defendant Archdiocese.

1987 convicted as a criminal child molester. But instead of being removed, he was made Dean of Studies at seminary in San Fernando.

“In this capacity he supervised overnight visits of prospective ninth graders considering entering the priesthood.”

If that's not enough,

Fessard was then transferred to St. Timothy’s, St. Luke’s in Temple City, and St. Gregory’s in Los Angeles by defendant Archdiocese.

“Each time the defendant Archdiocese transferred Fessard to a new parish it did so without ever informing parents or parishioners of the danger he posed, subjecting countless more children to danger.”

=======

MORE FROM BONNE BRIDGES’ BLOND BOMBSHELL’S BOMBARDMENT OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION’S FREEDOM OF RELIGION CLAUSE:

Copy typed from their Motion filed April 9

Third Affirmative Defense:
Anti-entanglement doctrine of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment applicable to all causes of action.

(I don't just want these lawyers to lose, I want them deported. If they are willing to twist the Constitution this way they should be airlifted to Iraq and dropped from a helicopter and left for the insurgents to carry out justice on them.)

“The Complaint is barred by “anti-entanglement doctrine” of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Fourth Affirmative Defense
“Clergy malpractice claim barred by the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment applicable to all causes of Action.”

There’s more.

“Plaintiff’s claims constitute allegations of malpractice by a bishop, priest and/or parish that are indistinguishable from the claim of clergy malpractice and are, therefore, barred by the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses . . .’

SO: Bishops, by the very nature of their being bishops (or priests) are above the law, especially when it comes to private things like how you educate children.
(No wonder so many pedophiles became priests. Now I get it. Thanks, Bonne Bridges belles for clarifying that.)

More to Come. . . .

'Hand Of God' screens in Rome next week; Cardinal Mahony adds more attorneys; and more subpoenas to come, with first of 15 jury trials so far July 9

*****
By City of Angels Lady

Friday Roundup: The documentary "Hand Of God" goes to Rome next week to be seen first time by an Italian audience. Joey Cultrera’s film about the sexual abuse of his brother Paul by the late Rev. Joseph Birmingham when they were growing up in Salem, Mass. screens June 22 for the Italian Parliament.

Traveling from the Boston area to present the film are Kathy Shaw of Barre, Mass., who produces the daily Clergy Abuse Tracker, and Robert Costello and John Harris of A Matter of Truth, as well as attorney Daniel J. Shea of Houston, Texas, and Massachusetts. A coalition of groups including Anticlericale.net, the Italian Radical Party and the Transnational Radical Party arranged this screening.

Cultrera made the film after he learned his older brother Paul had been abused by a Catholic priest when he was 14 years old, and after the Church his parents helped finance and build (Saint Mary’s Italian) was being forced to close by the Archdiocese of Boston. The closing of this church was due in part to offset financial losses the diocese had incurred in the settling of hordes of clergy abuse cases.

More on the aberration of paying sex abuse settlements from parish funds in future posts on this blog. . . .
=====
COMMERCIAL BREAK
Blogs are filling a critical role in the press today, as mainstream media continues to appeal to the lowest common denominator to keep the ratings and revenues high. When I was a hippie in the '60s I traveled the country with my guitar. I’d sing in clubs or even on the street and then pass the hat. Now I’m doing the same here with this blog. Please put something in my hat via the Internet by clicking the Pay-Pal button in the top left corner. Thank you to everyone who has already clicked my button.
END COMMERCIAL BREAK
=====
There Will Be More Subpoenas Served On Mahony
From taped interview. . .

KATHERINE FREBERG allowed me to run my tape recorder while I asked her some questions. In honor of my new transcription job (yay!) I’m transcribing parts of it here. I asked her if the hearing June 12 was about Mahony’s Interrogatories 1-8:

KF: No, this was four motions to compel the archbishop to answer questions and produce documents in the Hagenbach cases.

Q: Are you getting any documents from the church?

KF: Yes. They have started producing documents. They're documents that should have been released a year and a half ago but they are finally producing. You know, it’s a battle . . .

Q: The subpoena for Mahony to testify was filed in a Kreutzer case. Will he be testifying in the Hagenbach and Caffoe cases as well?

KF: Yes.

Q: Will that one subpoena apply to all the cases?

KF: No. We would have to issue a separate subpoena to Cardinal Mahony in each one of the cases and then they may move to quash those subpoenas.

Q: Are you going to ask him to testify?

KF: Yes.
=====
MORE DOCUMENT DIVING WEDNESDAY

What I could in the ongoing problem with access to documents in the Clergy Cases. When I go to open a document, a lot of stuff still comes up blank. But I’m working on it.

ANOTHER TEAM OF ATTORNEYS FOR THE ARCHBISHOP

Cardinal Roger Mahony has added another firm to his team of attorneys. I found this stream of 8 Notices of Association of Counsel as the lead Church Attorney firm Hennigan et al add Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O’Keefe & Nichols to the teams of church attorneys now representing “Defendant Doe 3, Archdiocese, or John Doe 1, defendant, or Defendant Doe 1 --

All of them the archdiocese, all of them more attorneys and they don’t come cheap.

That, folks, is what the Roman Catholic Church is doing with your dollars when they pass the basket each week.

That and paying off sex abuse settlements WHEN THE MONEY SHOULD BE COMING FROM THE VATICAN.

The Radical Party (one of the groups sponsoring screening of Hand of God in Italy) was born nearly 50 years ago. It was founded by then young leader Marco Pannella. They stand up against the so-called “Concordato,” which gives the Catholic Church the tax exemption (about three billion euros a year).

Benito Mussolini gave the church tax exempt status in 1929 in order to get support for his regime.
=======
COMMERCIAL BREAK
Blogs are filling a critical role in the press today, as mainstream media continues to appeal to the lowest common denominator to keep the ratings and revenues high. When I was a hippie in the '60s I traveled the country with my guitar. I’d sing in clubs or even on the street and then pass the hat. Now I’m doing the same here with this blog. Please put something in my hat via the Internet by clicking the Pay-Pal button in the top left corner. Thank you to everyone who has already clicked my button.
END COMMERCIAL BREAK
=====
Here is how Report to the People of God came up in Kreutzer Cases

Resulting in Church Attorneys trying to get the Report thrown out as evidence as it’s “irrelevant.” (See June 12 post.)

In the trial brief for the Kreutzer cases plaintiff attorney Steven Brady from San Francisco introduced Report to the People of God as evidence with these words:

“Independent of specific acts of misconduct by Sister Frances Catherine, there is the evidence of defendant’s own corporate policies as admitted in its Report to the People of God on February 17, 2004.

“In this document defendant’s highest corporate executive has admitted that in the 1970s and 1980s the defendant pursued a policy of dealing with complaints of sexual misconduct by priests was to handle them ‘pastorally and privately’ with no attempts to investigate the claims rigorously and no assistance to the victims.”

Judge Fromholz on June 6 denied the Church Attorney Phillip Baker’s motion to quash the Report to the People of God as evidence.

Okay here we go again. I’m on page 5 of 8 reading Brady’s brief. I go to get page 6 and I get
. . . .
Error. Please make sure this file can be accessed by. . . . .

The Ongoing Saga of Missing Documents and Blank Screens When You Finally Open a Document..

CAN ANYONE TELL ME IF THERE IS A LAW REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL TRIALS????

As of Wednesday access to documents was still iffy in Los Angeles Superior Court Room 106. It got really weird last week, a new glitch. You can get to the screen with the link to the document. You click on the link, Java opens, you are about to read and then. . .

The screen is just blank. It says it’s “open” “done” and the screen is just blank. I got really weirdly chilled when this first happened. It was June 6th. Whenever I tried to open any document that had anything to do with the Kreutzer Cases and Mahony’s testimony, I’d click the document name was on the screen, I’d open it.

And the screen was just blank white. Gave me a chill. . . .

However, Wednesday afternoon after I went once more to the courtroom to talk to the clerks about this, and I could hear the judge’s voice coming from the chamber so he may have been able to hear me, I went back downstairs to Room 106, and voila, the documents started opening.

I do have a little bit of paranoia and can imagine patterns and cause and effect conspiracies sometimes. But it still strikes me as a little bit strange that access to the documents had been totally seamless since I started writing this in January.

Then Steven Brady served a subpoena on Mahony and all of a sudden the documents went to blank white screens and “Access Denied” error messages. Whatever, it looks like the powers that be finally fixed the problem.

Good thing. I was starting to do Document Jones. At a June 6 hearing I almost grabbed a file out of a plaintiff attorney’s hands because it was a legal document and it had been so long since I’d been able to read one. . . . Note the LA Times reporter told me it didn't matter as “those computers are always going down.”

No they aren’t
======
COMMERCIAL BREAK
Blogs are filling a critical role in the press today, as mainstream media continues to appeal to the lowest common denominator to keep the ratings and revenues high. When I was a hippie in the '60s I traveled the country with my guitar. I’d sing in clubs or even on the street and then pass the hat. Now I’m doing the same here with this blog. Please put something in my hat via the Internet by clicking the Pay-Pal button in the top left corner. Thank you to everyone who has already clicked my button.
END COMMERCIAL BREAK
=====
Introducing another new law firm in the Archbishop’s team of attorneys

Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O’Keefe & Nichols who specialize in appeals

Go to the website of Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O’Keefe & Nichols and first thing you see is a blond lady’s picture and this invitation:

Vangi Johnson answers your questions about Civil Appeals.

A little lower you can click on this pseudo news story written by Vangi Johnson in the Bonne Bridges News Brief for June:

Recent U.S. Supreme Court Holds State’s Lien Limited to Amount of Recovery Allocated to Medical Expenses

Apparently the new law firm signed to join the team of Church Attorneys specializes in appeals. Stay tuned.

More to Come. . .