*****
By Kay Ebeling
Got downtown last week for one short session of document diving so clicked to the last screen. Here is a sample of what's been filed for public access since the July 16th settlement of 550 LA Clergy Cases.
We see the judge "granting Defendant's Evidentiary Motions," in other words the judge rejected massive amounts of evidence for what would have been upcoming trials. We see the Salesians being removed from three plaintiff cases as yet another Catholic Order takes advantage of the complex structure of the Catholic Church to hide its crimes.
Plaintiffs are still trying to get priest criminal records. Next Tuesday as hearings continue in Haley Fromholz's court, plaintiffs request support of subpoenas served on several LA area police departments for criminal records on pedophile priests. It’s going to take a court order to get documents from the Sheriffs and DA’s around LA because over and over again predator priests are claiming privacy rights.
No wonder other criminals want to beat up on predator priests in prison. Who else can claim a special connection to God as a reason to block evidence of his crimes -- and get away with it?
I’m swamped on my other job so below is the result of one afternoon of document diving last week. Hope to get to the hearing next Tuesday.
“Defendants’ Evidentiary Motions Are Sustained.” -- Judge Fromholz, July 18, 2007
Huge amounts of evidence would have been thrown out
Plaintiffs want the report of another victim to be considered evidence but Defendants argue that (Plaintiff H) never stated that he reported any abuse to Fr. Del Maso (Salesians Director) but--
“Instead H stated he was prevented from being able to report the abuse.”
ME: HE WAS PREVENTED BY THE CHURCH FROM REPORTING THE ABUSE, SO NOW SINCE THERE'S NO REPORT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE?
From Judge’s July 18 Order: “H stated that he ‘mentioned’ Miani while telling Fr. Del Maso that priest had been ‘disturbing boy’ although what H meant by this is unclear.”
H says he “never mentioned sexual abuse to Fr. Del Maso, although he believed that Fr. Del Maso knew that he was referring to sexual abuse.”
(ME: I WONDER WHAT DEL MASO SAID TO MAKE HIM FEEL THAT WAY?)
COURT FINDS THIS EVIDENCE “TOO SPECULATIVE”
One after another evidence was going to be dismissed against Miani and the SalesiansMore from
Judge Fromholz’ July 18 Order:
The testimony of a victim who said other priests probably heard him as a boy alone in Miani’s room
“DISMISSED”
“Nothing in RH’s testimony sufficiently suggests that any of the Defendant’s managing agents should have suspected sexual abuse.”
Stories from numerous other victims including some hearsay:
“DISMISSED”
“None of this evidence establishes notice on the part of the Defendant.”
A letter from 1967 written by Fr. Malloy:
“DISMISSED”
The letter “states that he does not believe Fr. Maini should leave the Salesian order to become a secular priest. Fr. Malloy states in part ‘you know your own character and I believe I also know it well. . . your weaknesses make secular life a real peril for you.’”
FROMHOLZ: Evidence is too weak to support “that the letter acknowledged Miani’s weaknesses yet the Salesians did nothing to prevent further abuse.”
RE BROTHER JOHN VERHART:
One of the plaintiffs states:
“Brother Verhart told me that he confessed to Father Pelligrino about what he had done to me.”
EVIDENCE DISMISSED:
“The statement wasn’t under oath and it’s double hearsay.”
FROMHOLZ, CONT’D: “Defendants are correct. While Verhart’s confession to Father Pelligrino might be an admission against interest, his purported statement to Strautmann is hearsay, an out of court statement offered to prove the matter”
RE BROTHER ANTHONY JUAREZ
An evaluation from 1957 says Juarez is “too inclined to take boys out of place, hands on too much. . . friendly to boys, withdrawn from superiors.”
Then an evaluation from 1958 says he “still persists in showing preferences for certain attractive boys.”
EVIDENCE DISMISSED
FROMHOLZ: “Again this evidence is far too attenuated to satisfy Plaintiffs’ burden on this motion.
“A considerable inferential leap is required to see these notations as evidence that Defendants had knowledge of abuse”
You Don’t Need an Inferential Leap
NOT IF YOU FOLLOW THIS STORY ACROSS THE NATION
It’s the same in city after city case after case order after order
BROTHER MARK EPPERSON
FROMHOLZ: “This case is not released so this motion is premature.”
“DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS ARE SUSTAINED” -- Judge Fromholz, July 18, 2007
Another recent Fromholz decision in favor of the Church re the Salesians in What Would Have Been Upcoming Pedophile Priest Civil Trials
After this:
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
Keep This Blog Alive: If you enjoy reading this blog, please let me know by sending me a high five. Click on the PayPal button in top left corner and put $5 or any other amount you want on my account. Keep This Blog Alive AND Keep My Bills Paid.
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****
Here’s More:
WHAT PLAINTIFFS WERE GOING TO BE UP AGAINST IF THEY HADN’T SETTLED JULY 16
JULY 18 Order Signed by Judge re:
THREE PLAINTIFFS SEEK PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST THE SALESIAN SOCIETY.
MOTION IS DENIED.
Fromholz: “Defendants argue that neither Richard Strutmann nor Richard Lukasiewicz’s cases are released. Plaintiffs do not appear to contest this argument.
“If neither case is released this motion is premature as to both of those Plaintiffs and has no application to them.”
RE FATHER TITIAN MIANI
They're trying to get a copy of a letter written in Italian talking about a transgression by the priest as far back as 1947 that was --
Surprise --
Overlooked and never reported by the Catholics in charge.
Fromholz: “This court is unable to find clear evidence indicating to whom the evidence was communicated.”
WELL IT WAS IN 1947…
“However, a letter apparently written by the ‘Bishop of Concordia’ states that Miani ‘has been a very good Seminarian, except for a brief moment of hesitation.’”
AH THAT VAGUE DOUBLE TALK THAT THEY ALL PRACTICED AND SPOKE IN FROM BALTIMORE TO OREGON
Defendants argue that the letters are in the hands of the “Central Province of the Salesians in Italy which is not a defendant in these cases,”
ONCE AGAIN THE CHURCH PASSES THE BUCK FROM ONE ORDER AND ITS BRANCHES TO ANOTHER
Fromholz: Defendants say the branch in Italy, is a separate and distinct entity from Defendants.”
RIGHT, AND WHO’S EVER GOING TO FIGURE OUT IF THAT'S TRUE?
FINALLY
Fromholz: “The translations are not certified under oath by a qualified interpreter as required by California Rule of Court 3.1110(g)”
Oh look it’s the White Rabbit reading to the Court before the queen of Hearts !!!
JULY 18 ORDER PLEADING SIGNED BY JUDGE FOR THREE PLAINTIFFS TO SEEK PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST THE SALESIAN SOCIETY.
MOTION IS DENIED.
The very secretive nature of the church and its structure makes getting discovery evidence near impossible
MORE ON:
Tuesday August 14th hearing
After this:
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
Keep This Blog Alive: If you enjoy reading this blog, please let me know by sending me a high five. Click on the PayPal button in top left corner and put $5 or any other amount you want on my account. Keep This Blog Alive AND Keep My Bills Paid.
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****
LOTS MORE MOTIONS ABOUT THOSE SUBPOENAS OF
LONG BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
POMONA POLICE DEPARTMENT
LA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
LAPD,
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
POMONA POLICE DEPARTMENT,
SOUTHGATE POLICE DEPARTMENT
SANTA FE SPRINGS POLICE SUPPORT
And numerous others.
These are just some law enforcement agencies that are holding onto predator priests records because the priests have filed privacy objections. Plaintiffs want the records at least submitted for a judge to review “in camera” and decide what is relevant.
It Takes A Court Order to Get Law Enforcement to Release Records on Predator Priests.
HEARING AUGUST 14 AT 8:30 AM DEPT. 20 LA SUPERIOR COURT
A Priest Who Says He Has Special Privacy Rights Because He’s In Prison
After this:
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
Keep This Blog Alive: If you enjoy reading this blog, please let me know by sending me a high five. Click on the PayPal button in top left corner and put $5 or any other amount you want on my account. Keep This Blog Alive AND Keep My Bills Paid.
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****
One subpoena for criminal records from San Gabriel, Alhambra, and LA Police Departments involves:
LAWRENCE J. LOVELL
Lovell objects to release of his records because “he has no legal counsel and has been committed to the Arizona Department of Corrections since May of 2003.”
Fromholz: “Court is not aware of any authority providing that being unrepresented or incarcerated is a basis for objecting to a subpoena.”
COMING NEXT WEEK: WHAT TONY DEMARCO WAS REALLY SO ANGRY ABOUT LAST TUESDAY
*****COMMERCIAL BREAK
Keep This Blog Alive: If you enjoy reading this blog, please let me know by sending me a high five. Click on the PayPal button in top left corner and put $5 or any other amount you want on my account. Keep This Blog Alive AND Keep My Bills Paid.
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment