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

Monday, September 17, 2007

Why did cases settle when the Catholic Church had no defense at all? Many questions as LA hearings begin again this week. Plus: What Would Mahony Say?

By Kay Ebeling

(Hearings in LA Clergy Cases begin again tomorrow in Judge Fromholz’ Court, with two motions on calendar for Tuesday September 18th. The City of Angels will be there and continue reporting in this blog.)

In the LA clergy cases settled July 16th, the Archdiocese used more than 18 law firms to fight claims made by sex crime victims in its own churches, to fight families and family members in its own parishes. The settlement was $660 million and the LA Archdiocese may have spent another $660 million preventing justice from going forward.

Out of those 18 law firms not one cogent legal argument against a plaintiffs’ case ever came forward. Church Attorneys never denied that the rapes and satanic acts on children’s bodies took place. They just got cases dismissed for missed deadlines or because of plaintiffs' confusion as to which is the correct defendant church parish or other entity on which to serve a subpoena.

I’m still trying to understand why plaintiffs settled when the church really had no case at all? At the same time plaintiffs were ready to show a jury shocking evidence and put on testimony that would have blown the roof off cathedrals across the country. One Clinton Hagenbach case alone names 28 priests who were part of an inner circle of pedophiles in Southern California. Many of these inner circle pedophile pederast priests came from Our lady of the Angels Junior Seminary. Testimony would have showed how the church aided and abetted these criminals. With the cases settled how will we get that evidence now?

Over and over again Plaintiffs Requested a Discovery Referee
By July 16th there still was no Discovery Referee
The church was not cooperating at all.

A jury would have seen right through the church attorneys’ antics.

For example on March 27, 2007, Plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a Motion for a discovery referee because they were having so much trouble getting depositions and documents from the church.

As far as I can tell there still no discovery referee one by July 16th settlement

On May 16th was a hearing to compel Monsignor Lirette’s Testimony and again at that hearing Plaintiffs’ requested a discovery referee. Did plaintiffs ever get a deposition from Lirette?

In a jury trial the church’s frivolous motions and obstructive dance in front of the judge would have been obvious. The church had no case, no legal argument to defend itself in any of the plaintiff cases in LA so I’m still stymied as to why they settled before jury trials.

Why did all 520 cases in LA have to settle? And all 108 in San Diego? Why couldn't some 5 percent of the cases against the LA Archdiocese have continued to trial while the other 95 percent ended in pretrial settlements. Why did the settlement have to be global?

Freberg’s motion to compel deposition denied
Days Before SettlementsImportant Motion To Compel Documents of St. John’s Denied
Motion of plaintiffs to compel deposition of custodian of Records for St. John’s Seminary - DENIED
Right before the July 16th settlement.

The church won yet another round claiming plaintiffs’ request “recycles arguments made numerous times in prior motions.”

Doesn't this sounds like Alice in Wonderland came to life in the judge’s chambers again?

Defendant argues the court can’t order the seminary to produce files prior to an in camera review.

Plaintiff states that since Defendant asserts privacy objection Defendant knows documents have to first be sent for in camera review.

Defendant replies: Plaintiffs “offer no authority for the proposition that a defendant must offer documents for in camera review without being asked to do so.”

And the judge went along with it.

Plus Freberg Had to Pay
Katherine Freberg had to pay $1500 to Kneafsey Tostado & Associates to boot as the “Court finds this motion is unnecessary,” wrote Haley Fromholz.

And They Were Still Trying to Get A Discovery Referee

In that circa July 16th court order denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel deposition of the Custodian of Records for St. John’s Seminary, Frolholz stated in the closing paragraph:

“Defense counsel remarked that Liaison Counsel have been discussing the possibility of a stipulated procedure to govern submission of documents for in camera review by the Court

“or a discovery referee that would obviate repetitive motions.

“The court is amenable to this possibility.. . and asks the parties to proceed with dispatch.”

By July 16th they were still trying to get a deposition and discovery referee to show up. They’d gotten one assigned, but so far he hadn’t made it to any depositions.

More after this:

I hope you enjoy reading this blog. Please come back often and visit my advertisers. I also pass the Internet hat. You can support this blog by putting cash on my PayPal account. Just click the button in the top left corner. I report all income to the IRS. Thank you.

Mahony Quotes:
Would he have been able to get away with this in front of a jury?
From Cardinal Roger Mahony’ November 2004 deposition about his years as Bishop of Stockton. A sampling
Page Number - Quote

20 Well, I'm not sure about whether I forgot it or remembered it, but I acted quickly on it. That's what I remember.
33 I don't remember exactly.
33 I honestly don't recall that.
34 I simply don't recall any.
35 I don't recall any.
38 I don't recall the curriculum exactly.
39 I don't recall the sequence, actually.
50 I honestly don't remember.
50 I simply don't recall.
65 I don't recall.
77 I don't recall exactly when I knew he was not going to return.
78 I don't recall, but most likely I did.
80 I don't remember specifically.
81 I actually don't remember.
81 I simply can't recall what kind of system I used.
82 I don't recall, but it was in the last year or two.
86 I actually don't recall exactly.
86 No, I don't recall.
89 I honestly don't remember, but very possibly he did.
96 I don't recall the first time I learned of that.
96 I actually don't recall that specifically.
102 I certainly don't recall.
102 I just don't recall.
104 I simply don't recall any case.
105 I don't remember when that was.
107 I simply don't recall any.
108 No, best of my knowledge, I don't recall that.
108 I don't recall any.
112 My testimony is I cannot recall something like that occurring during this time.
113 I can't recall any.
114 No, I'm not I can't recall of a case.
116 I can't recall exactly.
117 I can't recall any.
118 I simply don't remember when.
119 No, I don't recall doing that.
125 I don't remember exactly when.
125 I just can't recall.
129 I don't recall.
137 I actually don't recall.
137 Again, I don't recall whether it was or not.
137 I don't recall.
138 I don't recall exactly.
138 I don't recall the time period when that actually occurred. 138 I honestly don't recall.
166 No, I simply don't recall anything specific.
171 I can't recall during those four brief months. This is 1962. I simply can't recall. That wasn't my job.
172 I can't recall anything specific, because protecting children can mean many, many things.
172 I don't recall any instruction.
173 I can't recall any.
173 You asked if I recalled, and I said I don't recall.
174 I don't recall, no.
191 I don't recall reviewing records.
192 I don't recall reviewing files and documents prior to visiting.
195 I don't remember specifically, but I don't remember specifically, but I think he was.
202 I can't recall anyone specifically saying these are legal liabilities of the diocese.
217 I don't recall.
219 No, during my time as Bishop I don't recall ever going directly to the confidential files.
221 I have absolutely no recollection of that.
233 I can't recall any other reports as such.
243 I don't recall seeing it.
247 I don't recall seeing this letter before.
252 No, in fact, I don't recall when.
253 No complaints that I can recall.
253 I just don't recall.
253 I honestly don't remember.
254 I really don't recall that.
254 I have no recollection of the name at all.
256 I simply can't remember any.
260 I don't recall. I may have. I don't recall.
261 I really don't recall. I may have. I simply don't remember.

(From “Non-Random Access Memory”
Posted by: Diogenes - Jan. 02, 2005 12:43 PM ET USA)

From Today’s Massage
See Link at Bottom of Page

It’s not about religion it’s about relationship

Hate what's evil and cling to what's good

There’s still things we have to do but by freeing ourselves of the burden of being hurt we free ourselves from hurting God.

If you're holding onto stuff He’ll hold onto stuff.

Love of God must be sincere
No matter if you've been hurt let down abandoned denied, your love still must be sincere.

It’s a tough pill to swallow because the natural reaction is I want revenge. I won’t pray for my enemy, I won’t bless those who persecute me

So you do the math, count the costs. It’s just not worth it. You have way too much to lose. Just let it go. When you count the costs, figure it out, it’s too much to pay.

Remember Romans 12:19 Vengeance is Mine.

And City of Angels Lady starts attending hearings and document diving again this week.

More to Come. . .

1 comment:

Gloria Sullivan [Gogie} said...

Subject: Roman Catholic Church.
Comments: Now that the RCC sex scandal is out in the open[2001-2007],
you'd think people[the laity] would want to get to to bottom of it. But
they don't...Unless it has actually happened to them or a loved one they
just want to look the other way and not disturb the status quo. What a
shame & after 6 years of knowing..... Even the victims are trying to give
the Roman Catholic Church another chance, the benefit of the doubt & hope to change it.
[forgive them but don't still hang with these "badboys"].
It's not the Roman Catholic Church, people, it's the Faith OF God Almighty you need to hang onto.
The RCC is "man made". The Faith of Christ comes to you
from within and lives with you and in you. Let go of the
"man made church" and receive Christ within you. He will never leave you
or forsake you. Man will always fail you.. Get on with your life & let
Christ Rule and not the RCC. After 6 years the RCC hasn't changed [since
we all found out] but for 2000 years of passing the
priests around to do their dirty deeds[ & that's what they're all really
about,] why don't we get the picture??? Cause there
are still good priests out there? Sure but once the good ones found out
[it's been going on since the 1st century] why didn't they reject the
evil they knew about and leave? Praise God for the "good priests" who did
leave over the years before any of us really knew the "nature of the
beast" as we do now. There would be no more "haven" for them if there was no one there
to preach their lies to.
We feel so free now that we have left. It's a wonderous thing how God is
still here with us. Think of the rituals of men you served before in
the RCC and praise the Living God within you right now where ever you
are. Do it at all times & never forget who you belong to & who gives you
life & breath. We do His will not our will. Everyone trys to change this
"man made institution" that will never change but might fall, here in the
USA, if we reject their brain washing by leaving. Amen?? PS This comment was sent yesterday to the Orange County Register.

[Gogie]Gloria Sullivan
Scottsdale, Arizona