A legal maneuver
Did you see the L.A. Times report last week about the Archbishop of Los Angeles intervening quietly this past March in a molestation civil suit against the LAPD? Only now am I getting around to mentioning it, and via a June 9 AP article about it (click on this post's title).
The AP story reports that in the case, a California appeals court on February 24 dropped the LAPD from a lawsuit about alleged molestations of then-Explorer Scouts in the late 1970's by "openly gay" LAPD Deputy Chief David Kalish. The court decreed that according to state law, the ex-Explorer Scouts would have to, said the AP, "show specific sexual misconduct before the LAPD could be forced to open its files."
Now, here comes the Archbishop's part.
Says the AP story, "Mahony's lawyer on March 3 asked the court to publish the decision, which would make it apply to other cases and not just the suit against Kalish, the [L.A. Times] reported. The court did so four days later."
The AP story continues, "Now Raymond P. Boucher, an attorney for many of the church's accusers, has asked the California Supreme Court to depublish the ruling on the grounds that it would deny victims their day in court, the Times reported."
The AP report adds, "Boucher criticized Mahony for intervening in the Kalish case without the plaintiffs' knowledge. 'I thought it was underhanded for the archdiocese to surreptitiously send that letter and never give us an opportunity to respond,' Boucher told the newspaper. J. Michael Hennigan, the cardinal's lawyer, and Tod Tamburg [sic], Mahony's spokesman, declined to comment Thursday to the Times."
As Rush Limbaugh says, "Well, folks, there you have it." We will see what comes of the Cardinal's legal maneuver, eventually.
The AP story reports that in the case, a California appeals court on February 24 dropped the LAPD from a lawsuit about alleged molestations of then-Explorer Scouts in the late 1970's by "openly gay" LAPD Deputy Chief David Kalish. The court decreed that according to state law, the ex-Explorer Scouts would have to, said the AP, "show specific sexual misconduct before the LAPD could be forced to open its files."
Now, here comes the Archbishop's part.
Says the AP story, "Mahony's lawyer on March 3 asked the court to publish the decision, which would make it apply to other cases and not just the suit against Kalish, the [L.A. Times] reported. The court did so four days later."
The AP story continues, "Now Raymond P. Boucher, an attorney for many of the church's accusers, has asked the California Supreme Court to depublish the ruling on the grounds that it would deny victims their day in court, the Times reported."
The AP report adds, "Boucher criticized Mahony for intervening in the Kalish case without the plaintiffs' knowledge. 'I thought it was underhanded for the archdiocese to surreptitiously send that letter and never give us an opportunity to respond,' Boucher told the newspaper. J. Michael Hennigan, the cardinal's lawyer, and Tod Tamburg [sic], Mahony's spokesman, declined to comment Thursday to the Times."
As Rush Limbaugh says, "Well, folks, there you have it." We will see what comes of the Cardinal's legal maneuver, eventually.
posted by Quintero at 3:31 PM
7 Comments:
JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO SAYS...
How long will it take Catholics to wake up to the simple fact that our "shepherds" are concerned only with protecting their own power, privledge and influence? How long will it take us to recognize that a system that encourages blind deference, isolation and arrogance while discouraging accountability and transparency created these soulless wonders, not Vatican II or the Novis Ordo?
All I can say about this move is: "Brilliant!" Finally there's some savvy lawyering going on to make the plaintiff's bar do some real legal work to prove their cases instead of mere grandstanding and making "victims" out of grown men who have suddenly had their memories restored. What everyone who gets worked up about the Cardinal's defense of the archdiocese and its priests forgets is that the laws that are applied to the Church today will be applied to YOUR employers and YOU next. Think about it: how would you feel about "transparency" when it comes to your educational, personnel and medical files? Although it's true that there are boys and girls who were truly criminally abused, they are not the majority of the plaintiffs. Right now, especially in L.A., it's ONLY about the money.
Great! I'm for transparency on all sides! If you got nothing to hide you got nothing to fear. However, we should also be willing to take it as well as dishing it out.
Regardless, thank you Quintero, this blog and others are part of the process of transparency that helps the average person to be informed of what is happening in institutions that up 'til recentyl were not subject to public scrutiny.
Dear Anonymous,
No one is forgetting that legal precedents set in the clergy sex abuse and hierarchy cover-up scandal cases could end up having a broader application.
That is a sad aspect of the scandals, but of course it pales in comparison to the physical, mental and spiritual harm done to the victims. It also pales in comparison to the loss of faith by some Catholics and to the anti-clericalism and anti-Catholicism engendered in the general public.
No one can know that the majority of cases are not genuine. And the molesters have victimized young men, not only "boys and girls."
Dear MVH,
Thank you for your support, and that is a nice point about transparency in relation to informing the general public.
"That is a sad aspect of the scandals, but of course it pales in comparison to the physical, mental and spiritual harm done to the victims. It also pales in comparison to the loss of faith by some Catholics and to the anti-clericalism and anti-Catholicism engendered in the general public."
No it doesn't. This comment just shows how far we've been brainwashed into thinking that clergy abuse is one of the worst things to come around ever. How many alleged and proven victims are there? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? How much longer will they and those who have lost faith purportedly suffer? 20 years? 40 years? 60 years?
The bad laws created today in the bishops' haste to get out of this legal and moral swamp will pollute the landscape of law for decades to come and affect everyone who has the misfortune ever to have a brush with the law as a plaintiff or a defendant. And the numbers who are potentially affected run into the millions. If a priest's psych records must be posted on the web for members of SNAP to peruse (before any trial or verdict, mind you) what arguments are you going to make to keep any other accused person's files private? Just think about how many traffic accidents result in litigation. Is justice truly served by having "transparency" be the watchword when dealing with such cases? Wanting to protect one's privacy does NOT mean that there's something to hide.
Dear Anonymous 1:15 a.m.,
The salvation of souls and the preservation of the Faith take precedence over all else.
Every Catholic who loves the Church and Her priesthood wants them protected from unjust interference. Obeying the 1961 directive from Rome not to admit homosexuals would have lessened the abuse scandal and the resultant legal messes.
Post a Comment
<< Home