Here are quotes and commentary re January 9 Illinois state court decision. . .

*
*
City of Angels sees an opportunity here for a class action suit or some other public and civil, legal application of this decision. Even if you have filed and settled previously in Illinois, why don't a group of us join forces here to make the point that it takes decades to come forward about child sex abuse. Perpetrators should not be able to capitalize on the damages of their own crimes, with victims unable to come forward.

Here are sections of the decision that stimulate me to action: (Itals are my comments. We posted the Illinois state court decision, entire document, at City of Angels 11 .)

"Knowledge of the abuse does not constitute discovery of the injury or the causal relationship between any later-discovered injury and the abuse." (p.4)

In other words, this five years from the moment you realized nonsense is just that, nonsense. There is no SOL in child sex abuse cases.

********

"The legislature intended the 2003 amendments to the Act to apply retroactively to all claims of childhood sexual abuse." (p.6)

************

"A threshold matter is whether the 2003 amendments to the Act apply retroactively to Plaintiffs’ claims. In Clay v. Kuhl, 189 Ill. 2d 603, 609, 727 N.E.2d 217, 221 (2000) (p.6)

************
City of Angels: !!!!!
************

"We reject the dissent’s implication that under the supreme court’s decision in M.E.H. 'taking away the right to invoke the statute of repose as a defense to a cause of action is' in and of itself, 'constitutionally prohibited.' We find that the M.E.H. court reached its conclusion based on the existence of a vested right for the defendant.

"The M.E.H. court did not find a general constitutional prohibition against the legislature’s judgment to eliminate a statute of repose. The sole basis for the supreme court’s holding in M.E.H. was the existence of what was then a vested right."

**************

"Thus, the question is not whether defendants’ substantive right exists or is impacted. The questions is whether the legislature’s act in changing those rights offends due process. The United States Supreme Court has recognized, and our supreme court has agreed, that “Legislation has come to supply the dominant means of legal ordering, and circumspection has given way to greater deference to legislative judgments.”

***************
City of Angels: Here is the part where I think they were saying, come on, guys, if you need a statute of repose, it shows what criminals you are:
***************

"We must determine whether the defense has relied on this limitations defense in some way. While there might be cases in which a defendant truly takes actions in reliance upon a limitations period, in this factual context we are unable to conceive of such reliance-

"(The) Legislature's judgment that places this burden on defendants is an acceptable price to pay for tailoring procedural limitations to reflect the nature of the type of injury alleged. (p.14) .”

*****************

"Relevant considerations include the legislature's motive in enacting the statutory change and whether the parties detrimentally relied on the prior version of the law.” (p.16)

*****************
By Its Very Nature
Subject to long-repressed memories:
*****************

"As to the legislature’s motive in enacting the statutory change, the court has already held that a problem inherent in the old version of the statute (including the statute of repose) was that it did not suit the nature of claim. In this case the nature of the claim is one which “by its very nature [is] subject to long-repressed memories.” (p. 16-17)

******************
QUOTE I made 22 point bold type in my notes:
******************

"Any statute of repose applicable to incidents of childhood sexual abuse inherently fails to recognize that the nature of the claim is subject to long-repressed memories. Applying the repeal of the statute of repose retroactively to allow plaintiffs to bring suit long after the alleged abuse occurred would correct that problem and bring the current application of the law into line with the nature of the claim." (p. 17)

****************

Again it sounds like the court is saying,

Okay, church, if as a defendant you have to keep the Statute of Repose, tell us exactly how you as a defendant rely on it for your constitutional right to a defense.

In other words, if you need an SOP it just proves you are a scumbag perpetrator and we need to prosecute you.

THE ONLY BAD EFFECT ON DEFENDANTS IS THEY CAN NOW BE PROSECUTED FOR HEINOUS CRIMES THEY COMMITTED IN THE PAST.

Again we get to the point I made about the LA Archdiocese investigation:

"You need creative lawyering, maybe even to invent new law that defines these crimes, because we are dealing with acts that no one has defined in law before, even believed happened before. A clergy person raping a child is assault on the body and mind/soul/spirit, or even ability to celebrate a religion. What right have we all been denied? It has not been defined. "

Something like that. . .

************
It affects both plaintiff and defense equally, having to build a case on crimes committed years or decades ago:
************

“In all litigation, the passage of time carries a potential for evidentiary problems. Memories fade. Records might be lost or destroyed. Witnesses might have moved away or died. While these issues with time affect both plaintiffs and defendants alike, we must determine whether the defense has relied on this limitations defense in some way.

"While there might be cases in which a defendant truly takes actions in reliance upon a limitations period, in this factual context we are unable to conceive of such reliance."

"Placing this burden on defendants is an acceptable price to pay for tailoring procedural limitations to reflect the nature of the type of injury alleged.”

"Both defendants and plaintiffs face similar evidentiary difficulties in this litigation."

*****************
That's the expression I was looking for. Defendant and plaintiff both face the same "evidentiary difficulties" because of an SOL.
*****************

"The legislature has determined that it previously failed to recognize that allegations of this type are subject to repressed memories and may require significant time before a plaintiff brings a cause of action."

"Placing the burden on defendants to defend old claims of this type is generally an acceptable price to pay to allow victims of sexual abuse to seek redress."

"It would be illogical, therefore, for us to hold that retroactive application of the statute of limitations offends due process."

*********************
Okay here is the part that directly affecte my case, I think, along with the entire decision...:
*********************

"The fact that the person abused discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence should discover that the act of childhood sexual abuse occurred is not, by itself, sufficient to start the discovery period under this subsection

*********************
MY CASE, MY CASE: If I can just find another survivor of Father Thomas Barry Horne, or some other way to prove it really happened, THEN my ten years would start.

Mary Feeny, from Bartlett, 1950-53, where are you?

"Knowledge of the abuse does not constitute discovery of the injury or the causal relationship between any later-discovered injury and the abuse."

*********************
THIS PART FOLLOWING IS IMPORTANT, as is all of it...
*********************

"It is insufficient that plaintiffs knew or even suspected that defendants alleged misconduct was wrongful and that defendants’ wrongful conduct harmed them.

"The (Illinois State) legislature has clearly provided:

“The fact that the person abused discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence should discover that the act of childhood sexual abuse occurred is not, by itself, sufficient to start the discovery period."

"Knowledge of the abuse does not constitute discovery of the injury or the causal relationship between any later-discovered injury and the abuse."

*******************

The injustice the court and the legislature wanat to correct here is the more damaged you are, the less likely you are to come forward with a claim in time to meet the Statutes. Those who are most damaged end up not getting to an attornery on time, like me.

If you recover a traumatic memory and go to an attorney right away, you can get justice. If you have a hard time reacting to the memory and it takes you ten years to realize how much the trauma affected you, it’s too late to file a claim, under the old reading of the statutes.

The more damaged you are by the crime, the less likely you are to get justice with current SOLs.

Also the more damaged you are the more likely you are to keep the memory submerged in your brain using weird behavioral and personality tricks to keep it down, for even more years, even decades.

And people think you're just crazy. . .

**************************

Sorry, somewhere in there I stopped copying page numbers...

**************************

Support and applaud the work at City of Angels by putting a high five or higher on the PayPal button at left...

**************************
.