By Kay Ebeling
City of Angels
RE: ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT DECISION JAN. 9, 2009
Whoa, I just read the recent Peoria decision, and from what I see, the Illinois Legislature removed the statute of repose in 2003, then last month the Illinois Appellate Court confirmed that act of the Legislature. Which means they may be about to eliminate the statute of repose in child sex crimes in Illinois, depending on what the state supreme court does next. The January 9, 2009, decision affects, specifically, cases that were filed in 2006, saying the Legislature’s decision overrules anything trial courts, or even circuit appeals courts try to say. We will publish the entire document in a matter of hours here at City of Angels 11
In 2003 the Illinois Legislature said: "The nature of the (child sex abuse) claim is subject to long-repressed memories," removing the statute of repose for child sex crimes. The January decision confirms the Legislature's lawmaking.
So come on, gang, let's take some action in Illinois.
"A problem inherent in the old version of the statute (including the statute of repose) was that it did not suit the nature of the claim," reads the January decision. "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."
"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."
The Court Found: “It is illogical, therefore, for us to hold that retroactive application of the statute of limitations offends due process.
(There is much discussion whether a defendant's right to due process is affected by eliminating the statute of repose. Both Legislature and Supreme Court seem to say that in cases of child sex abuse, it is just as difficult for the victim as it is for the defendant to build a case due to long periods of time. Plus, if the defendant wants to prove he needs the statute of repose in order to carry out a defense, doesn't that just prove what a sick criminal he is in the first place? Or words of that nature. . . . )
The Court in Illinois said: “Knowledge of the abuse does not constitute discovery of the injury or the causal relationship between any later-discovered injury.”
(So in cases like mine, a person might realize the abuse happened, but not realize the extent of the damage for several more years. How do you define the exact moment the victim knows the extent of the crime in these cases? You can't.)
The court says: the (Illinois) legislature intended the 2003 amendments to the Act to apply retroactively to all claims of childhood sexual abuse.
What was the 2003 State Legislature act?
In 2003, the Illinois legislature enacted, 735 ILCS 5/13-202.2, which extended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse to 5 years from the date plaintiff discovers both (1) the act of childhood sexual abuse occurred and (2) that the injury was caused by the childhood sexual abuse.
The Legislature’s rulings overrule the trial court’s and even direct the actions of the State Supreme Court.
The Court finds the action of the Illinois State Legislature in 2003 accedes previous rulings on the Statutes of limitations and repose in Illinois in 1994, 1991, 19, the Illinois legislature enacted, 735 ILCS 5/13-202.2, which extended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse to 5 years from the date plaintiff discovers both (1) the act of childhood sexual abuse occurred and (2) that the injury was caused by the childhood sexual abuse. . .
Does that all confuse you? Exactly. So the Illinois legislature and now the Supreme Court of the state has agreed - the statute of repose makes no sense in child sex abuse claims, which are often not realized for years and years and years, decades and decades, the very nature of the crime negates the statute of repose.
The perps should not be able to use the nature of the crime as a way to get away with the crime.
Gotta call my lawyer in the morning about this...
Defendants, in the cases from April 2006 that went to the State Supreme Court and produced this decision are:
The Catholic Diocese of Peoria, and
Bishop Daniel Jenky,
individually, and the defendants’ respective churches
WHY IS BISHOP JENKY out making press statements about pedophile priest issues, such as the much quoted letter in the news with pictures of Jenky last week, and he never mentioned he's a defendant in these cases? Don't these bishops have any ethics?
We are copy and pasting the entire decision -
No. 3-07-0735, from the Illinois Appellate Court Third Division
Into a post at a different City of Angels location, to be announced shortly.
(Entire document to be posted tomorrow. )
City of Angels has to generate income and for now a PayPal donate button is all we have. If everyone just sends a high $5 now and then, until we get a grant, we will be able to travel the country on Amtrak writing these stories, or at least buy shoes and a Metro pass to go to Dept. 308 and cover LA cases.
Please Click the PayPal Button
The Story Goes Onward. . .