At age five, 1954, "the Bishop" (Chicago's Cardinal Stritch) stood over me and said, I had to "stop babbling" about what the priest did to me. It took me 40 years to talk about it again. Today, I babble.

Moving to City of Angels 8

In 2010, City of Angels will move to its next step: "Action" at City of Angels 8 We are on hiatus until January 15th.

Shop City of Angels

The City of Angels is Everywhere...
Also by Kay Ebeling: Read Sunset Boulevard, work in progress at City of Angels 2
This site is copyrighted by my statement. Kay Ebeling

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Boycott Polanski, says pedophile priest victim advocacy group, and more reporters show up for a media event than have in years

By Kay Ebeling

Usually SNAP sends the media a notice about pedophile priests and bishops who commit felonies and one or two reporters show up. Wednesday they put the name Roman Polanski in a press release and about seventeen news reps arrived - early - the majors: CNN, ABC, KNX Radio Los Angeles, Fox LA, two Spanish TV crews, one French.

I have to beat down an urge to be Killjoy here and point out to these news hounds that a story of bishops who for decades aided and abetted crimes similar to the one Roman Polanski committed should at least arouse some curiosity in a journalist. But no, here, I see SNAP is right again, just play the way they play, and maybe along the way some reporter with a budget will notice this incredible story of thousands of serial sex crimes against children, and point the cameras away from the celebrities for a few hours.

If you can’t lick ‘em join ‘em. So here thanks to the SNAP event today about Roman Polanski I’ve added three videos at YouTube, with Roman Polanski in the title. So as we speak, people typing in Polanski’s name in the YouTube search engine might find the videos and then from there City of Angels Blog. (The videos from today's event in L.A. are embedded below.)

Even though it strikes me at the very craw of everything I believe about journalism, I’ll use the name Roman Polanski to try to drive up readership at City of Angels Blog too. I’ll use the name Roman Polanski if it helps get this message out.

SNAP calls for boycott of Roman Polanski products:

The audio is bad, so here is what the West Coast rep for SNAP, Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, Joelle Casteix is saying:

JC: We are first of all urging the State Department to move without delay to extradite Mr. Polanski back to the United States. We are also begging urging and pleading with all the Hollywood dignitaries and luminaries who signed a petition supporting Mr. Polanski to talk to a victim of child sex abuse.

Ask if they would allow their child to go to Mr. Polanski’s home and be given champagne and a Quaalude and be left alone with a child molester.

This is egregious.

And we want all of these people who are standing up in the national media and asking if Mr. Polanski be given special treatment, because he’s rich and because he’s powerful, and because he’s talented, to seriously reconsider. You know, child molesters can be rich and talented, but they also need to be fully accountable.

Q: You are asking for a boycott?

JC: We are asking for a complete boycott of all Polanski’s films, as well as a complete boycott of any of the luminaries, including Mr. Scorsese, Mr. Allen, and anyone else who signed that petition, to ask for Mr. Polanski’s release.

Q: What about the prosecutorial misconduct?

JC: Well if there was prosecutorial misconduct, really I'm not a lawyer, but why not stand up for yourself.

City of Angels piped in with a question:

While we're extraditing pedophiles from foreign countries, why not go after Cardinals William Levada of San Francisco and Bernard Law of Boston, who are both now living in the Vatican?

Since both bishops oversaw the sex crimes of dozens of pedophile priests on hundreds of children in parish families, why don't we extradite them?

THud KillJoy was HeRe--

Alas, I no sooner said the word "Cardinals" and the reporters around me started packing up. The sounds of their clamping shut camera gear and wrapping up microphones drowned out my question.

As I tried to bring up the subject of church hierarchy crimes, these starry eyed news guys started looking for somewhere else to find someone else to make some new comment about Roman Polanski.

Why isn't the U.S. extraditing the bishops from the Vatican?

I called into the din...

ABOVE: Transcribed:

JC: We urge the State Department to work diligently to ensure that anyone who allows the sexual abuse of a minor is brought to justice, is extradited to the United States and brought to justice.


Of course, I know that was another one of my former hippie hopelessly naive questions.

The bishops always high tail it to the Vatican. Always just hours before having to testify under oath they fly away, and once they are living in that "sovereign state" no one can touch them.

So many things are wrong here on so many levels, it's hard to figure out where to start. That's why I own City of Angels 1 through 30 and plan to keep writing these stories for years.

CHECK OUT THE PICS from Wednesday Sept. 30, 2009, SNAP event in L.A. about Roman Polanski:

Joelle Casteix (left) sent out the press release for SNAP about Polanski

Polanski? Polanski? Huh?


One reporter knew what City of Angels is: Phil Shuman, at left, is on the Fox 11 Investigates team.

Below, Joelle talks to Fox reporter at left, Esther talks to ABC reporter at right.

At right, Esther, SNAP member and survivor, talks to Univision 34 in Spanish.

As adult victims of pedophile priests we know there are hundreds of thousands of crime victims in the United States, that dozens of bishops who still hold office in cities across the country flagrantly took part in coverup of sex crimes against children. Nothing has changed institutionally in the Church that will get to the real cause of the epidemic of crimes, so it will likely happen again.

And the news media of Los Angeles think the story is Roman Polanski and his drugged out assault on a 13 year old girl in 1977. Strange, since in the seventies, there were so many people in the Hollywood Hills romping around naked in hot tubs having anonymous orifice penetration with each other not even knowing what sex each other were let alone what age - you'd think it was orientation at the seminary.

So, today in L.A., Roman Polanski is a more important story than the thousands of adult victims of pedophile priests who have never seen justice in American courts or law enforcement.

Maybe one reason we've never seen justice is this numb-brained news reportage with which we have to deal.

And here I am doing it too.

Best Coverage on Roman Polanski and the Media Circus:

Word in Edgewise
Santa Monica Daily Press - Kenny Mack - ‎Sep 29, 2009‎
Realizing he was going to spend the next decade being treated the way he treated his victim, but without the Jacuzzi, booze, and pills, Polanski fled...

Why Robert Harris' NY Times Pro-Polanski Op-Ed Is an Offensive ...
Huffington Post (blog)
In his NY Times op-ed piece Wednesday, "Why Arrest Roman Polanski Now?," Harris desperately attempts, as have so many others in the past several days, ...

Some creepy coverage:
THE timing of Roman Polanski's arrest in Switzerland on Sunday on ...
New York Post - ‎Sep 29, 2009‎
"The family has forgiven [Polanski]. The victim has forgiven him. The rest of the world has forgiven him," said Ratner, who cast Polanski as a French ...

Steve Lopez from L.A. Times:

STEVE LOPEZ Polanski's defenders lose sight of the true victim
Los Angeles Times - Steve Lopez
I'd like to show all these great luminaries the testimony from Polanski's underage victim, as well as Polanski's admission of guilt. ...

Self explanatory:

Hollywood Burning
National Review Online - Jack Dunphy
The victim's grand-jury testimony should disabuse any reader of the notion that she consented to what Polanski did to her. A warning, though: It is indeed ...

Polanski a Victim of Circumstances?

Elitist Justice?
Germantown Now - Al Campbell -
And, Polansky must be compelled to stand trial, finally, so that we can learn whether he is guilty as charged or if he was merely the victim of circumstance ...

Above transcribed:

Q: What do you make of the woman’s forgiving Roman Polanski and in fact urging last year that the case be dropped?

JC: Forgiveness is the gift you give yourself. For her to heal and for her to move on, she has to forgive Roman Polanski. You know, you can’t live a life full of anger at someone that you have no control over. And many of us work a long time to find forgiveness. But at the same time, that's what she needs to heal. And every time the case comes up in the media, her name is dragged in there.


Don't forget the PayPal High Five Campaign using Donate buttons on the left. After each post we pass the hat, that's how it works. - ke


Peering into the future...

About the time the Federal Courthouse in construction above is finished in L.A., the U.S. Government may finally be willing to prosecute Bishops of the Catholic Church - for obstruction of justice, massive fraud, and conspiracy, among other crimes. I predict that some of the hearings will take place in this Courthouse, in construction at 1st and Hill Street downtown as seen Wed. Sept. 30, 2009, a work in progress...


Vatican starts new lie campaign, plus unfortunately Hightower is still law

The Vatican is lying, again, starting a new campaign saying it's gays that are the problem, not pedophiles, unless part of being gay is raping 11 - 17 year olds. By saying 1.5 - 5 percent of clergy are "involved" in pedophile priest sex crimes, the Vatican is lying, unless bishops and monsignors who make administrative decisions are not really clergy.

15 percent is closer to the number of clergy who were “involved” in Catholic priest sex crimes the last 50 years, in ways such as obstruction of justice, collusion, fraud, neglect, child endangerment, and outright lies to parishioners coming to them saying a priest molested their child, thinking bishops and monsignors were actually holy, and would respond on the side of justice regarding the crimes of pedophile priests. I guess the Vatican doesn't consider collusion corruption and conspiracy to be crimes.

Notice, also, how the Church from the Vatican down now are turning the tables, saying see, there's pedophiles in every other religion just as bad as Catholicism. Those are cooked numbers. No other religion has secret caverns where they store documents on things like how to handle priest sex crimes, written in Latin, accessible to inner circle leaders only.

Most other religions did not systematically transfer clergy AFTER finding out they were pedophiles. No other religion carried on the coverups at a national level as did the Catholic Church.

Maybe all religions operate with too much secrecy and too little accountability. But the Vatican is truly spinning with its recent releases, trying to distract attention from the real issue.

Fraud, negligence - and an ongoing coverup of the crimes.

Why were children literally served up as entitlements to priests with sex problems? We lived through it, we know what happened.

Credit Kathy Shaw at Abuse Tracker for uprooting this story:

Original story on Vatican lies, as posted on Abuse Tracker:

Vatican responds to sex abuse accusations

WAtoday (Australia)

September 29, 2009 .

The Vatican has lashed out at criticism over its handling of its pedophilia crisis by saying the Catholic Church was ''busy cleaning its own house'' and that the problems with clerical sex abuse in other churches were as big, if not bigger.

In a defiant and provocative statement, issued after a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said most of the Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not pedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that ''available research'' showed that only 1.5 per cent to 5 per cent of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

Why are Church Attorneys still citing Hightower?

I wondered why church attorneys arguing this month in Superior Court are still citing the Hightower case, when it is a very unusual case, not demonstrative of most clergy cases. Our coverage of Hightower was among stories removed from Examiner when they removed LA City Buzz at the request of the L.A. Archdiocese. Below we are posting the story again.

How could a case filed by a plaintiff from his prison cell be used as the standard for decisions in all future cases filed by attorneys for plaintiffs on the outside?

When you are dealing with Catholic Church attorneys, anything can happen.

The lawsuit known as "Hightower" that almost went to the CA Supreme Court was filed from prison - just after January 1 2004, so after the close of the 2003 one-year window in this state to file lawsuits previously time-barred. Thomas Hightower, a convicted pedophile who used the rape by a priest decades ago in his own defense, did not qualify for the one-year 2003 window, he was actually relying on other laws that applied to inmates filing legal documents to get his case through the courts.

I thought Hightower was no longer an issue since his appeal was turned down by the state Supreme Court and he's gone back to his cell without a dime. We reported on Hightower in May 2009 and that story is reprinted below.

In the real world, both the Church and Plaintiffs are waiting for the Court to decide on two other more related cases, KJ and Quarry.

However, I recently found out, Hightower is still relevant, as an attorney and reader explained to me:

"Quarry and KJ are uncitable as they are up on review before the Supremes. So until the Supremes resolve those two cases, Hightower remains the law.

"It all depends on what they do with Quarry and KJ. Until then, Hightower lives, and the church is trying to squeeze every last drop of usefulness out of it. Hopefully it will have a short lifespan.


My hand is still too swollen to hit the keys, hopefully by tomorrow, we'll be rolling again. Meantime, for background on Hightower, here are two stories we published in May, one of our last before the L.A. Archdiocese got L.A. City Buzz removed from Examiner Dot Com.

Case filed by plaintiff who is child molester in prison could set standard

May 13, 6:09 PM

Thomas Hightower watched from Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California, as the Diocese of Sacramento agreed in July 2005 to pay $35 million to settle 33 claims of sexual abuse by priests, including 16 against Tacoma priest Mario Blanco. There were 17 cases filed, presumably the 17th was Hightower’s left unsettled. Yes, pedophile priest named in 17 lawsuits, Mario Blanco was still serving as a priest in 2005 in Tacoma, Washington.

Perpetrator priest Blanco In fact, while at least 17 men dealt with interrogatories from Catholic Church attorneys and lengthy litigation on their cases, Mario Blanco was being flown around the state by Mel Gibson. A man who became close to the priest in the 12 years he was at the Tacoma church and kept his schedule for several years said:

“Blanco traveled to such cities as Redding, Calif., Spokane, Tucson, Ariz., Denver and Los Angeles. The priest was so respected that the actor Gibson regularly flew Blanco to Southern California to celebrate Mass for a group of traditionalists. He said the actor also took the priest to Mexico to buy vestments and other items for the church.
From: Accused Priest Led a Public Life
The News Tribune [Tacoma WA]

A description of how Blanco insinuated himself into families’ lives in and around Sacramento from the Sacramento Bee:

According to diocesan records and people who remember him. Blanco was a talented musician who started church youth bands. That's how the the family of one of his plaintiffs met him

They recount how their parents were thrilled that Blanco paid attention to their sons, especially when he told them he wanted to start a band featuring their kids.

"My parents thought it was going to take them somewhere ... that he was going to make their kids famous," says Chico Chavez.

He says his father worked long hours as a landscaper. Their mother was often ill and spent much of her time in bed. There were 10 children. Blanco taught the kids music, and their father was so happy that he built a makeshift stage area in a corner of the basement. The Norteno-style band called "Crysol" played at several churches throughout the diocese, according to a church news clipping from the time. They cut two records in Spanish.

Over time, Blanco became a frequent visitor to the Chavez house.

Chico Chavez claims in his suit that the priest assaulted him repeatedly beginning when he was young. He says he was too ashamed and frightened to tell anyone and that the priest threatened the family. Chavez says it wasn't until he was a teenager, and told his brothers David and Javier that he had been abused, that they told him they had also been assaulted by Blanco.

Jaime says he fought off the priest. But Jaime also became increasingly hostile -- he picked lots of fights at school -- over the priest's presence in their home.

The boys say that when they told their parents about the abuse, their father became angry, accusing them of telling lies about the priest. But the boys made it clear they didn't want the priest around.

But they say Blanco did come back.

Each of the Chavez brothers describes waking up in the middle of the night and seeing that the priest had been staring at them through a window while they slept in the basement. They say he threatened them, and they chased the priest down the street. After that, they started sleeping with the baseball bats by their sides.

Their father declined to speak to The Bee. Their mother died in 1992.

Blanco said he does not remember the incident

(From Dec. 20, 2003 Sacramento Bee story)

Tim Hale, Santa Barbara attorney, helped me understand Hightower

"Hightower came out during heart of coordinating proceeding and claimed the plain language statute 340.1 was not the plain language of the statute," Hale said.
"As to why Hightower could impact so many other cases, as you know, most survivors never come to terms with what happened to them. Hell, some never even remember it, instead taking their nightmares to their graves. And for those few who do remember they were abused and recognize the harm the abuse caused, quite often that recognition does not come until much later in life after years of struggling with various demons they did not realize originated with their abuse.

“The end result of this is very few people make the connection between injury and abuse before they turn 26.

“Under Hightower, anyone who was 26 or older in 2003 does not have the right to make a claim under CCP 340.1's standard of making the connection between the injury and the abuse. This arbitrary cut-off could not have been intended by the legislature, but that is exactly what Hightower holds.

“The result is the dismissal of any case filed by someone who was over the age of 26 in 2003 (unless they had completely repressed their memory of the abuse, in which case there is case law that some courts -- not Judge Elias -- believe allows the plaintiff to avoid the Hightower result).”

The march of justice goes on. . . slowly

The decision affects anyone who wants to file a civil lawsuit for child sex abuse, but cases against the Catholic Church were being thrown out in L.A. because of a 2006 decision in a case litigated by Thomas Hightower, a plaintiff who filed his own briefs from a cell in Mule Creek State Prison.

The Bishop of Oakland won the case against Thomas Hightwoer on appeal, saying the suit was time barred by the Statute of Limitations, thus making all cases filed after the age 26 cap since December 2003 invalid. Now another appellate decision on the Quarry case in February 2009 disagrees with Hightower and says cases filed after age 26 are valid.

“The main difference is that Quarry was litigated by professional plaintiff attorneys,” says a plaintiff attorney in Santa Barbara.

Any day now the California Supreme Court could either agree to take the Quarry appeal, or refuse to take Quarry, making Hightower law. “The main difference is that Quarry was litigated by professional plaintiff attorneys,” says a plaintiff attorney in Santa Barbara.

The outcome of this case could keep plaintiffs from being able to file lawsuits as adults about sexual assault they experienced as a child in the state of California, except under strict guidelines that either no longer exist or continue to exist since the passage of CCP 340.1 in 2002.

Mario Blanco, Hightower perp (at left)

Attorneys and judges in the California Clergy Cases are now “waiting for Hightower,” as future civil cases re child sexual assault in this state hinge on this decision coming up any day now in the California Supreme Court. In hearings last month, Judge Emilie Elias referred indirectly to the February 2 Quarry decision and delayed action on several Los Angeles cases re Catholic priests saying, “My intent is to stay any more of the Hightower motions until we see if the Supreme Court takes them.

“I'm just not going to hear them until we see what's happening.”

Judge Elias has already dismissed about a dozen child sex assault lawsuits against the Catholic Church that have come before her since January 2008 when she took over the Clergy Cases from retiring Judge Haley Fromholz, based on the 2006 decision in the Hightower appeal.

One after the other, Elias granted the LA Archdiocese’s motions to dismiss - based on the Second District Court of Appeal decision in the case of Hightower vs. the Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento, now on appeal, which said the Legislature did NOT remove the age 26 cap. She stopped dismissing cases when the February 2, 2009 Quarry decision came out, and now everyone is waiting for the California Supreme court.

The Deck Once Again Stacked in Church’s Favor

The church will have managed to stack the deck entirely in its favor if the state Supreme Court turns down Quarry and retains Hightower, because Hightower was filed by a plaintiff filing motions for himself from state prison, where he is incarcerated as a hild sexual molester himself.

How could the Hightower case become the case that decides the future of child sex assaults lawsuits in California?

A decision as important as the Hightower appeals court decision in August 2006, litigated for plaintiffs by a damaged man in prison, if left in place, could return the State to pre- CCP 340.1 thinking. When the Legislature created the one-year window for lawsuits to be filed in 2003, most lawyers agree the legislators also removed age 26 cap from the statute of limitations.

The Bishop of Sacramento was able to get an appellate court to disagree. Fighting against one plaintiff filing motions from prison.

“Under Hightower, anyone who was 26 or older in 2003 does not have the right to make a claim under CCP 340.1's standard of making the connection between the injury and the abuse,” explains attorney Tim Hale in Santa Barbara. “This arbitrary cut-off could not have been intended by the Legislature, but that is exactly what Hightower holds.”

The Quarry decision from the First Appellate Court in Alameda in February 2009 counters Hightower, saying:

“Effective 2003 the Legislature deleted the age 26 cutoff as against a narrow category of third party defendants who had both the knowledge and the ability to protect against abusive behavior but failed to do so. Anyone discovering that childhood abuse was the cause of their injuries after 2003 could sue these—more culpable—defendants without regard to the age 26 cutoff.”

The Hightower decision reads:

“The statute of limitations ran out on Hightower's claims in 1977.”

Hightower’s case if full of errors, and it is different from almost every other child sex assault case in California. Yet the decision in this case filed by a prison inmate, fighting singlehandedly all the way to the Supreme Court against the Roman Catholic Church, could affect all future cases filed for sexual abuse that include a third party, not just against the Catholic church, but any guilty third party that was negligent and allowed sex crimes against the child now an adult filing a lawsuit to continue.

Where the third party - any employer or a corporate entity - is at fault, as has been the case with thousands of cases against the Catholic Church, the appellate decision in this weak case filed by Thomas Hightower, a prison inmate without an attorney, could affect the future of child sexual assault tort law in California.

Background on the unique case of Thomas Hightower:

(Pictured, Mule Creek State Prison, where Hightower resides)

The Hightower case like so many is a story in itself:

Thomas Hightower claims he got his “letter to bishop stating intent to sue” postmarked from Mule Creek State Prison mail December 23, 2003, putting his “motion” into the one year window for civil suits re sexual assault that the California Legislature opened in Civil Codes: 340.1 -

What is it this one plaintiff’s case - filed by a prison inmate acing on his own behalf; indeed the appeal briefs that led to the Second District appeal decision were filed by Hightower acting as his own attorney from prison - why is this the case that is used to go all the way to the California Supreme Court?
Hightower’s case is not at all similar to the more than 600 civil cases filed in California during that one-year window in 2003 or any cases filed since. Yet this weird case might be used to set the standard for all future child sex assault lawsuits in the state.

Once again the cards are stacked in favor of the Roman Catholic Church, who we know had teams of attorneys from several law firms fighting against Hightower, as they do with all their cases in California. All that power is fighting one damaged man in prison, who says he is a child molester himself because of the damage done to him by Mario Blanco?

Hightower’s case was too muddled to set a standard

From the Hightower appellate decision:

“January 14, 2004, the Sacramento court refused to file the document as a complaint because Hightower did not include the filing fee or a fee waiver request,” reads the Hightower decision.

“He alleged that as a state prison inmate he had an extra year to file his complaint under section 352.1 and that the delayed discovery rule for repressed childhood memories applied."

The Hightower case is extremely unusual and should not be allowed to affect future cases in California.
Hightower made a lot of mistakes filing from prison: More from the Hightower decision:

“Apart from a general statement that beginning at the age of 12 he was sexually abused by a priest of the Sacramento Archdiocese from 1970 to 1972, the document contains no allegations concerning a basis of liability against the bishop, does not mention damages, and seeks no relief. Finally, Hightower confirmed at the hearing on the bishop's demurrers that he filed the December 2003 document in order to put the court on notice that he was suing the bishop, that a formal complaint was being prepared, and that he eventually planned to file a complaint.”

He told the court in a hearing: “This is what I'll be suing for, and the formal complaint is being composed just as fast as I can get it composed.”

The case in the Quarry Decision is more likely similar to future cases: In Quarry, six brothers claim they were sexually abused by a Catholic priest in the 1970’s, when they were children. They sued defendant Doe I (Bishop of Alameda) in 2007 for damages due to adult-onset psychological injuries allegedly caused by that abuse. When they sued, they ranged in age from 43 to 40, but they did not discover until 2006 that the cause of their adulthood psychological injuries was the childhood sexual abuse.

The Bishop demurred to the complaint, arguing that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure[1] section 340.1.
The appellate court disagreed and said:

“Plaintiff need only allege the onset of psychological injury or illness after the age of majority and that he commenced his action within three years of the time he discovered or reasonably should have discovered such psychological injury or illness was caused by the childhood sexual abuse. (§ 340.1, subd. (a).)” (Id. at p. 1186.)

NOTE: Once again, the Church never denies these crimes took place, they just hire teams of attorneys to block justice for the crime victims.

More about Hightower’s case that reads like a drama:

Thomas Hightower watched from Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California, as the Diocese of Sacramento agreed in July 2005 to pay $35 million to settle 33 claims of sexual abuse by priests, including 16 against Tacoma priest Mario Blanco. (there were 17 cases filed, presumably the 17th was Hightower’s left unsettled.
Yes, Mario Blanco was still serving as a priest in 2005 in Tacoma, Washington.

In fact, while at least 17 men dealt with interrogatories from Catholic Church attorneys and lengthy litigation on their cases, Mario Blanco was being flown around the state by Actor Mel Gibson:
Originally posted May 13, 2009, at Examiner Dot Com.
Reproduced today because it is relevant to cases going forward in L.A. Superior Court now.

While at least 17 men dealt with interrogatories from Catholic Church attorneys and lengthy litigation on their cases regarding Blanco, the pearly toothed priest was being flown around the state by Mel Gibson.

A man who became close to the priest in the 12 years he was at the Tacoma Church and kept his schedule for several years said: “Blanco traveled to such cities as Redding, Calif., Spokane, Tucson, Ariz., Denver and Los Angeles. The priest was so respected that the actor Gibson regularly flew Blanco to Southern California to celebrate Mass for a group of traditionalists.

He said Gibson also took the priest to Mexico to buy vestments and other items for the church.

I have a feeling this story isn't over.


Don't forget the PayPal High Five Campaign using PayPal Donate Buttons at left.

After each post we pass the hat, that's how it works.

Best blog on the subject of Roman Polanski extradition so far:

Roman Polanski and Roman Catholics

Jim Lindgren over at the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy has excerpted a fascinating George Orwell essay from 1944 about what a morally depraved yet talented artist Salvador Dali is. It discusses how the fans of his art claim “a kind of benefit of clergy” where they exempt him from the moral laws that constrain ordinary people. Here’s the line that got me...

Read John Manly on Polanski:

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Roman Polanski was 43 when he made the decision to drug, sodomize and rape this young girl

By John Manly
In 1973, Roman Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized a 13-year-old little girl. In 2007, he told newsmagazine show "60 Minutes" that the

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Roman Polanski was 43 when he made the decision to drug, sodomize and rape this young girl

By John Manly

In 1973, Roman Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized a 13-year-old little girl. In 2007, he told newsmagazine show "60 Minutes" that the victim was “not unschooled in sexual matters” and that “she consented.” There is no dispute a crime occurred; he plead guilty to it. While awaiting sentencing, he fled the country because he was concerned, perhaps even with justification, that the judge was going to sentence him to a long prison term.

For 30 years he has dodged, bobbed, weaved and gone to great lengths to avoid sentencing for his crime. If nothing else, any civilized society has an obligation to protect children. It is not a mystery or a secret that individuals who molest or sexually assault children have a high rate of recidivism.

It seems that Messrs. Allen, Scorsese and others believe that because Mr. Polanski is a tremendously talented director, famous, and wealthy that he should get a pass. Sexual abuse and molestation is epidemic in the United States and western Europe, especially among young girls. Roman Polanski was 43 when he made the decision to drug, sodomize and rape this young girl. He had been married, made successful movies and frankly knew better. Even the age of consent in France is 15.

Now dozens of Hollywood’s elite, including, incredibly, Woody Allen, are demanding his release. (Woody Allen. What a surprise.) In other words, if you drink thousand dollar bottles of wine, have an Academy Award, you can occasionally give a 13-year-old qualudes and rape and sodomize her with no consequence.

The justifications being put forward by the Hollywood elite and others in Europe are the almost the same justifications that the United States Catholic Bishops make when one of their own is disclosed as a molester. For example, Angelica Houston described Polanski’s victim to law enforcement officials as “appearing to be one of those kind of little chicks between - could be any age up to 25. She did not look like a 13-year-old little thing.” Former Orange County Bishop Norman McFarland testified he placed a molesting priest back in ministry because his 15-year-old victim was “fully developed and precocious.” There are thousands of sex offenders in our nation’s prison who did far less than

Mr. Polanski did to this young girl. If we are a nation of laws, then Mr. Polanski needs to face justice just as any working class man who drugged, raped and sodomized a little girl. If we are a nation of laws that is the only acceptable result.
Newport Beach, California and New York City

John C. Manly
Manly and Stewart Lawyers
(949) 689-7895 cell, (949) 252-9990 office

Manly has represented more than 500 victims of child sex abuse across the United States. He does not represent the victim in the Polanski case.


more on Polanski Smoking Gun Archive - polanski Roman Polanski raped a child

Friday, September 25, 2009

Attempts to stop Loomis from testifying on Mahony caused release of deposition last week, Motion for Order re Don Woods

By Kay Ebeling

A Law and Order Moment caused release of the Richard Loomis deposition transcript last weekend, not a "stunt" by plaintiffs, as a church attorney claimed in court Tuesday. Inappropriate and "bizarre" behavior by Donald Woods Attorney for the L.A. Archdiocese at that deposition caused a transcript to become relevant and able to be entered into the public domain, attached to a motion about Woods' behavior.

“Despite Monsignor DOE 6’s attempts to pull away, Mr. Woods began to whisper in his ear,” reads the Motion for Protective Order filed by Plaintiffs to which the transcript was attached. “Mr. Woods’ bizarre and improper conduct was a blatant attempt to stop Monsignor DOE 6 from continuing to give damning testimony regarding Cardinal DOE 1, who Mr. Woods also represents in this same matter.

“Plaintiff must be allowed to elicit this critical testimony from Monsignor DOE 6 an other DOE defendants without interference from Mr. Woods’ improper, unreasonable, and disruptive conduct.

Plaintiffs say Woods also coached the witness, physicaly restrained him, instructed him not to answer more than fifty times on shaky grounds:

“During virtually every portion of the deposition where this testimony was being elicited, defense counsel, in violation of local rules and the rules of civil procedure, attempted to thwart the testimony, transparently coach the witness, and at one point, physically restrain the witness from testifying.

“In addition to the awkward hand movements which occurred on two separate occasions, Don Woods repeatedly obstructed the deposition process.”

I was working on a story about the Tuesday hearing, and I got to this quote in my notes:

Steier: Over the weekend there was a stunt, they created a motion and attached a transcript, and then sent it to the media.

I went back and reread the motion to which the deposition was attached last weekend, when I like every other writer on this topic, focused all my attention on the Monsignor’s deposition.

The real story is the bizarre behavior of Donald Woods.

So this post is going up tonight, and the story on the hearing Tuesday will go up tomorrow, unless something else comes up, that's life on a blog.

Meanwhile, here are quotes from:

Motion for Protective Order Regarding Donald Woods.

Plaintiffs need a court order to “Prevent Donald Woods, counsel for the Archdiocese Defendants DOE’s 1 through 20 (except 3 and 8) from “Engaging in improper, disruptive, and unreasonable conduct during the course of Monsignor DOE 6’s deposition (That's Monsignor Loomis).

“Mr. Woods’ repeated behavior in attempting to silence DOE 6 and preventing him from giving testimony that is extremely damaging to the Archdiocese defendants is improper and a blatant misuse of the discovery process and violates the California Rules of Civil Procedure and the Los Angeles County Superior Court Rules.”

Dated September 17, 2009:


“This case involves a longstanding cover-up by Archdiocese Defendants and specifically Cardinal DOE 1 of knowledge of DOE 3’s sexual abuse. DOE 3 is currently serving a ten year prison sentence, in part for brutally raping a child, plaintiff Luis C, over the course of several years.

The deponent in this case was Monsignor DOE 6.
“DOE 3 was caught red-handed with Luis C. in his parish living quarters in a parish in direct violation of archdiocesan policy in 1996. Despite this disclosure Cardinal DOE 1 did not remove DOE 3.

“On September 15, 2009. Plaintiff conducted the first session of DOE 6’s deposition. During the course of that deposition, counsel for Archdiocese Defendants, Mr. Donald Woods, behaved improperly and unreasonably and such behavior was disruptive and a misuse of the discovery process, such that a protective order is needed-

“To ensure that Mr. Woods be foreclosed from causing any further disruptions by virtue of his improper conduct.

“Monsignor DOE 6, the deponent, was being questioned by counsel for Plaintiff regarding Cardinal DOE 1’s deviation from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles’s own policies and procedures.

"A representative of the Archdiocese is required to publicly inform parishioner that a priest serving in the Archdiocese has been credibly accused of sexually abusing a child. In this case DOE 3, one of the most notorious priest pedophiles in the country.”

(SIDE NOTE: Every Archdiocese thinks they have “the most notorious pedophile priest in the country.” Truth is there are prolific pedophiles on the consciences of every bishop, archbishop, cardinal, and monsignor in the country, there are “the worsts” in every archdiocese. It’s astounding that the national nature of these crimes has not yet reached the American psyche.)

Back to:

Motion for Protective Order from Donald Woods

“Monsignor DOE 6 was describing how Cardinal DOE 1 specifically ordered Monsignor DOE 6 not to make the required announcements. This fact has never been previously disclosed.

“Prior to Plaintiff’s counsel completing his line of questioning, Mr. Woods, in a bizarre display, moved extraordinarily close to Monsignor DOE 6, wrapped both of his arms around Monsignor DOE 6 (to the visible surprise and dismay of Monsignor DOE 6) and, despite Monsignor DOE 6’s attempts to pull away, Mr. Woods began to whisper in his ear.

WOODS Whispered in the Monsignor’s Ear in the Middle of Deposition Questioning!!!

(I hardly EVER use exclamation points, because the best writing instructor I ever had said, the words should be powerful enough you don't need exclamatino points.

Exclamation points should only be used when they're needed, and in this case they're needed!!!)

Talk About Obstruction of Justice

More Quotes From:

Motion for Protective Order Re Attorney for Los Angeles Archdiocese, Donald Woods

“Despite Monsignor DOE 6’s attempts to pull away, Mr. Woods began to whisper in his ear.”

Phew. Read the end of this post to see why I'm saying Phew.

“Mr. Woods’ bizarre and improper conduct was a blatant attempt by Mr. Woods to stop DOE 6 from continuing to give such damning testimony regarding Cardinal DOE 1, who Mr. Woods also represents in this same matter.

“Mr. Woods improperly attempted to first silence, and then coach Monsignor DOE 6’s answers, in a clear misuse of the discovery process.”

(Manly lists the information that Monsignor was disclosing, all of it new information about the Cardinal, all of it has been written about now in news media across the country since the deposition was released last weekend, and I stand corrected, Mahony did instruct Loomis not to call the police, it just comes at the end of the deposition. You can read hte deposition at the SNAP website in full.)

More quotes from

Plaintiffs Motion Requesting Protection From Donald Woods

(Not the real title; read end of post to see why I exaggerate)

“During virtually every portion of the deposition where this testimony was being elicited, defense counsel, in violation of local rules and the rules of civil procedure, attempted to thwart the testimony, transparently coach the witness, and at one point, physically restrain the witness from testifying.

“He instructed the witness not to answer on over 50 separate occasions. Frequently, the basis for this instruction was not privilege, not confidentiality, not privacy, but ‘irrelevant’ and ‘calls for an opinion’ and at one point Woods objected on the basis of something called the ‘pontifical secret.’

“Further, a review of the transcript will show that defense counsel repeatedly coached the witness on the record, suggested answers to the witness, and attempted to improperly thwart the legitimate inquiries of plaintiff’s counsel.

“Plaintiff intends to file a motion to compel as to specific instructions.

“However, there are numerous depositions scheduled and more that will be scheduled.

“Plaintiff does not believe it should be forced to endure the improper tactics of the Archdiocese and their lawyers in these depositions.

“Further, absent a motion for protective order, plaintiff will be forced to file a motion to compel in each and every deposition because of Defense conduct.

“Plaintiff is not seeking sanctions in this motion. While we believe the conduct is sanction able, grossly unfair, and improper, we believe it is not in the best interest of our client to get a ‘pound of flesh’ from defense counsel.

“We simply want to prepare our case for trial in compliance with the rules.

“These are certainly difficult cases and can provoke strong emotions on both sides. We believe if the court makes clear that the type of tactics at issue here are not acceptable, that it will put an end to it, and that punitive measures at this juncture will be unnecessary.

“Plaintiff must be allowed to elicit this critical testimony from Monsignor DOE 6 an other DOE defendants without interference from Mr. Woods’ improper, unreasonable, and disruptive conduct.

“In addition to the awkward hand movements which occurred on two separate occasions, Don Woods repeatedly obstructed the deposition process in violation of California Rules of Civil Procedure 2017.010 and Los Angeles County Superior Court Rule: 7.12, by excessive objections, inappropriate hand gestures, whispering in the witness’ ear, instructing the witness not to answer on grounds not involving privilege -

“All in an effort to hinder Plaintiff from discovering relevant and crucial information involving this longstanding cover-up by Cardinal DOE 1.

“When Mr. Manly attempted to meet and confer with Don Woods regarding this behavior and other discovery violations, Mr. Woods simply stated that it would be up to the Court to resolve this.”

OKAY CITY OF ANGELS HAS to interject here,

I know I am better off if I keep my personal stuff out of these stories


Mr. Woods needs to be advised also about his inappropriate behavior, and twitchy questionable hand gestures outside the courtroom as well.

As a matter of fact, after the hearings Tuesday as the attorneys, reporters (me and the woman from the Times), and others were moving as a group out of the courtroom into the hall. I was on my way to try to get an interview, when --

DONALD WOODS got inappropriate with me.

I wear this Army Navy Surplus vest, with lots of zippers, because it’s great when you have a camera and a phone and cosmetics and pens and all the things I carry- I love my Army vest.

Woods, comes up to me outside the courtroom after the hearing. He reaches out and says, “What are these for?” and then tweaks the zipper on my vest.

The Zipper that is right in the front of my vest. Getting WAY TOO CLOSE.

Donald Woods invaded my space way more than an intelligent person would unless he's doing it on purpose, outside the courtroom last Tuesday.

Hours later I was still trying to figure out what happened, and the only thing that stayed on my mind was, this guy has got to have read a little bit about me by now, my story has been up at City of Angels 1 and 2 now for 2 and a half years. He’s got to know I have PTSD and sex problems up the whazoo and he’s got to know-

He’s just got to know that was wrong.

My reaction? Like I said, I have PTSD.

I jumped about three feet away and then made a self deprecating comment about myself.

Inside I had just turned into the teenage girl who always evoked sexually demeaning responses from boys, not quite knowing what I was doing to cause it.

Donald Woods has to know about PTSD induced sexual problems a lot of survivors have as a result of the criminal behavior of his own clients, the enablers of pedophile priests in the Catholic Church.

Especially when it’s me, a survivor who has written her story and put it on the web for everybody to read, that Woods is twitching at.

Donald Woods needs to be told how to behave in public, as well as in depositions.

Okay, why do I put so much of my personal stuff online? Because I feel like with me, it doesn't matter. A lot of survivors of these crimes have secrets that they can’t let anyone find out, because they have families and friends and careers. But in my peculiar case my behavior from the crimes destroyed any chance for me to have families friends and careers.

So it doesn't matter if the world finds out. I can like martyr my story.

So it doesn't embarrass me if the world finds out that Donald Woods touched me inappropriately outside the courtroom last Tuesday - and there were witnesses. I'm beyond embarrassment.

Woods can't be allowed to get away with any of his stunts.

Here’s the sequence of events with Woods and me:

First, okay, I dress weird. It’s because I don't have a lot of money right now, and I don't want to wear K-Mart stuff, I still want to have a look that is me. So since I am a warrior so to speak, and because the garments are sturdy - okay I know it looks stupid, but when I'm carrying my camera I wear an army navy surplus vest with all these zippers and I may complete the fashion statement this fall by adding combat boots.

I'm not dressing to look pretty these days.

Donald Woods felt a need to comment on that. At first I thought he was just criticizing the way I dress, and I felt bad enough about that.

But there was that hand at the zipper on my chest. He said, “What are these for” and sort of flicked the zipper thing.

I jumped three feet, felt humiliated, not even connecting how inappropriate the hand gesture was sexually, I was just feeling embarrassed about the clothes I was wearing.

After jumping three feet, I said, “They're to hold my stuff.”

Trying to make light of the incident, trying to act like I'm not embarrassed.

For two days I was freaked.

Then I read this motion for a protective order because of Woods’ inappropriate hand gestures.

What's the matter, Mr. Woods? Are you developing Turret’s Syndrome?

I know, I know, in the American system of jurisprudence, even the worst criminals deserve a defense, I know I know these church attorneys are just doing their job. . .

And as a spiritual person, I know Someone Else is running this show. I know the reason I'm still alive today after all the perilous situations I got into is to do this reporting. I know that since starting this blog, often I’ll start looking one thing up, and I’ll find another thing that is much more relevant. A more experienced reporter will say that's just how research works.

But - it’s hard to explain.

Just that Someone Else is directing the outflow of this information. I don't start a post with an agenda, I just start writing down what's happening, and the horrors and criminal behavior reveals itself.

So what a funny coincidence that Don Woods was inappropriate with me three days before I open a document and read that there will be a hearing October 26th about how inappropriate Woods has been acting during depositions.

You know, Mr. Woods, after a decade or so of unemployment, you too might be wearing Army Navy Surplus clothes, and maybe by then I’ll have the book deal and the movie deal, and then

Will I laugh at what you're wearing? Yes.

Will I reach out and grab your balls? No.

Please give me the same consideration.


A hearing on Motion for Protective Order regarding Donald Woods is on Calendar for October 26: From Court website:

10/26/2009 at 11:00 am in department 324 at 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005 Motion (FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: BC376766)


Don't forget to click the PayPal Donate Buttons at left and send us High Fives. After each post here, we pass the hat, that's how it works.
Kay Ebeling
The attorney who defends Catholic pedophile priests in Los Angeles, Donald Steier, does not want me to put his picture up in a post. So we are only going to post pictures of parts of Donald Steier here.

He says he's afraid one of the crime victims will come after him with a gun. He should know most the victims absorbed the message of the Church, much moreso than the perpetrators, or the bishops who pay his fees today. A lot of us survivors do become enraged, but the crimes we commit are usually victimless, or the damages inflicted are only on ourselves.

Still to assuage Steier's fears, we are only going to show parts of Donald Steier:

At right Donald Steier's head.
At right, Donald Steier's tie.


Attorneys for two Archdioceses, Maria Roberts for Bihops Robert Brom of San Diego and Lee Potts for Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, confer outside L.A. Superior Court Tues. September 22, 2009.

As Illinois Court denies claims for pedophilia pre-2000, 65 year old perpetrator priest released into Chicago area

(At the same time the priest who was supposed to be civilly committed was released from prison, the Supreme Court of Illinois denied claims for molestation from the period of time the priest was perpetrating. It started 9/24/2009 at about 11 AM PST. The world works in strange ways.)

"Convicted pedophile priest Fred Lenczycki was set free today in DuPage County, but will continue his sex offender treatment as an outpatient," reads a press report.

"The Court admits the legal sufficiency of the complaint, but asserts that some affirmative matter defeats the plaintiff’s claim," reads the decision on Belleville released within minutes the same day.

In other words, too bad, crime victims, you obviously aren't lobbying hard enough. The Church gets a walk even though they allowed pedophiles to get to you for decades, because when you crime victims were in your twenties, you didn't take legal action.

And the pedophile priest gets a walk with electronic bracelets and other monitoring ... at least this priest has a police record and IS on the registries. Now about those other 4,500 or so.

The state of Illinois allows pedophiles to continue to thrive and displays judicial ignorance of how the mind works. Cases against the Church for pedophilia across the country prove that it takes decades for victims of child sex crimes to come forward, especially when the perpetrator is wearing a collar and convincing you as a child he's somehow connected to God.

How ideal for a criminal. Your victim will not be able to report you until the SOL runs out. That's statute of limitations as well as s-- outta luck.

More from the decision the Supreme Court of Illinois dismissed September 24, 2009:

"The pleadings and supporting documents in this case indicate that when plaintiff was 14 years old, he was sexually molested by defendant Kenneth Roberts, a Catholic priest. At the time of the molestation.

"Father Roberts was spending a week at the school as a guest lecturer."

Father Roberts was allowed to speak to the children on sex education even though the church knew he had previously engaged in "sexual abuse of children, including a boy in Dallas, Texas."

The former flight attendant, Father Robert was a popular author in the 1970s. Titles of some of his books are:

From Playboy to Priest
Pray it Again Sam
Nobody Calls it Sin Anymore

The popular priest was perpetrating on little boys and writing those books, and today the Court rules for the Church... again.

What about the instution's responsibility, not for this one 14-year old victim, but for turning predators like this loose on the communities.

To this day, the church controls the courts and the media, and is getting off practically free for turning sexual predators loose on parish families for decades. The Roman Catholic Church will replace money spent on settlements, just as fast as they are replacing their reputation as a benevolent church.

And as of the same morning, a perpetrator priest from Joliet is out on the streets of Illinois, near Chicago.

This is the priest who the courts assured us would be "civilly committed" in early 2008 after his sentence was served, because he is a perennial sex offender.

Here is how Illinois solved that problem, from Thursday's news stories:

Lenczycki was due to be paroled 3.5 years ago after serving part of a five-year prison term for inappropriately touching three boys at a Hinsdale church.

A month before his release date, prosecutors filed paperwork to have him civilly committed beyond his prison term as a sexually violent person.

Then, July 9, the court ruled he could be released under a strict plan that includes dozens of conditions, such as electronic monitoring, weekly counseling, polygraph tests and sex offender registration, to name a few.

He had admitted molesting 31 boys, ages 9 to 17, while serving in six churches during a 25-year span until 1999, when he took a forced retirement.

The first few crimes involved three boys at Ss. Peter and Paul Catholic Church in Naperville until 1975. At his next assignment in Romeoville, two other accusers said they were molested. Lenczycki later nappropriately touched as many as 14 boys at St. Isaac Jogues Catholic Church in Hinsdale. Other victims followed after he moved to California and Missouri.


Was he at the Servants of the Paracletes treatment centers in San Bernardino and St. Louis, perhaps?

Lenczycki technically still is a priest and receives a pension, because the Vatican did not defrock him, but he cannot preside over Mass or perform any other official duties.

(He won’t miss a meal, he’ll never have to work more hours than he wants to, he’ll have people waiting on him, he’ll get treatment whenever something goes wrong medically or mentally. How many of his crime victims can say that? )

Here's a better story from Friday morning, lifted freely from Abuse Tracker:

Pedophile ex-priest is freed

WHEATON (IL)Naperville Sun
September 25, 2009
By BILL BIRD wbird@scn1.comWHEATON — Fred Lenczycki, a former Roman Catholic priest who served at SS Peter and Paul Church in Naperville and sexually abused as many as 30 boys in three states, was freed Thursday from DuPage County Jail.

Lenczycki, 65, was the first priest in the nation to be deemed a "sexually violent" person. He left DuPage County Circuit Court accompanied by a conditional release supervisor, after a judge approved an outpatient treatment plan for him.

Natalie Bauer, a spokeswoman for Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, confirmed Thursday night Lenczycki had been released from custody and had registered as a sex offender.

Coming soon:

Report on last Tuesday's hearing in L.A. Superior Court, as only City of Angels can report it, with pictures ...

Posted by Kay Ebeling

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

2 Doyle letters: to CA Court re Mahony and to CofA re Baker post, plus today 6PM Central on KCTU, guest is Arthur Baselice

(We report what you will not read in any corporate media outlet.)

Thursday Sept. 24 at 6PM Central, Arthur Baselice tells of pursuing his son's perpetrator, Charles Newman, (UPDATE: Don't know what happened, but it's past 4:00 and the program is not airing.) - through Philadelphia courts. Watch online here: and you can call in to the program live while it's happening at 866-905-8855. The show, Educating to End Abuse, airs from KCTU, Wichita, Kansas, third Thursday each month. Like last August, City of Angels will run a loose transcript soon after the show.

Tom Doyle sent two emails to City of Angels recently that we are posting here, one with the letter Doyle sent to the California Supreme Court about the L.A. Archdiocese's bending truth to influence justice. Then the canon lawyer dashed off a second email after reading the September 21st post here, with bizarre quotes from a Donald Steier brief defending pedophile priest Michael Baker for Cardinal Roger Mahony. Here is what Doyle had to say first about Steier et al:

Dear City of Angels: Try looking at it this way. Steier, Hennigan, Woods and the other lawyers who work for the archdiocese are not stupid. They have no doubt figured out that Roger is the undisputed monarch and the most important, if not the only important figure in the drama. The accused priests and their files are a kind of by-product.

They are the reason for the challenge to Roger's power, image, control and equilibrium. He found out years ago that the power card doesn't work with the victims and their attorneys. They (or at least most of them) have something the Cardinal does not ... integrity!

There may be a few among the victims' attorneys who are lacking a bit in the integrity dept. but on the whole the attorneys are committed to something Roger and his crew are not committed to ... truth.

The victims have not bowed to Roger's so-called power. They aren't impressed with the mythology he uses to prop himself up and they aren't going away. So it's a matter of fighting it out in court. The longer Roger's lawyers can keep the game going the more money they make. Since Roger is the king of the archdiocese he can do whatever he wants with the millions of dollars donated by the unsuspecting "faithful."

Who suffers? The victims and those who love and support them. In spite of the PR hype that Roger's team churns out, nobody in the archdiocesan control center cares a hoot about the men and women whose lives the clergy have trashed and whose lives the narcissistic Cardinal continues to make miserable.

People of integrity, especially the victims, get furious with the outlandish statements of Roger's Public Relations mouthpiece but its not worth the effort to get mad at him. He's like a tape deck ... put a tape in and he plays back whatever is on it. In the archdiocese he no doubt gets paid decent dollars to keep up the barrage of loonie fairy tales about Roger and his cabal.

If the Mormons, or Enron or SNAP for that matter paid him enough he'd switch sides in a heartbeat.

All this being so, these lawyers know that they are sitting in front of a slot machine and that every time they pull the handle they get a flood of cash ... it doesn't stop. Roger will keep paying their sky-high hourly fees and they will keep churning out the increasingly bizarre defenses ... not to protect the rights of the accused priests but to keep the spigot open.

Maybe someday someone with writing skills will gather all the lunacy the church lawyers have spewed out and publish it as some sort of a caricature of the American legal system, injected with sociopathic toxicity from organized Catholicism. It could be a kind of amalgam of Disney and Stephen King ... Mickey Mouse and the Predator team up to take on the Kingdom of Light.

Doyle was responding to this post: Monday, September 21, 2009, Click headline for the whole story:

Baker may still offend as ‘lewd fondling does not require an erection,’ reads pedophile priest 5th Amendment plea, hearing tomorrow

*By Kay Ebeling
Because he might commit more sex crimes in the future, Michael Baker cannot release his answers in interrogatories about past sex crimes, according to a Defense motion be heard in L.A. Superior Court Tuesday morning. Baker's age is not relevant, reads the motion, because “Lewd touching with the hands does not require the ability to achieve an erection.”Just when you think the you've read the most outrageous argument ever by an attorney defending a pedophile priest, something like Defense Motion for Protective Order by Donald Steier slaps you in the face. Steier is asking Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias to keep all discovery documents in the upcoming Luis C civil case regarding Baker secret until trial.


Below Doyle writes to the Supreme Court of California about a letter from L.A. Archdiocese attorneys to the Court that we quoted in this post at CofA from Tuesday, August 11, 2009:

Sworn Enemies of Catholic Church got CA law amended, then he settled in 2007 due to prejudice and bad publicity, Mahony claims in letter to Court

By Kay Ebeling
Cardinal Roger Mahony understood that the cases settled in 2007 were going to be the last lawsuits about sex crimes in California Archdioceses, his lawyer claims in an April letter to the state's highest court. "Irrespective of merits," the letter states, the L.A. Archdiocese settled all 510 claims in 2007 because plaintiffs were creating bad publicity and prejudice against the Church.

September 8, 2009

The Honorable Ronald M. George, Chief Justice
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

Quarry v The Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland
Case Number S171382

RE: Letter from Hennigan, Bennett and Dorman, April 21, 2009

Dear Justice George,

I very recently had the opportunity to read the above-cited letter, signed by Lee Potts, apparently of the firm of Hennigan, Bennett and Dorman. I enclose a copy of this letter for your reference.

I am writing in reference to certain statements in the letter which are factually incorrect and others that are phrased in such a way so as to drastically distort the truth of the matter. This letter and the case it refers to are grounded in the sexual abuse of minors by Roman Catholic clergy. My interest in this matter is grounded in the fact that I am a Catholic priest and a Canon lawyer. I have served as a pastoral minister and counselor to victims of Catholic clergy sexual abuse throughout the United States for 25 years. I have also served as a consultant and expert witness in several hundred civil and criminal legal actions in secular courts throughout this country. In particular, I have been a consultant and expert witness in many Catholic clergy sexual abuse cases throughout the State of California since 2002. I have had extensive contact with the victims, with their families, their counselors and their attorneys.

The first statement I wish to address as being untrue is in reference to the legislation passed which allowed time-barred claims. The author of the letter says “In California, ‘sworn enemies of the Catholic Church’ helped draft and secure passage of legislation to revive otherwise time-barred claims against employers of abusers. Although the statute was worded in neutral terms, the target of the legislation in floor debates and committee reports was always the Roman Catholic Church.”

This statement is completely erroneous. Those who worked for the passage of the legislation in question were hardly “sworn enemies of the Catholic Church.” The proponents of the legislation included persons, attorneys and non-attorneys, who had extensive experience dealing with the victims of sexual abuse. The perpetrators were clergy and lay persons. One of the strongest motivating factors in urging the legislation was and remains the clinically demonstrated fact that the vast majority of sexual abuse victims are psychologically unable to publicly disclose their abuse and consequently seek any form of help including judicial relief, for periods of time that generally run between 20 and 30 years.

The push for new legislation was no doubt influenced by the state-wide revelation that hundreds of Catholic clerics had sexually abused thousands of minors over the years and that these abusers had, in most cases, been sheltered by their bishops. Exposing the existence of widespread criminal behavior by Catholic priests is certainly not evidence that those who demand accountability and justice are “sworn enemies of the Catholic Church.”

In practice the official Church spokespersons, both clerical and lay, habitually try to label any criticism of clerics or Church behavior as “anti-Catholic” or “Catholic bashing.” This is nothing more than a crude attempt to shift the blame for wrong-doing or criminal behavior from the perpetrators to the victims. In the 25 years that I have been directly involved in this issue I have seen Church officials and their attorneys defame, slander, devalue and threaten victims, victims’ families, their attorneys, their supporters and those who have advocated for them. All of this was done in the name of “defending the Church.’

The target of floor debates was not “always the Catholic Church.” This statement grossly distorts the truth. The reality in 2002 was that several hundred Catholic clergy perpetrators had been uncovered along with clear evidence of systematic cover-up by Catholic cardinals, archbishops and bishops. The Catholic Church was the most visible offender but certainly not a target of unjust criticism.

The letter describes the numbers of cases reported as a result of the legislative change as if this were proof of a campaign to defame and bankrupt the Catholic Church. The fact is that over 800 cases were surfaced in which Catholic clergy were involved. The investigation into these cases revealed that in nearly every case sufficient evidence was available to proceed. The numbers speak for themselves. There were many cases because there had been an astounding number of clergy sexual abusers. The courts only responded to what was already in existence. The victims did not make up stories and their attorneys did not make up fictitious cases.

The fourth page contains a statement about media attention: “That pressure is necessarily exacerbated as the number of cases reaches into the hundreds and the Defendants are relentlessly held up to public scorn, ridicule and contempt by mass media.” This is an overly histrionic dramatization of the facts. The Catholic Church and its clerics and bishops are not above the law. The high degree of trust demanded by them and placed in them is viciously betrayed by sexual abuse. The bishops appear to want the media to portray them as victims. Any scorn, ridicule or contempt is the direct result of the harsh reality of the widespread nature of clergy sexual abuse.

The Church’s attorneys have reaped vast sums by using every tactic available and conjuring up others that had been otherwise unknown to create an endless series of barriers and delaying tactics that have succeeded in prolonging the legal process to outrageous lengths. The victims are the only ones who have suffered through this by being subjected to a seemingly endless process of mental and emotional torture.

The objections of the Catholic cardinals, archbishops and bishops, expressed by their attorneys, are based on their fundamental but totally erroneous belief that they are somehow above the laws of the State of California. This arrogant and unrealistic attitude has apparently blinded them to the essential fact of what this entire phenomenon is all about. It is not about money, or the image of the hierarchy or the power of bishops. It is about thousands of innocent, vulnerable children whose physical, emotional and spiritual lives have been savagely devastated by Catholic priests and bishops and their rightful search for compassion and justice.


Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, J.C.D., C.A.D.C.


Posted by Kay Ebeling, Producer, City of Angels Blog


Just to document how bad it gets, here is the Face of Kay in September 2009:

I'm still crying way too much.

Don't forget the PayPal high five campaign at left ... we pass the hat after each post, that's how it works ...

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Church to Iraq Vets: Overseas in 2003? Too bad, dismiss the cases, bishops are above Federal law

By Kay Ebeling

Servicemenbers who were at war during the one-year window that allowed lawsuits against the Catholic Church in 2003 should not be allowed to proceed with lawsuits filed in 2008 regarding child molestation by priests, even though Federal law allows benefits such as delayed lawsuits for active duty personnel, attorneys for the Catholic Church argued in Los Angeles Superior Court Tuesday.

Both Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles and Bishop Robert Brom of San Diego want several civil cases regarding molestation thrown out, because the plaintiffs were overseas serving their country during the one-year window that opened to file civil lawsuits in 2003.

One plaintiff was and still is in Iraq, another adult victim of a peophile priest from Tuesday's hearing was in Guam and other farflung places on active duty during the one-year window in 2003, and did not file his suit until 20 months after leaving the military.

Catholic Church heirarchy try to bystep Federal law.

Renamed the Servicemen's Relief Act in 2003, this benefit for veterans has been a mainstay of American culture, almost unchanged since 1940. Now the Church wants to refuse veterans their right to file lawsuits, under California 340.1, now that they have returned from active duty. Americans go to great lengths to ensure men and women who serve their country do not lose their rights, especially when serving overseas during wartime.

Apparently Church hierarchy are above this law, like they are above the law that requires reporting of sex crimes against children to law enforcement.

In 2008 these plaintiffs filed civil suits, applicable to the one-year window in 2003, using their rights under the SCRA.

Now Mahony Brom and their teams of attorneys want the cases dismissed. Church heirarchy apparently feel it is more important to hold on to every million dollars they have, than to go along with the spirit and beliefs of nearly every other person in this country.

They are so out of touch.

American laws to provide for military personnel cross all political lines. Republicans AND Democrats stop fighting with each other when it comes to the issue of providing every benefit and right, and generously, to every person who serves our country, especially now in time of war.

That is, everyone agrees except Catholic Church heierarchy.

In court Tuesday attorneys for both the San Diego and Los Angeles Archdioceses fought hard and then harder to get the judge to dismiss cases filed by returning military personnel who missed the 2003 opportunity. The two attorneys argued on about 45 minutes, in spite of looks of aghast astonishment on the face of nearly everyone else in the courtroom, including the judge.

Their argument?

These servicemen waited too long. They should have filed their cases anyway, even if they were in the middle of fighting a war in 2003. They should have filed as soon as they stepped out of the plane from Iraq, no consideration at all for their circumstances.

I think even the most ardent Catholic will be astonished to find out these two Southern California bishops are willing to go against the spirit of this very country, and deny Iraq and Afghanistan veterans the right to delayed filing of lawsuits, because they were fighting a war for this country during the open time period.

The Catholic heirarchy will do anything to hold onto another two or three million dollars. The arguments in court today truly reveal the concerns of these church leaders. They care about their money and their assets, not their parishioners, or this country.

So why do we continue to afford these criminals extra respect and special dispensation?

The American Catholic bishops need to be prosecuted before they get any more praise.

Oh yes, Re Motion for Protective Order: After all that hooplah and hundreds of pages of motions back and forth, Judge Emilie Elias today waved away - with a slight wave of the hand - the motion to keep all evidence about Michael Baker in the Luis C case secret, like just one more irritating mosquito.

Judge Elias said to Donald Steier, "It's premature. You have to wait until the end of the case."

And of course he argued with her.

A more detailed post on Tuesday's hearing will follow shortly.

Meanwhile study up with me: On 19 December, 2003, President Bush has signed the “Servicemembers Civil Relief Act,” new legislation to help ease the economic and legal burdens on military personnel called to active duty status in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Authored by Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Chris Smith, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act updates and strengthens the previous Soldiers & Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940 (SSCRA). For complete details, see Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Simplified, and Servicemembers Civil Relief Act in Detail.

- Kay Ebeling

Monday, September 21, 2009

Baker may still offend as ‘lewd fondling does not require an erection,’ reads pedophile priest 5th Amendment plea, hearing tomorrow

By Kay Ebeling

Because he might commit more sex crimes in the future, Michael Baker cannot release his answers in interrogatories about past sex crimes, according to a Defense motion be heard in L.A. Superior Court Tuesday morning. Baker's age is not relevant, reads the motion, because “Lewd touching with the hands does not require the ability to achieve an erection.”

Just when you think the you've read the most outrageous argument ever by an attorney defending a pedophile priest, something like Defense Motion for Protective Order by Donald Steier slaps you in the face. Steier is asking Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias to keep all discovery documents in the upcoming Luis C civil case regarding Baker secret until trial.

It is one of the more inventive mutilations of the Fifth Amendment yet by an attorney defending a predator priest. We have Steier asserting Baker's right to refuse to answer questions that may be self-incriminating some time in the future, since it is likely the pedophile will re-offend. It's a chilling reversal of Minority Report reasoning, and that was science fiction.

“This particular situation creates a real danger, that if defendant answers questions about past acts of sexual crimes, they will be admissible automatically in any future prosecution for a sexual offense.

“If Defendant were to be charged at any time in the future for a sexual offense not yet committed or alleged, any evidence of the sexual offenses contained in these complaints would be admissibe against him.

"Thus, his answers to interrogatories about past acts have a real potential to incriminate him in the future.

“The Fifth Amendment protects Defendant against such use of his testimony. It is clearly not impossible for him to be accused of a criminal act, whether he commits such an offense or not.

What about that erection?

“The gravamen of the allegations against him in the overwhelming majority of claims against Defendant in these cases involve alleged lewd touching with the hands, which does not require the ability to achieve an erection.

“Thus, defendant’s age is entirely irrelevant to the matter - and there has been no expert testimony to say that Defendant cannot possibly commit a sexual offense in the future.

Another slap in the face:

“Indeed, Plaintiffs, their attorneys, and other advocates have often recited the mantra, ‘Once a pedophile, always a pedophile.’

“Without debating the veracity of that cliché, it is clear that one cannot determine that it is impossible for Defendant to be charged with a sexual offense in the future. “

City of Angels says, “What an Ipso facto ex post Minority Report wacko interpretation of law. It will be amazing if any court of law recognizes it.

The hearing is tomorrow at 11 AM and CofA will be there, barring the unexpected…

Steier continued:

includes pedophilia?

Steier cites the “Penitent’s privilege,” where anything said in a practice like Confession where “the discipline or tenets of the denomination has a duty to keep those communication secret." He then says, “Some of those items within defendant’s personnel records include statements protected by that privilege.

”Huh? I

"If they're privileged and secret under tenets like Confession, what are they doing in his personnel file

I'm quoting myself above from below:
Church tap dances in Baker case to prevent discovery. Defendants include Mahony and the Paracletes. Hearing next week

*By Kay Ebeling
The Witness: It was Lent. Father Baker was on the right hand, I was on the other side of Father Mahony- I mean Cardinal Mahony was giving the Mass …

Steier also demolishes any reason regarding freedom of religion and a pedophile priest’s acts.

This case is 'merely a civil action between private litigants'

In this case Steier is correct:

Thanks to sleeping law enforcement in U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles

More from Steier:

“Although the ‘clergy cases’ have garnered much public attention, each case is, nevertheless, fundamentally merely a civil action between private litigants. “

“Defendant has been afforded many rights, and those rights may be affected by the conduct of the parties in this litigation.”

The case of pedophile priest Michael Baker and his right to secrecy is much like a 1986 case regarding abuse of private citizens by the police force, Coalition Against Police Abuse v. Superior Court in 1986.

Continuously Steier’s argument is nothing can be put in public until there is a trial.

Steier writes that in this age of the Internet, anything can be disseminated. So “private matters that may never be admitted at trial could become easily accessible to the public if this Court fails to control the use of material obtained during discovery.”

Okay, does this sound threatening to you?

“Attorneys may not continue legal employment if they know that the client is using the process to harass or maliciously injure anyone. In this case, publicly disclosing sensitive and privileged records that were accumulated in confidence is a terrible, extralegal means of injuring a priest that trusted the Diocese with his confidences.”

“A protective order to prevent extra judicial disclosure of discovery material is warranted to prevent abuse of the court’s process and oppression of individual parties and witnesses,”

He again cites the case where private documents concerning the police force were returned and not kept by plaintiffs after litigation.


“I have known Father Doe 3 for over ten years and I represented him in prior criminal and civil matters.

“I currently represent him in Federal litigation and with respect to a criminal investigation.

“It is my understanding that Defendants Doe 1, 2, 4-7, 9-20, and Defendant DOE 8 created and / or maintains personnel records on its priests.

“Documents relating to canonical and legal claims, allegations, and actions are contained within a special personnel file, commonly referred to as a “confidential file.”

“Contemporaneously with filing this Motion for Protective Order, Defendant Doe 3 (Michael Baker) and I are responding to a Demand for Production of Documents, Set No. 1, propounded on or about May 6, 2009.”

HEY FOLKS, here Steier is describing the tap dance and other forms of obstruction of justice he has been doing re production of documents from L.A. Clergy Cases that in Baker’s case, half settled in Fall 2006, the rest July 2007.

Steier is still propounding to prevent release of those documents, now, post litigation.

Here is how the Church plans to respond to the May 2009 order to produce documents for Los Angeles plaintiffs:

“[Our] response will contain, among other things, various objections and assertions of privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, and the right against self incrimination, to the very same documents propounded to the Archdiocese, which documents are the subject of Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order.”

In other words don’t believe that they will cooperate after litigation is over, they never have before.


Quotes of note from Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Protective Order:

"Specifically the sexual exploitation of parishioners by pastors with whom they relate poses a threat to public safety, peace or order that is seemingly as substantial as that posed by deceptive religious recruitment practices, and the state possesses at least as compelling an interest in discouraging such exploitation."

Not to mention the state’s interest in “Truth in legal proceedings.”

Also, writes the Manly / Stewart firm for Plaintiffs, it’s no point arguing that right to privacy in California argument: This from Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles v. Superior Court 2005

“There must be an accommodation by religious institutions to the rules of civil society, particularly when the state’s compelling interest in protecting children is in question.”

The First Amendment refers to the “freedom to Believe;” But the freedom to Act “remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” Cal. 4th Appeals Court 2005

From Judge Haley Fromholz (who oversaw the Clergy Cases until December 2007, when Judge Emilie Elias took over)

“Unwarranted concealment of information from the public would be ill-advised.

“The Court notes the Archbishop’s public statement that ‘moving the healing and reconciliation process forward requires the fullest possible disclosure of what happened over the victims.

“The Victims deserve nothing less.” - 9.19.05 ruling by Fromholz on a different protective order motion in the clergy cases in 2005.

If they're worried about a jury pool, it’s irrelevant, no a better word is moot - “in light of the media exposure that has already been devoted to this case.”


Not enough media exposure, as far as I'm concerned, but enough for the Judge to rule that release of information is not going to have much more influence on the jury pool than the information that has already been released.

In this particular case with Luis C the following is especially poignant:

“Neither he nor his family were ever warned. Such warning could very well have prevented the abuse from ever occurring.”

Could well have prevented the abuse from ever occurring.

Actually the church could have stopped the abuse from occurring way back in 1940 something.

“Gaining knowledge of Baker’s abuses and the archdiocese’s knowledge thereof is integral to Plaintiff’s healing.

"Neither the Archdiocese, nor DOE 3, have ever offered to willingly provide Plaintiff these documents and information, in order to help him understand the horrors to which he has been subjected.

“Plaintiff is being forced to engage in litigation in order to obtain this information, to help him understand how his abuse fits into the entire scope of the clergy abuse scandal.

To Help Him Understand

How his abuse fits into the entire scope of the clergy abuse scandal.

“Doe 3 (Father Michael Baker), arguably one of the most prolific and notorious sexual abusers to ever don a Roman collar, is currently serving a ten-year prison sentence, in part for brutally raping then-minor plaintiff over the course of several years.”

We'll see how things turn out at the hearing tomorrow.