: 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 accusationsWAtoday (Australia)
RIAZAT BUTT AND ANUSHKA ASTHANA,
LONDON
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.
Homework.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 standardMay 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. . . slowlyThe 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 FavorThe 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..keBest blog on the subject of Roman Polanski extradition so far: Roman Polanski and Roman CatholicsUNITED STATES
GetReligion
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, 2009Roman Polanski was 43 when he made the decision to drug, sodomize and rape this young girlBy 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
Joelle Casteix (left) sent out the press release for SNAP about Polanski
At right, Esther, SNAP member and survivor, talks to Univision 34 in Spanish.
