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)
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 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.
.
ke

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

Roman Polanski and Roman Catholics
UNITED 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, 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

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.

jmanly@manlystewart.com
http://www.manlystewart.com/
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

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.htmlThe Smoking Gun Archive - polanski

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/index.htmlReminder: Roman Polanski raped a child

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:

Introduction:

“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

BUT

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.