It happened night after night, the deaf man said, sometimes in the priest's bedroom, sometimes in the bathroom, even in the confessional
Monday, September 21, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Pics: Tour bus greeted by SNAP leaflets about Mahony, plus Paul Shanley on YouTube
.
A Tourcoach bus pulled up in front of the Cathedral downtown L.A. and out stepped a handful of tourists, likely Catholics not wanting to miss Sunday Mass the weekend they are in L.A. They were greeted by SNAP leafletters, and the news that Cardinal Roger Mahony is a pedophile enabler, on their way to a 'glorious' L.A. Cathedral experience.
Welcome to Los Angeles the Cardinal is a felon
Above & below, SNAP leaflets at Cathedral Sunday morning re new evidence released in deposition of Monsignor Richard Loomis last week and re Cardinal Roger Mahony's negligence in handling pedophile priests.
.
SNAP Breezed Through Town Last Week
Barbara Dorris with a 1-month Jet Blue pass, trying to do one city a day for a month, met with other activists Tuesday in front of L.A. Cathedral, then went to San Francisco, or was it San Diego, then on to more cities.
At right, Joelle Casteix outside L.A. Cathedral this morning. Above, Barbara Dorris in same location, 555 Temple Street L.A., last week.
One reason I don't like leafletting at the Cathedral is omnipresence of Mahony thugs, below
A fashionable woman, she looked like me thirty years ago, got a leaflet, read a line or two, then tossed it on the ground. A nearby Mahony guard snatched it up.
Below, Activist on Sunday carries sign naming the scenes of several of Fr. Michael Baker's sex crimes against children in and around L.A.
**************
Wait a minute. It's beginning to look like Roger Mahony is going to be the fall guy here. By putting all focus on him, the Church can hide and cover up the fact that the same crimes took place in every archdiocese across the country.
Five thousand priests have now been identified as pedophiles just since the data began to be collected in 2002, and the fact is nearly every bishop and monsignor in the country committed the same kind of collusion with sexual predators and neglect of children's lives.
Mahony needs to be prosecuted, but so do dozens of other bishops. Let's be intelligent people here, and pay attention. Mahony is but one of many criminals running the Catholic Church at this time.
For example, read the deposition of Monsignor Loomis that was released Friday. He says it was the General Counsel (Sister Judy) who told him the plan had changed, not to call the police, allegedly after Mahony had finally agreed to call. It was not "face-to-face" with Mahony, it was the Archdiocese attorney who said don't go to the police after all. See stories posted here yesterday. Here are quotes to which I'm referring, read carefully.
Someone else is pulling Mahony's strings, and now if we don't watch out, that same someone will make Mahony the focal point, the fall guy, while a brainless America forgets the rest of the epidemic of pedophilia in the Catholic Church - allowing it to continue.
These crimes and their coverups are going on all over the country, at a higher level than even the Los Angeles Archdiocese.
The L.A. Cardinal is really nothing but a limp puppet, easily repositioned, easily removed. But that won't remove the nationwide layer of negligence abuse intimidation and corruption that enabled serial pedophilia to take place for decades.
.
GUESTS: Arthur Baselice, father of deceased Arthur Baselice III, 1978-2006, who was victimized by Fr. Charles Newman and Brother Regis Howitz at Archbishop Ryan High School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Topics: A father's fight for justice, statute of limitations, Newman's conviction on a lesser crime.
http://childabusewiki.org/index.php?title=Recovered_Memories
A Tourcoach bus pulled up in front of the Cathedral downtown L.A. and out stepped a handful of tourists, likely Catholics not wanting to miss Sunday Mass the weekend they are in L.A. They were greeted by SNAP leafletters, and the news that Cardinal Roger Mahony is a pedophile enabler, on their way to a 'glorious' L.A. Cathedral experience.
Welcome to Los Angeles the Cardinal is a felon
Above & below, SNAP leaflets at Cathedral Sunday morning re new evidence released in deposition of Monsignor Richard Loomis last week and re Cardinal Roger Mahony's negligence in handling pedophile priests.
.
SNAP Breezed Through Town Last Week
Barbara Dorris with a 1-month Jet Blue pass, trying to do one city a day for a month, met with other activists Tuesday in front of L.A. Cathedral, then went to San Francisco, or was it San Diego, then on to more cities.
At right, Joelle Casteix outside L.A. Cathedral this morning. Above, Barbara Dorris in same location, 555 Temple Street L.A., last week.One reason I don't like leafletting at the Cathedral is omnipresence of Mahony thugs, below
A fashionable woman, she looked like me thirty years ago, got a leaflet, read a line or two, then tossed it on the ground. A nearby Mahony guard snatched it up.Below, Activist on Sunday carries sign naming the scenes of several of Fr. Michael Baker's sex crimes against children in and around L.A.
**************
Wait a minute. It's beginning to look like Roger Mahony is going to be the fall guy here. By putting all focus on him, the Church can hide and cover up the fact that the same crimes took place in every archdiocese across the country.
Five thousand priests have now been identified as pedophiles just since the data began to be collected in 2002, and the fact is nearly every bishop and monsignor in the country committed the same kind of collusion with sexual predators and neglect of children's lives.
Mahony needs to be prosecuted, but so do dozens of other bishops. Let's be intelligent people here, and pay attention. Mahony is but one of many criminals running the Catholic Church at this time.
For example, read the deposition of Monsignor Loomis that was released Friday. He says it was the General Counsel (Sister Judy) who told him the plan had changed, not to call the police, allegedly after Mahony had finally agreed to call. It was not "face-to-face" with Mahony, it was the Archdiocese attorney who said don't go to the police after all. See stories posted here yesterday. Here are quotes to which I'm referring, read carefully.
LOOMIS: Toward the end of my time as Vicar for Clergy there was- I made a suggestion that the police should be called.
Q: Who did you suggest that to?
A: To the Cardinal.
Q: Did he tell you why he wouldn't do it?
A: I was told that Michael Baker had submitted a hand written letter asking for laicization that the Cardinal was to forward to Rome. It was toward the end of my term as Vicar for Clergy after the lawsuit involving Arizona came. At that point I said, you know, there is no cooperation here, we ought to take further action.
Q: Who else was present, if anyone, when you suggested that to the Cardinal?
A: The suggestion was made by memo.
Q: And did he respond?
A: Yes. He wrote on the memo. And initially his response was to proceed. But then through the General Counsel’s office I heard that he had received that letter from Baker and that we were going to wait
Someone else is pulling Mahony's strings, and now if we don't watch out, that same someone will make Mahony the focal point, the fall guy, while a brainless America forgets the rest of the epidemic of pedophilia in the Catholic Church - allowing it to continue.
These crimes and their coverups are going on all over the country, at a higher level than even the Los Angeles Archdiocese.
The L.A. Cardinal is really nothing but a limp puppet, easily repositioned, easily removed. But that won't remove the nationwide layer of negligence abuse intimidation and corruption that enabled serial pedophilia to take place for decades.
.
********************************************
This Thursday
September 24, 2009
6:00 P.M. CENTRAL TIME
Educating to End Abuse
Tune in live from Wichita, Kansas at
GUESTS: Arthur Baselice, father of deceased Arthur Baselice III, 1978-2006, who was victimized by Fr. Charles Newman and Brother Regis Howitz at Archbishop Ryan High School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Topics: A father's fight for justice, statute of limitations, Newman's conviction on a lesser crime.
********************************************
You will Definitely be reading more about the story below at City of Angels in upcoming months:
Defrocked priest Paul Shanley to challenge use of repressed memories in sexual abuse trial
By Denise Lavoie/Associated Press - Daily News Tribune Boston - 9/10/09
Defrocked priest Paul Shanley, one of the central figures in the clergy sex abuse scandal, was convicted after a 27-year-old man tearfully described how the popular priest used to pull him out of catechism classes and rape him, beginning when he was just 6 years old....Now Shanley is challenging his conviction based on an ongoing debate in the psychiatric community over the validity and reliability of repressed memories.
*************************
Websites with articles on veracity of recovered memory include:
http://childabusewiki.org/index.php?title=Recovered_Memories
http://ritualabuse.us/research/memory-fms/recovered-memory-data/
http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/suggestedrefs.html
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/Recovmem/index.html
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/tm/tm.html
http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/2/91
Excellent reporting from Boston WBZ4 on Paul Shanley recent attempt to appeal is here
********
This is what we are up against.
Survivors need to produce more videos to put on YouTube and counter things like Video Nation report below:
A kid scored 67 on English project below on Paul Shanley, posted in 2007 on YouTube. He should have gotten a much higher grade:
Background:
.
Post by Kay Ebeling
Producer, City of Angels Blog
.
Don't forget to High Five us through PayPal
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Loomis Deposition: Quoted in depth at City of Angels today
.
(It's hot, I finally got AC, so why go out, when I can go through the Deposition of Monsignor Richard Loomis from Tuesday September 15th released around midnight last night. Here are the salient quotes:)
Q: Why are you on leave?
A: I was accused of abuse.
(Loomis claims he employs himself doing proofreading from home, and he lives alone… John Manly remarks that the Monsignor is wearing clerics.)
A: I have never been instructed not to wear clerics.
Q: Okay. Are you engaged in a canonical process on the accusations against you?
A: Yes.
Q: And where does that process stand today?
A: It’s in Rome.
Q: Was there a trial held in Los Angeles?
A: Yes.
(Donald Woods objects on the basis of “pontifical secrecy.”)
MANLY: Do you have a legal objection?
WOODS: The next one I mentioned was not relevant to this case.
(Manly explains that since Monsignor was once Vicar for Clergy in charge of handling sex abuse claims for the L.A. Archdiocese, and he also had accusations against himself, “It goes to procedures, it goes to the competency of the Archdiocese in terms of who they put in leadership positions, so is your legal objection relevance?)
WOODS: It’s not our purpose to argue these things out here. But not only is it not relevant to this case, but it is also collateral. And it would lead us to a 352 issue.
A PONTIFICAL ISSUE
MANLY: 352 may be an issue at trial. Not in discovery. Monsignor Loomis has testified extensively in a prior deposition that I have a copy of about the accusations against him. There was a trial here, as I understand it, a canonical trial. And there was an outcome, which is in Rome one way or the other. I want to know, there was a finding of fact. I'm certainly entitled to ask that question.
WOODS: It is considered a pontifical order, a pontifical secret within the church. And it leads to collateral, all kinds of collateral issues.
MANLY: You're asking me to take your word for it. You wouldn't take mine and I'm not going to take yours. I'm asking you, what is a pontifical secret. Do I get Dan Brown and look there? What is it?
WOODS: We'll take it up before the court.
DONALD STEIER: Record should reflect the term First Amendment. Later we can debate it, but the record should be noted.
MANLY: Pontifical secret, the First Amendment, relevancy and what else?
STEIER: Well. 352.
THE CHURCH STILL KEEPING SECRETS
MANLY: In that canonical trial, who was the advocate for the church, or what’s it called in civil parlance, the prosecutor? Who were the judges?
A: I have been told that I am not supposed to reveal that under the canonical process.
Q: Told by whom?
WOODS: Again within the church, it’s something that is maintained confidential
(CofA: We are talking here about allegations of sex crimes against a Monsignor, that were never made public. In the Twenty-First Century )
Woods: All the people involved in the process have taken an oath to keep it confidential and unless it’s absolutely relevant-
MANLY: Can I get a copy of that oath?
WOODS: - to a civil proceeding and we have an order from the court, we're not going to go into it. I am going to instruct him not to answer.
MANLY: Can I get a copy of this oath?
WOODS: No.
(Manly says he’s not going to ask every question about the trial, then, since they're going to object. Steier opines that by law Manly should say every question for them to object to each one individually. Manly goes back to deposing Monsignor Loomis.)
Q: Have you been restored? What is your current status at the Archdiocese, Monsignor?
A: I'm on leave.
Q: How long have you been on leave?
A: Approximately a little over five years, that's best I can say.
Q: Okay and are you being paid?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you still retain the title of pastor at your former parish?
A: No.
Q: In terms of admin, if you need, you know, to be reimbursed or something like that, who do you-
A: The Vicar for Clergy Office.
Q: Who is that today?
A: Monsignor Michael Meyers.
Q: What was the last time you saw Michael Baker?
A: In my office as Vicar for Clergy in the earlier part of 2000.
Q: When did you first meet Michael Baker?
A: In the fall of 1972, when I entered St. John’s Seminary.
Q: And in what capacity was he at St. John’s?
A: He was a student there, a deacon. I was a first year student.
(Baker was ordained, Loomis was a first year student, so they didn't know each other. Loomis says he never had contact with Baker again until he was Vicar for Clergy, “Other than we might have attended the same meetings. But I have no specific recollection of anything.”)
A: I know he and Monsignor Dyer were friends.
Q: Were they classmates?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you know that?
A: Monsignor Dyer told me. In the transition period.
(Dyer was Vicar for Clergy before Loomis.
Wonder what made him bring up Baker then?)
Q: What was the Archdiocese policy in or around 1996 regarding placement of priests who had offended children sexually in the ministry?
(There’s some argument over semantics then:)
THE WITNESS: I don't remember the specific policy. I don't think there was one that I remember even reading that talked specifically about people involved with minors being in or out of ministry.
(Whoa, Loomis must be studying answer evasion from Bill Clinton. So when did the future Vicar for Clergy, whose job was among other things handling sex abuse claims against priests, learn there was a policy about pedophiles? )
MANLY: When is the first time you can recall ever learning that there was a policy in place regarding the placement of priests who had sexually molested minors in the ministry?
WOODS: Hold on. I am going to object. Assumes facts not in evidence that there was a policy and it doesn't state the policy very clearly. But I’ll let him answer.
THE WITNESS: The only policy that I'm aware of was a policy that was put out approximately 1987 or so that dealt with sexual misconduct by clergy and outlined a process for addressing them.
Q: Okay. When did you first learn that Michael Baker had molested a child?
A: During the transition period, when I was coming into the Vicar for Clergy office.
Q: So sometime in 1996?
A: It would have been 95 I think.
MANLY: And who told you?
A: I was told by three people actually in different - I don't know if you call them briefings or not. But I asked to talk to different people. Monsignor Dyer, Bishop Thomas Curry, and Cardinal Mahony.
Q: When you learned this, were you surprised?
A: Yes I was. It wasn’t something that I was expecting to hear.
Q: What did Monsignor Dyer tell you?
A: He told me that because Michael Baker had self disclosed that his case had been handled somewhat differently than other cases.
Q: Okay. Wait. How many cases were there?
A: I don't know at that point.
Q: Did they give you a briefing on alleged perpetrators within the Archdiocese?
A: Not a briefing on - as such going down. There were all of the different people. I did take a period of time where I reviewed some of the files.
(Is it just me or do you hear a lie and then an attempt to recover in the above?)
Q: How did the Baker name come up?
A: I don't remember the specific situation.
Q: How old was the child that he abused?
A: I don't remember.
Q: I mean did you wonder why, if he did that, he wasn’t in jail?
WOODS: I'm going to object. Calls for speculation. I’ll let you answer.
MANLY: You can answer.
THE WITNESS: I don't think I can answer that. I don't know. I didn't specifically reflect on that.
Q: Did the thought ever occur to you? You know molesting a child was a crime, right?
A: Yes.
WHY WASN’T BAKER IN PRISON A LONG TIME AGO?
Q: And you're in charge of the priests and somebody tells you a priest molested a child. Did the thought ever cross your mind, why isn’t this guy in prison?
A: I was not in charge at that time.
Q: Did you ever ask the Cardinal or Bishop Curry or Monsignor Dyer?
A: No. Not in that time frame, no.
Q: Did you ever ask them?
A: There was- toward the end of my time as Vicar for Clergy there was- I made a suggestion that the police should be called.
Q: Did they do that?
A: No.
Q: Who did you suggest that to?
A: To the Cardinal.
Q: Did he tell you why he wouldn't do it?
A: I was told that Michael Baker had submitted a hand written letter asking for laicization that the Cardinal was to forward to Rome.
(CofA: All they care about is their own little insular world.)
TWO MEN FROM ARIZONA
LOOMIS: It was toward the end of my term as Vicar for Clergy after the lawsuit involving Arizona came.
MANLY: There were two boys in Tucson? You suggested calling the police regarding those two children, correct?
A: It was after that, while Michael Baker was on leave and out of the ministry, we discovered that he had performed three baptisms which he did not have permission to do. And at that point I said, you know, there is no cooperation here, we ought to take further action.
Q: Who else was present, if anyone, when you suggested that to the Cardinal?
A: The suggestion was made by memo.
Q: And did he respond?
A: Yes. He wrote on the memo. And initially his response was to proceed. But then through the General Counsel’s office I heard that he had received that letter from Baker and that we were going to wait.
IS THERE A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION GOING ON IN LA?
Q: Have you been asked to testify in front of a grand jury?
A: No.
Q: At any time?
A: There was a grand jury on a totally different matter up in Ventura County.
Q: When Sister Judy told you the Cardinal's suggestion was rejected, did she do that by phone, mail, email?
A: Face-to-face. I went to her office and she told me. I went to tell her what I was going to do and she told me that she had received instructions that reverse that.
Q: You told her you were going to call the police?
A: That I asked the Cardinal and he had said proceed. And then I was instructed to wait.
'DON, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT NONSENSE'
STEIER: The record should reflect that a moment ago, John, you used the term children and we all know that at the point in time we're talking about that everybody was an adult, and there is no legal requirement to make reports. There may be moral issues but not legal issues.
MANLY: Don, you ask what you want. I don't believe that nonsense.
STEIER: I'm talking about what the law says.
MANLY: You want to interrupt my deposition, do it on your own time.
(Back to deposing Monsignor Loomis: )
Q: Did you ever hear that Monsignor Dyer and Father Baker would take road trips to Tucson?
A: No.
W: Did Dyer have some contact or connection in Tucson that caused him to go there on a regular basis?
A: I’ve already said that I don't know that they were doing those.
Q: Have you ever heard that he and Banker were traveling in a car together in Tucson?
A: No.
Q: From Los Angeles?
A: No.
Q: Did Dyer and Baker socialize?
A: I don't know.
Q: They lived in the same house at St. Columbkille?
A: Yes.
Q: Did it ever come to your attention while you were Vicar for Clergy or anytime thereafter that Baker had a boy living in the rectory with him?
A: No.
Q: That Michael Baker was associating with a youth who was from Nepal?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever heard that from anyplace?
A: No.
Q: What were the restrictions on Baker with regard to him being around children, from the time you got to the Vicar for Clergy until Baker was suspended from ministry?
A: He was not to be around minors.
Q: Did you ever receive reports that Baker was around minors when you were Vicar for Clergy?
A: Right at the beginning of my term.
BAKER WAS NOT TO BE AROUND MINORS, BUT HE WAS
Q: When you heard this, I take it you were concerned?
A: I was.
Q: And were you concerned because you knew he had molested a child before? And because it was very clear to Father Baker that he was not to be around kids, right.
A: Yes.
Q: Yet he had a kid in the rectory sitting on the landing of the stairs? Yes.
A: Something along those lines. Minors were not supposed to be in the living space in any rectory.
Q: Period?
A: Period.
Q: In your mind, was this a big deal?
A: It was of concern, yes. I reported it to the Cardinal and once we had heard back from the meeting with the young man that it was apparently what we now call a boundary issue, rather than an abuse issue, at that point it was taken to the Sexual Abuse Advisory Board for their input.
(CofA: On a boundary issue, not a sex abuse issue, you call the Sex Abuse Advisory Board?)
Q: Who was on the board at the time?
A: I'm not sure that I can name everybody. The Sexual Advisory Board didn't make decisions or recommendations. We simply took the advice that the individual people chose to give and that became part of what I would put together as a recommendation to the Cardinal, not in terms of ascribing specific comments to specific people or anything of that type.
Q: Did anybody on the board recommend somebody call the police?
A: No.
THE BIG 8
MANLY: Did you ever hear, Monsignor, when you were Vicar for Clergy or thereafter, the term “The Big 8” being used to discuss certain priests accused of sexual misconduct in the Archdiocese?
A: No.
TUCSON
Q: Were there any other boundary violations after 1996?
A: No, not until we came to the Tucson lawsuit.
TO BE CONTINUED:
If I forget to post the second part of this deposition in the next couple weeks, remind me…
(It's hot, I finally got AC, so why go out, when I can go through the Deposition of Monsignor Richard Loomis from Tuesday September 15th released around midnight last night. Here are the salient quotes:)
Q: Why are you on leave?
A: I was accused of abuse.
(Loomis claims he employs himself doing proofreading from home, and he lives alone… John Manly remarks that the Monsignor is wearing clerics.)
A: I have never been instructed not to wear clerics.
Q: Okay. Are you engaged in a canonical process on the accusations against you?
A: Yes.
Q: And where does that process stand today?
A: It’s in Rome.
Q: Was there a trial held in Los Angeles?
A: Yes.
(Donald Woods objects on the basis of “pontifical secrecy.”)
MANLY: Do you have a legal objection?
WOODS: The next one I mentioned was not relevant to this case.
(Manly explains that since Monsignor was once Vicar for Clergy in charge of handling sex abuse claims for the L.A. Archdiocese, and he also had accusations against himself, “It goes to procedures, it goes to the competency of the Archdiocese in terms of who they put in leadership positions, so is your legal objection relevance?)
WOODS: It’s not our purpose to argue these things out here. But not only is it not relevant to this case, but it is also collateral. And it would lead us to a 352 issue.
A PONTIFICAL ISSUE
MANLY: 352 may be an issue at trial. Not in discovery. Monsignor Loomis has testified extensively in a prior deposition that I have a copy of about the accusations against him. There was a trial here, as I understand it, a canonical trial. And there was an outcome, which is in Rome one way or the other. I want to know, there was a finding of fact. I'm certainly entitled to ask that question.
WOODS: It is considered a pontifical order, a pontifical secret within the church. And it leads to collateral, all kinds of collateral issues.
MANLY: You're asking me to take your word for it. You wouldn't take mine and I'm not going to take yours. I'm asking you, what is a pontifical secret. Do I get Dan Brown and look there? What is it?
WOODS: We'll take it up before the court.
DONALD STEIER: Record should reflect the term First Amendment. Later we can debate it, but the record should be noted.
MANLY: Pontifical secret, the First Amendment, relevancy and what else?
STEIER: Well. 352.
THE CHURCH STILL KEEPING SECRETS
MANLY: In that canonical trial, who was the advocate for the church, or what’s it called in civil parlance, the prosecutor? Who were the judges?
A: I have been told that I am not supposed to reveal that under the canonical process.
Q: Told by whom?
WOODS: Again within the church, it’s something that is maintained confidential
(CofA: We are talking here about allegations of sex crimes against a Monsignor, that were never made public. In the Twenty-First Century )
Woods: All the people involved in the process have taken an oath to keep it confidential and unless it’s absolutely relevant-
MANLY: Can I get a copy of that oath?
WOODS: - to a civil proceeding and we have an order from the court, we're not going to go into it. I am going to instruct him not to answer.
MANLY: Can I get a copy of this oath?
WOODS: No.
(Manly says he’s not going to ask every question about the trial, then, since they're going to object. Steier opines that by law Manly should say every question for them to object to each one individually. Manly goes back to deposing Monsignor Loomis.)
Q: Have you been restored? What is your current status at the Archdiocese, Monsignor?
A: I'm on leave.
Q: How long have you been on leave?
A: Approximately a little over five years, that's best I can say.
Q: Okay and are you being paid?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you still retain the title of pastor at your former parish?
A: No.
Q: In terms of admin, if you need, you know, to be reimbursed or something like that, who do you-
A: The Vicar for Clergy Office.
Q: Who is that today?
A: Monsignor Michael Meyers.
Q: What was the last time you saw Michael Baker?
A: In my office as Vicar for Clergy in the earlier part of 2000.
Q: When did you first meet Michael Baker?
A: In the fall of 1972, when I entered St. John’s Seminary.
Q: And in what capacity was he at St. John’s?
A: He was a student there, a deacon. I was a first year student.
(Baker was ordained, Loomis was a first year student, so they didn't know each other. Loomis says he never had contact with Baker again until he was Vicar for Clergy, “Other than we might have attended the same meetings. But I have no specific recollection of anything.”)
A: I know he and Monsignor Dyer were friends.
Q: Were they classmates?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you know that?
A: Monsignor Dyer told me. In the transition period.
(Dyer was Vicar for Clergy before Loomis.
Wonder what made him bring up Baker then?)
Q: What was the Archdiocese policy in or around 1996 regarding placement of priests who had offended children sexually in the ministry?
(There’s some argument over semantics then:)
THE WITNESS: I don't remember the specific policy. I don't think there was one that I remember even reading that talked specifically about people involved with minors being in or out of ministry.
(Whoa, Loomis must be studying answer evasion from Bill Clinton. So when did the future Vicar for Clergy, whose job was among other things handling sex abuse claims against priests, learn there was a policy about pedophiles? )
MANLY: When is the first time you can recall ever learning that there was a policy in place regarding the placement of priests who had sexually molested minors in the ministry?
WOODS: Hold on. I am going to object. Assumes facts not in evidence that there was a policy and it doesn't state the policy very clearly. But I’ll let him answer.
THE WITNESS: The only policy that I'm aware of was a policy that was put out approximately 1987 or so that dealt with sexual misconduct by clergy and outlined a process for addressing them.
Q: Okay. When did you first learn that Michael Baker had molested a child?
A: During the transition period, when I was coming into the Vicar for Clergy office.
Q: So sometime in 1996?
A: It would have been 95 I think.
MANLY: And who told you?
A: I was told by three people actually in different - I don't know if you call them briefings or not. But I asked to talk to different people. Monsignor Dyer, Bishop Thomas Curry, and Cardinal Mahony.
Q: When you learned this, were you surprised?
A: Yes I was. It wasn’t something that I was expecting to hear.
Q: What did Monsignor Dyer tell you?
A: He told me that because Michael Baker had self disclosed that his case had been handled somewhat differently than other cases.
Q: Okay. Wait. How many cases were there?
A: I don't know at that point.
Q: Did they give you a briefing on alleged perpetrators within the Archdiocese?
A: Not a briefing on - as such going down. There were all of the different people. I did take a period of time where I reviewed some of the files.
(Is it just me or do you hear a lie and then an attempt to recover in the above?)
Q: How did the Baker name come up?
A: I don't remember the specific situation.
Q: How old was the child that he abused?
A: I don't remember.
Q: I mean did you wonder why, if he did that, he wasn’t in jail?
WOODS: I'm going to object. Calls for speculation. I’ll let you answer.
MANLY: You can answer.
THE WITNESS: I don't think I can answer that. I don't know. I didn't specifically reflect on that.
Q: Did the thought ever occur to you? You know molesting a child was a crime, right?
A: Yes.
WHY WASN’T BAKER IN PRISON A LONG TIME AGO?
Q: And you're in charge of the priests and somebody tells you a priest molested a child. Did the thought ever cross your mind, why isn’t this guy in prison?
A: I was not in charge at that time.
Q: Did you ever ask the Cardinal or Bishop Curry or Monsignor Dyer?
A: No. Not in that time frame, no.
Q: Did you ever ask them?
A: There was- toward the end of my time as Vicar for Clergy there was- I made a suggestion that the police should be called.
Q: Did they do that?
A: No.
Q: Who did you suggest that to?
A: To the Cardinal.
Q: Did he tell you why he wouldn't do it?
A: I was told that Michael Baker had submitted a hand written letter asking for laicization that the Cardinal was to forward to Rome.
(CofA: All they care about is their own little insular world.)
TWO MEN FROM ARIZONA
LOOMIS: It was toward the end of my term as Vicar for Clergy after the lawsuit involving Arizona came.
MANLY: There were two boys in Tucson? You suggested calling the police regarding those two children, correct?
A: It was after that, while Michael Baker was on leave and out of the ministry, we discovered that he had performed three baptisms which he did not have permission to do. And at that point I said, you know, there is no cooperation here, we ought to take further action.
Q: Who else was present, if anyone, when you suggested that to the Cardinal?
A: The suggestion was made by memo.
Q: And did he respond?
A: Yes. He wrote on the memo. And initially his response was to proceed. But then through the General Counsel’s office I heard that he had received that letter from Baker and that we were going to wait.
IS THERE A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION GOING ON IN LA?
Q: Have you been asked to testify in front of a grand jury?
A: No.
Q: At any time?
A: There was a grand jury on a totally different matter up in Ventura County.
Q: When Sister Judy told you the Cardinal's suggestion was rejected, did she do that by phone, mail, email?
A: Face-to-face. I went to her office and she told me. I went to tell her what I was going to do and she told me that she had received instructions that reverse that.
Q: You told her you were going to call the police?
A: That I asked the Cardinal and he had said proceed. And then I was instructed to wait.
'DON, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT NONSENSE'
STEIER: The record should reflect that a moment ago, John, you used the term children and we all know that at the point in time we're talking about that everybody was an adult, and there is no legal requirement to make reports. There may be moral issues but not legal issues.
MANLY: Don, you ask what you want. I don't believe that nonsense.
STEIER: I'm talking about what the law says.
MANLY: You want to interrupt my deposition, do it on your own time.
(Back to deposing Monsignor Loomis: )
Q: Did you ever hear that Monsignor Dyer and Father Baker would take road trips to Tucson?
A: No.
W: Did Dyer have some contact or connection in Tucson that caused him to go there on a regular basis?
A: I’ve already said that I don't know that they were doing those.
Q: Have you ever heard that he and Banker were traveling in a car together in Tucson?
A: No.
Q: From Los Angeles?
A: No.
Q: Did Dyer and Baker socialize?
A: I don't know.
Q: They lived in the same house at St. Columbkille?
A: Yes.
Q: Did it ever come to your attention while you were Vicar for Clergy or anytime thereafter that Baker had a boy living in the rectory with him?
A: No.
Q: That Michael Baker was associating with a youth who was from Nepal?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever heard that from anyplace?
A: No.
Q: What were the restrictions on Baker with regard to him being around children, from the time you got to the Vicar for Clergy until Baker was suspended from ministry?
A: He was not to be around minors.
Q: Did you ever receive reports that Baker was around minors when you were Vicar for Clergy?
A: Right at the beginning of my term.
BAKER WAS NOT TO BE AROUND MINORS, BUT HE WAS
Q: When you heard this, I take it you were concerned?
A: I was.
Q: And were you concerned because you knew he had molested a child before? And because it was very clear to Father Baker that he was not to be around kids, right.
A: Yes.
Q: Yet he had a kid in the rectory sitting on the landing of the stairs? Yes.
A: Something along those lines. Minors were not supposed to be in the living space in any rectory.
Q: Period?
A: Period.
Q: In your mind, was this a big deal?
A: It was of concern, yes. I reported it to the Cardinal and once we had heard back from the meeting with the young man that it was apparently what we now call a boundary issue, rather than an abuse issue, at that point it was taken to the Sexual Abuse Advisory Board for their input.
(CofA: On a boundary issue, not a sex abuse issue, you call the Sex Abuse Advisory Board?)
Q: Who was on the board at the time?
A: I'm not sure that I can name everybody. The Sexual Advisory Board didn't make decisions or recommendations. We simply took the advice that the individual people chose to give and that became part of what I would put together as a recommendation to the Cardinal, not in terms of ascribing specific comments to specific people or anything of that type.
Q: Did anybody on the board recommend somebody call the police?
A: No.
THE BIG 8
MANLY: Did you ever hear, Monsignor, when you were Vicar for Clergy or thereafter, the term “The Big 8” being used to discuss certain priests accused of sexual misconduct in the Archdiocese?
A: No.
TUCSON
Q: Were there any other boundary violations after 1996?
A: No, not until we came to the Tucson lawsuit.
TO BE CONTINUED:
If I forget to post the second part of this deposition in the next couple weeks, remind me…
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, and my brother and my sister were on the other side of him. We just had good moments and - it started off very nice.
Q: Was that before the abuse?
A: Yes.
That Mass was in 1995, long after Cardinal Mahony knew of Michael Baker's pedophilia. Yet here is Mahony serving at the altar with Baker while Luis C and his siblings are altar servers, the plaintiff said in a recent deposition.
When Luis C and two other men told the L.A. District Attorney about the sex crimes in 2007, finally there was a report that fell within the Statute of Limitations, and finally the pedophile priest went to prison. Baker had confided in Mahony that he had sex problems with children back in 1986, both men of the cloth admit. In fact, by the time Baker preyed on Luis C, he had been sent, by Mahony, to Servants of the Paracletes in New Mexico for treatment of pedophilia.
Yet here is the Cardinal, right there watching, even sharing the altar, with Father Baker, as a new family of children from the parish are put within the pedophile priest's easy reach.
UPDATE: Docs released last night from a different Baker civil case could affect the hearing next Tuesday
"Release of items to the media before trial" is the main reason church attorneys will argue next Tuesday that all documents in the Luis C. civil case regarding former Father Michael Baker have to be protected, sealed. "They'll get out to the public before a trial," is repeated throughout the Motion for Protective Order filed July 6, 2009, on behalf of the L.A. priest.
Funny thing is, around midnight last night the Assocated Press reported on another civil case where two men make charges against Baker and Mahony, saying: "The claims were based on the recent deposition of former vicar for clergy Monsignor Richard Loomis. A transcript of the deposition was attached."
A transcript of the deposition of Loomis was attached!
Plaintiffs in another case that names Mahony and Baker attached a document that the Church was trying to keep secret and sent it to the world, just days before the first pre-trial hearing in the Luis C case takes place next week. Which means now the Judge can just throw up her hands and say, oh, well-
In the age of the Internet, it's impossible to keep the truth from coming out. Motion denied.
Good thing some of the Baker docs are coming out, because as I'm reading the defense motion to keep everything secret, that claim "Until Trial" is astounding. Throughout the world, the Catholic Church's modus operandi for handling civil cases regarding pedophilia is to fight and fight as long as possible up to the trial date, then around midnight the night before jury selection, the Church suddenly is amenable and wants to settle.
So they never get all the way to trial. Which gives them the advantage of never having to admit guilt.
Now with the Motion for Protective Order to be heard next Tuesday, the Church wants to never have anyone ever find out about any evidence at all concerning Michael Baker.
Tuesday's hearing on Motion for Protective Order is still on calendar for 11 AM, barring unexpected developments...
From L.A. Superior Court Website:
09/22/2009 at 11:00 am in department 324 at 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005, Motion (MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER)
Having admitted he's paid by the L.A. Archdiocese years ago, Donald Steier knocks out legal briefs so fast and in so many pages, he must be using voice activated software. Steier appears in court for every L.A. Catholic pedophile priest who needs a lawyer, both civil and criminal.
July 9, 2009, Steier re-emerged, this time trying to prevent discovery in the developing civil case regarding former priest Michael Baker in L.A. Superior Court.
Again, the docs speak for themselves, as we quote freely below from Steier’s request for a “Protective Order” trying to keep secret everything that has anything to do with Michael Baker. The pedophile priest is currently serving out an eight and a half year sentence in a California state prison for sex crimes he committed against children when he was a Los Angeles Catholic priest.
Plaintiffs respond with their opposition to a protective order, and Steier chimes right in days later with another bulging brief, this time, opposition to opposition to motion for protective order, or something like that.
Baker through his attorney is asking the Court for protection based on:
Right to privacy in the state of California
Therapist patient privilege
Mediation privilege
Settlement privilege
Privilege against Self Incrimination
(Oh that wonderful Fifth Amendment, remember Steier is also the attorney who told George Rucker to plead the fifth over and over again as reported here last month.)
First Amendment right to free exercise of religion
Steier chimes in his own “declaration” that he “will work with all counsel before the hearing on the motion, in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable procedure to resolve the claims of privilege…”
Wonder how that went.
Quotes from Steier below show the gibberish with which the Church Attorneys, because they can, flood the court and play games with the judicial system, even taking advantage of the United States Constitution:
Citing patient therapist confidentiality, Steier writes, “This privilege is nearly absolute. A handful of narrow exceptions exist, such as ‘dangerous patient.’”
Dangerous Patient?
Isn’t a serial pedophile a dangerous mental patient?
Penitent's Privelege is in the Personnel File?
Baker asserts his right “to prevent disclosure of a wide range of spiritual discussions, therapy, redirection, and related wholly religious matters which may be mentioned” in the records.
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?
If they're privileged and secret under tenets like Confession, what are they doing in his personnel file?
More Steier stuff: “Defendant is both a party and, as the holder of the privileges for the information contained within his personnel records, an ‘affected person’ with the standing to bring a motion to protect the contents of his personnel records.”
Huh?
The motion to keep Baker’s evidence secret “Seeks to prevent ANY disclosure” and if the court does order some records to be disclosed, “An order preventing the public disclosure” until the evidence is entered during a trial.
Right, keep the docs secret until a trial.
Then they never let a trial happen, that's their MO. In city after city across the country, the Church always settles civil cases the night before trial, allowing them to keep all those documents secret-
In perpetuity, so they think.
Steier compares pedophile priest Baker’s situation to cases where corporations claim personnel records are private in “Discharge and discrimination” lawsuits. The court must weigh in defendant's right to privacy, Steier claims.
Unabashedly misleading.
**************
Manly Stewart for the plaintiffs respond:
We “oppose defendant DOE 3’s motion for Protective Order on the grounds that the information sought is not protected by any of the rights / privileges asserted and because plaintiff’s right to discovery is sufficient to overcome any such protection.
“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,” reads the Introduction of Opposition to Motion for Protective order filed by plaintiffs.
Baker has “molested several victims in the past, admitting such to senior Archdiocese leadership during a church service in 1986, importantly, the head of the Archdiocese Doe 1 (Cardinal Roger Mahony).
“He was allowed to remain in ministry nevertheless, where he later abused Plaintiff.”
At the Lenten service where Mahony, Baker, and plaintiff were on the altar together: Mahony watched Baker “interact with the altar boys under his command and did not say a word.” If Mahony had acted during that Lenten Mass: “Plaintiff’s sexual abuse would never have occurred.
“Calling this an important case would be a severe understatement,” write the plaintiff attorneys about their case.
The Most Important Clergy Abuse Case the Archdiocese Has Ever Faced
More Quotes from Plaintiff’s Opposition to Protective Order:
“This is the most important clergy sexual abuse case the Archdiocese has ever faced, important because it contains among its cast of defendant characters, the head of the Archdiocese and its most prolific pedophile.
“Through the Motion for Protective Order, Defendants are attempting to prevent Plaintiff from establishing that they ‘knew or should have known’ of Doe 3’s [Baker’s] illicit sexual proclivities towards minors and failed to prevent it.”
*******************
There will be a hearing on this motion Tuesday September 22nd in Judge Emilie Elias’ court, after continuances took place through the summertime.
The Luis C Case #BC376766 names as defendants the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Cardinal Roger Mahony, Michael Stephen Baker, Servants of the Paracletes, and several other religious institutions as defendants.
So of course the Catholic Church is doing somersaults and conducting tap dances in courtrooms, closets, and sermons from the altar, doing everything it can to keep from the public record the truth about Michael Baker’s crimes and those of the Church Hierarchy who enabled them.
Background:
Monday, July 27, 2009
New cases in L.A. re Father Michael Baker & Brother Modesto Leon going through court system; jury trial re Renato Lopez cancelled as case settled
With new lawsuits making their way through the courts in Los Angeles, the pedophile crisis in the Catholic Church is indeed not "behind us" as Cardinal Roger Mahony and other church heirarchy have claimed...
Monday, July 6, 2009
New Michael Baker case moves forward, and missing Victim Impact Statement from sentencing hearing of the pedo-priest finally gets posted
Pedophile Priest Michael Baker is one of a thousand John Doe’s in a lawsuit now working its way through Judge Emilie Elias’ Court, filed in Los Angeles August 29, 2007. Four months later...
************
Michael Stephen Baker will be eligible for parole August 18, 2011.
************
Baker is at a California Correctional Institution, is subject to transfer, and seems to be getting transferred often. Baker’s sentence on December 3rd 2007 ended up being eight and a half years, after time served. In California there is no parole hearing where victims can speak unless the convict had a life sentence.
But you can send Victim Impact Statements to Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services, PO 942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001. Refer to his CDC # F96146, and his birth date, which is 12/26/1947.
********************
Re posts about Nelson's new book:
"The most important points from Sons of Perdition have been summarized in this Timeline of the Sex Scandals," writes Jay Nelson.
Read the timeline then answer these questions:
Why has Pope Benedict revived the cover-up?
What gives the Church the right to deal with cases privately?
What's now being done about current abuse cases?
Are predatory priests being quietly defrocked, ejected back into civil society, with no record or tracking as sex offenders?
Or are they being transferred once again to avoid exposure and allowed to continue to prey in distant locations?
Signed,
Renegade Catholic
**************
Don't forget the High Five Campaign
Every three months or so, click one of our PayPal Donate buttons and send us $5 of higher. It takes hours to put these posts together and High Fives serve as a sort of cosmic passing of the hat for readers to show their appreciation.
Thanks to all the regular High Fivers, as you really do help keep City of Angels alive...
.
Coming soon: Transcript of a deposition with Baker was attached to Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition, so, yes, we will be quoting from that Baker deposition freely, within weeks. AND we have the deposition that was attached to a document at midnight last night, of Monsignor Richard Loomis, which opens:
Q: Why are you on leave?
A: I was accused of abuse.
.
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, and my brother and my sister were on the other side of him. We just had good moments and - it started off very nice.
Q: Was that before the abuse?
A: Yes.
That Mass was in 1995, long after Cardinal Mahony knew of Michael Baker's pedophilia. Yet here is Mahony serving at the altar with Baker while Luis C and his siblings are altar servers, the plaintiff said in a recent deposition.
When Luis C and two other men told the L.A. District Attorney about the sex crimes in 2007, finally there was a report that fell within the Statute of Limitations, and finally the pedophile priest went to prison. Baker had confided in Mahony that he had sex problems with children back in 1986, both men of the cloth admit. In fact, by the time Baker preyed on Luis C, he had been sent, by Mahony, to Servants of the Paracletes in New Mexico for treatment of pedophilia.
Yet here is the Cardinal, right there watching, even sharing the altar, with Father Baker, as a new family of children from the parish are put within the pedophile priest's easy reach.
UPDATE: Docs released last night from a different Baker civil case could affect the hearing next Tuesday
"Release of items to the media before trial" is the main reason church attorneys will argue next Tuesday that all documents in the Luis C. civil case regarding former Father Michael Baker have to be protected, sealed. "They'll get out to the public before a trial," is repeated throughout the Motion for Protective Order filed July 6, 2009, on behalf of the L.A. priest.
Funny thing is, around midnight last night the Assocated Press reported on another civil case where two men make charges against Baker and Mahony, saying: "The claims were based on the recent deposition of former vicar for clergy Monsignor Richard Loomis. A transcript of the deposition was attached."
A transcript of the deposition of Loomis was attached!
Plaintiffs in another case that names Mahony and Baker attached a document that the Church was trying to keep secret and sent it to the world, just days before the first pre-trial hearing in the Luis C case takes place next week. Which means now the Judge can just throw up her hands and say, oh, well-
In the age of the Internet, it's impossible to keep the truth from coming out. Motion denied.
Good thing some of the Baker docs are coming out, because as I'm reading the defense motion to keep everything secret, that claim "Until Trial" is astounding. Throughout the world, the Catholic Church's modus operandi for handling civil cases regarding pedophilia is to fight and fight as long as possible up to the trial date, then around midnight the night before jury selection, the Church suddenly is amenable and wants to settle.
So they never get all the way to trial. Which gives them the advantage of never having to admit guilt.
Now with the Motion for Protective Order to be heard next Tuesday, the Church wants to never have anyone ever find out about any evidence at all concerning Michael Baker.
Tuesday's hearing on Motion for Protective Order is still on calendar for 11 AM, barring unexpected developments...
From L.A. Superior Court Website:
09/22/2009 at 11:00 am in department 324 at 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005, Motion (MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER)
Having admitted he's paid by the L.A. Archdiocese years ago, Donald Steier knocks out legal briefs so fast and in so many pages, he must be using voice activated software. Steier appears in court for every L.A. Catholic pedophile priest who needs a lawyer, both civil and criminal.
July 9, 2009, Steier re-emerged, this time trying to prevent discovery in the developing civil case regarding former priest Michael Baker in L.A. Superior Court.
Again, the docs speak for themselves, as we quote freely below from Steier’s request for a “Protective Order” trying to keep secret everything that has anything to do with Michael Baker. The pedophile priest is currently serving out an eight and a half year sentence in a California state prison for sex crimes he committed against children when he was a Los Angeles Catholic priest.
Plaintiffs respond with their opposition to a protective order, and Steier chimes right in days later with another bulging brief, this time, opposition to opposition to motion for protective order, or something like that.
Baker through his attorney is asking the Court for protection based on:
Right to privacy in the state of California
Therapist patient privilege
Mediation privilege
Settlement privilege
Privilege against Self Incrimination
(Oh that wonderful Fifth Amendment, remember Steier is also the attorney who told George Rucker to plead the fifth over and over again as reported here last month.)
First Amendment right to free exercise of religion
Steier chimes in his own “declaration” that he “will work with all counsel before the hearing on the motion, in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable procedure to resolve the claims of privilege…”
Wonder how that went.
Quotes from Steier below show the gibberish with which the Church Attorneys, because they can, flood the court and play games with the judicial system, even taking advantage of the United States Constitution:
Citing patient therapist confidentiality, Steier writes, “This privilege is nearly absolute. A handful of narrow exceptions exist, such as ‘dangerous patient.’”
Dangerous Patient?
Isn’t a serial pedophile a dangerous mental patient?
Penitent's Privelege is in the Personnel File?
Baker asserts his right “to prevent disclosure of a wide range of spiritual discussions, therapy, redirection, and related wholly religious matters which may be mentioned” in the records.
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?
If they're privileged and secret under tenets like Confession, what are they doing in his personnel file?
More Steier stuff: “Defendant is both a party and, as the holder of the privileges for the information contained within his personnel records, an ‘affected person’ with the standing to bring a motion to protect the contents of his personnel records.”
Huh?
The motion to keep Baker’s evidence secret “Seeks to prevent ANY disclosure” and if the court does order some records to be disclosed, “An order preventing the public disclosure” until the evidence is entered during a trial.
Right, keep the docs secret until a trial.
Then they never let a trial happen, that's their MO. In city after city across the country, the Church always settles civil cases the night before trial, allowing them to keep all those documents secret-
In perpetuity, so they think.
Steier compares pedophile priest Baker’s situation to cases where corporations claim personnel records are private in “Discharge and discrimination” lawsuits. The court must weigh in defendant's right to privacy, Steier claims.
Unabashedly misleading.
**************
Manly Stewart for the plaintiffs respond:
We “oppose defendant DOE 3’s motion for Protective Order on the grounds that the information sought is not protected by any of the rights / privileges asserted and because plaintiff’s right to discovery is sufficient to overcome any such protection.
“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,” reads the Introduction of Opposition to Motion for Protective order filed by plaintiffs.
Baker has “molested several victims in the past, admitting such to senior Archdiocese leadership during a church service in 1986, importantly, the head of the Archdiocese Doe 1 (Cardinal Roger Mahony).
“He was allowed to remain in ministry nevertheless, where he later abused Plaintiff.”
At the Lenten service where Mahony, Baker, and plaintiff were on the altar together: Mahony watched Baker “interact with the altar boys under his command and did not say a word.” If Mahony had acted during that Lenten Mass: “Plaintiff’s sexual abuse would never have occurred.
“Calling this an important case would be a severe understatement,” write the plaintiff attorneys about their case.
The Most Important Clergy Abuse Case the Archdiocese Has Ever Faced
More Quotes from Plaintiff’s Opposition to Protective Order:
“This is the most important clergy sexual abuse case the Archdiocese has ever faced, important because it contains among its cast of defendant characters, the head of the Archdiocese and its most prolific pedophile.
“Through the Motion for Protective Order, Defendants are attempting to prevent Plaintiff from establishing that they ‘knew or should have known’ of Doe 3’s [Baker’s] illicit sexual proclivities towards minors and failed to prevent it.”
*******************
There will be a hearing on this motion Tuesday September 22nd in Judge Emilie Elias’ court, after continuances took place through the summertime.
The Luis C Case #BC376766 names as defendants the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Cardinal Roger Mahony, Michael Stephen Baker, Servants of the Paracletes, and several other religious institutions as defendants.
So of course the Catholic Church is doing somersaults and conducting tap dances in courtrooms, closets, and sermons from the altar, doing everything it can to keep from the public record the truth about Michael Baker’s crimes and those of the Church Hierarchy who enabled them.
Background:
Monday, July 27, 2009
New cases in L.A. re Father Michael Baker & Brother Modesto Leon going through court system; jury trial re Renato Lopez cancelled as case settled
With new lawsuits making their way through the courts in Los Angeles, the pedophile crisis in the Catholic Church is indeed not "behind us" as Cardinal Roger Mahony and other church heirarchy have claimed...
Monday, July 6, 2009
New Michael Baker case moves forward, and missing Victim Impact Statement from sentencing hearing of the pedo-priest finally gets posted
Pedophile Priest Michael Baker is one of a thousand John Doe’s in a lawsuit now working its way through Judge Emilie Elias’ Court, filed in Los Angeles August 29, 2007. Four months later...
************
Michael Stephen Baker will be eligible for parole August 18, 2011.
************
Baker is at a California Correctional Institution, is subject to transfer, and seems to be getting transferred often. Baker’s sentence on December 3rd 2007 ended up being eight and a half years, after time served. In California there is no parole hearing where victims can speak unless the convict had a life sentence.
But you can send Victim Impact Statements to Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services, PO 942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001. Refer to his CDC # F96146, and his birth date, which is 12/26/1947.
********************
Re posts about Nelson's new book:
"The most important points from Sons of Perdition have been summarized in this Timeline of the Sex Scandals," writes Jay Nelson.
Read the timeline then answer these questions:
Why has Pope Benedict revived the cover-up?
What gives the Church the right to deal with cases privately?
What's now being done about current abuse cases?
Are predatory priests being quietly defrocked, ejected back into civil society, with no record or tracking as sex offenders?
Or are they being transferred once again to avoid exposure and allowed to continue to prey in distant locations?
Signed,
Renegade Catholic
**************
Don't forget the High Five Campaign
Every three months or so, click one of our PayPal Donate buttons and send us $5 of higher. It takes hours to put these posts together and High Fives serve as a sort of cosmic passing of the hat for readers to show their appreciation.
Thanks to all the regular High Fivers, as you really do help keep City of Angels alive...
.
Coming soon: Transcript of a deposition with Baker was attached to Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition, so, yes, we will be quoting from that Baker deposition freely, within weeks. AND we have the deposition that was attached to a document at midnight last night, of Monsignor Richard Loomis, which opens:
Q: Why are you on leave?
A: I was accused of abuse.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
