*****
By Kay Ebeling
The Salesians write: “The Society objects to the term ‘sexual misconduct’ on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous” and on this point I agree with the defendants in the upcoming jury trial in LA. In fact all the terms used so far about crimes committed by pedophiles in the guise of Catholic priests have been too vague and ambiguous. It was sodomy on 6 year olds, drugging 8 year olds so that a few priests could rape them on film, using the once blessed sacraments and other elements of the Catholic Church as trappings to snare children and betray their families. “Sexual misconduct” implies pinching in the lunch line.
Just as "Total Outrage" is what I felt when I read this by the defendants, "#14 FIRST AMENDMENT: The Society objects to each request to the extent that it infringes the free exercise of religion in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution and Article 1 Section 4 of the California Constitution."
HOW DARE THEY equate protecting information in the personnel files of pedophile priests with the basic American right of worshiping God in the way you believe.
I'm beginning to think the Salesian defense team is really an enemy cell planted here disguised as defense attorneys, their mission: to file motions and affect law and slowly destroy the very laws and freedoms which hold the United States of America together. Did any of these guys ever take a Civics Course, US Government 101?
SAY IT LIKE IT IS:
There were pedophiles among the priests and brothers, openly pursuing and ruining the lives of children, without interference, over a lot of years and the other priests and brothers knew about it and did nothing about it.
Plaintiffs write they seek
“Evidence of other Salesian priests and brothers molesting minors, and evidence of the Salesians having notice of those priests and brothers molesting.”
----------
In other words there were a lot of them doing it and a lot of them knew about it.
===============
Plaintiffs continued:
The perpetrators have no right to sexual privacy in illegal sexual conduct.
The perpetrators cannot reasonably expect their privacy rights in personnel records to overcome the compelling interest in disclosing allegations of childhood sexual abuse.
The First Amendment DOES NOT prohibit the production of these documents.
Plaintiff Motion to Compel Continued:
In the archbishop’s own 2004 Report To The People Of God the archbishop admitted that victims made accusations against at least 8 Salesian priests and brothers working in the Los Angeles area.
BR. MARK EPPERSON
BR. ANTHONY JUAREZ
FR. LARRY LORENZONI
BR. ERNEST MARTINEZ
FR. TITIAN JIM MIANI
BR. RALPH MURGUIA
BR. JUAN SANCHEZ
BR. JOHN VERHART
On December 19, 2007, plaintiffs served on the Salesians a request for production Set No. Five requesting the production of personnel and confidential files on these eight priests.
January 24 2008, plaintiffs served on Salesians a request for production of business records on the archbishop for files on three of these priests
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
