Court Order on Right to Privacy Re Santa Barbara Pedophile Priests Says, by Kay Ebeling, Examiner, April 4, 2009

Court Order on Right to Privacy Re Santa Barbara Pedophile Priests Says:

By Kay Ebeling
Examiner
April 4, 2009

http://www.examiner.com/x-1960-LA-City-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m4d4-April-2- Order-re-Documents-Protected-by-Constitutional-Right-to-Privacy-in -perpetrator-priest-files

(Quotes from ruling April 2nd by Judge Peter Lichtman of Los Angeles Superior Court.)

Plaintiffs contend that the bystanders were involved in the coverup and concealment of child sexual abuse, the bystanders have a reduced expectation of privacy, disclosure of documents with some limited information pertaining to the bystanders would not be a serious invasion of privacy, and any invasion of privacy would be greatly outweighed by the State’s compelling interest in protecting children from sexual abuse.

Cartoon found at Google Images

As a preliminary matter, this Court notes that Plaintiffs do not object to redaction of the bystanders’ social security numbers, home addresses, and medical conditions. As such, this Court rules that any such information should be redacted from the contested documents as requested by the bystanders.

This Court finds that the bystanders’ privacy interests in any confidential evaluation reports, created within the course and scope of their employment with defendant Franciscan Friars, are outweighed by the State’s compelling interest in protecting children from sexual abuse. As discussed previously, this Court has already determined that the State has a compelling interest in protecting its children from sexual abuse. This Court has also determined that there exists legitimate public concern regarding how church officials have allegedly covered up and concealed the sexual abuse of children for years. The contested documents consist of reports and /or evaluations of the alleged perpetrators’ treatment, behavior, history or abuse, and requests for laicization. Release of the contested documents would certainly further the State’s interest in protecting its children from sexual abuse.”

(Next paragraph acknowledges “scope of such disclosure must be narrowly circumscribed”, so the Court orders the names of bystanders taken out adding: )

Although the plaintiffs contend that some of the bystanders participated in the coverup and concealment of child sexual abuse committed by the perpetrators, the contested documents do not conclusively support this contention. Therefore, redacting the bystanders’ names from the contested documents will preserve their right to privacy, but will still allow the production and publication of important documents.

***********************************************

THIS IS ONLY PART OF THE RULING

We will have more coverage

So the Court overrules in part. Only thing the Friars won was the right to get their names and Social Security numbers redacted before the documents go out. Well, duh, did we really need two years of litigation to arrive at that obvious agreement? How contentious are these church attorneys? Do they take up Court (TAXPAYER) resources for years just to argue about THIS!!!!

More to Come, more analysis of this ruling, plus interviews, including stories about St. Anthony's Seminary where the sex crimes against juveniles took place leading to the original lawsuits that led to release of all these documents and there I go with run-on sentences again. It's hard not to run on and on with this subject matter, there's just more and more and more-