|Judge Orders Offender Priest Files Released to Referee. Expect Objections in Hearing April 20th
April 15, 2009
"Your clients have a right to come in and make those arguments in court," says the judge to the attorney defending pedophile priests in the L.A. Clergy Cases 2007, who was trying at a hearing March 5th to keep files on the perpetrators from being released. The judge followed up in an order April 3rd: "Any accused offender shall [have an] opportunity to object and to seek judicial review from this Court."
In other words, if accused pedophile priests want to defend themselves and their reputations in a public courtroom, set up a hearing and Judge Emilie Elias will rule, maybe even set up a jury trial.
The Judge denies arguments such as: ""The documents aren't public because they weren't introduced at trial," which stretches imaginary lawyering to new depths, since the Church fought the L.A. cases with motions to dismiss all the way up to the night before trial then settled, so the Church kept any of the evidence from being introduced at trial.
JUDGE: That's why the documents are turned over to a referee. Your clients have a right to come in and make those arguments in court.
DRAMATIC MUSIC UP: REPEAT;
JUDGE: Your clients (Accused Pedophile Priests) have a right to come in and make those arguments in court
JUDGE ELIAS: I am not going to address that now. We are now turning it over to referee. We're not opening any files to the public before a referee can look at them in respect to privacy rights. The test then will be the privacy rights versus balance in all privacy rights. I'm not going to address that, now. We are now turning it over to referee
Above quotes From our March 5 report here at LA City Buzz
So it looks like the files will go to the referee as stipulated in the July 2007 settlement and the taxpayers can stop paying for judges and clerks and court reporters to continue this aberration of justice BUT WAIT - the defense has more cash in its briefcase, another motion is filed:
"On March 16 2009 Titian Miani and George Rucker ("Objecting parties") filed an objection. The stated purpose of this objection is to "object to the court's proposed order placing into public files." From an April 1st Order of Judge Emillie Elias:
Below: If you doubt the extent of these crimes, go to the database at bishop accountability and start from A to Z reading about the crimes of church priests and hierarchy, sex crimes against children.
So The Story Continues after April 20, 2009, hearing at 11:00 am in department 308 at 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles.
On calendar are status conferences, continued hearings, and I bet you even more new objections from the defense that will result in even more hearings, if Donald Steier, attorney for unnamed innumerable accused pedophile priests, is able to manipulate the court system again to get his way.
Next week Judge Emilie Elias will hear more of these arguments
Plus objections to another order she released on other files. So the release of personnel files of perpetrator priests in Los Angeles will be tied up for a little while longer, I mean look at the Santa Barbara cases on which we have been reporting. They settled March 14, 2006 and are just now getting over first hurdles before appeals to higher courts and higher courts.
More from Elias' recent orders:
"The court adopts the settling parties' stipulation and [proposed] order referring accused offenders' personnel files production and publication issued to Referee the Court" February 24th.
"The Court finds that the accused offenders and third parties have not consented to the referee protocol set forth in the stipulation.
"Accordingly, any accused offender or third party whose personnel file is recommended by the referee to be publicly disclosed shall receive notice and an opportunity to object to the recommendation and proposed order of the referee and to seek judicial review from this Court.
"Such accused offenders or third parties, if they so choose, must object and seek judicial review within 20 days after receiving notice of the referee's recommendation and proposed order.
"Any other interested person or entity may seek judicial review from this Court with respect to public disclosure of the personnel files. However, the issue of standing of such persons or entities to seek judicial review is reserved. The Court does not here make any predetermination as to standing."
In a footnote it says, "The settlement agreement is attached as Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff's December 24, 2008 Application for Order.
So it should be over, decided. But instead it will stay in the Courts with the Church appealing as far as they can, like a Republican Congressional Candidate in Minnesota, just refusing to give up, stalling the final decision, which in the end, after years of appeals will probably be.
"The court adopts the settling parties' stipulation and [proposed] order referring accused offenders' personnel files production and publication issued to Referee the Court"
Just like it was on February 24, 2009. That's my prediction. Years of over objecting and over-appealing to end up with the same result.
More of attorney for pedophile priest Donald Steier's Work,
Look at how Church attorney motions end up bogging down and immobilizing the Court:
"On March 16 2009 Titian Miani and George Rucker ("Objecting parties") filed an objection. The stated purpose of this objection is to "object to the court's proposed order placing into public files the confidential privilege logs Objecting Partiest submitted in response to the Court's order for an in camera review of privileged documents.
"The Court is unaware of any such proposed order. On January 20, 2009, the Court issued an actual order sealing and unsealing numerous documents that purportedly were filed under seal. In the extent Objecting Parties' objection regards to order, the objection appears late.
That Order dated March 30, 2009, released April Fools Day.
It goes on, see if you can follow:
"Furthermore, the objection must be overruled at this time because Objecting Parties fail to identify the specific privilege logs which they contend should not be placed in the public file. Objecting Parties contend the relevant privilege logs are those they prepared for an in camera review by the court (presumably Judge Haley J. Fromholz, the Judge who formerly oversaw these cases). This is insufficient information. Objecting Parties do not identify the dates when the privilege logs were submitted to the Court, the specific titles of the privilege logs or the specific order is response to which Objecting Parties allegedly submitted the privilege logs for in camera review.
"In short the Court cannot determine the facts of the objection to the privilege logs that Objecting Parties seek to keep out of the public files"
PROBLEM AHEAD: Re Monday's hearing: "Item #3: Lodged Deposition Transcript of George Neville Rucker. The Court Ordered February 24, 09 "Item 3 is a lodged document and should be removed from the files and returned to the party who provided same to the Court."
My friend who is a Rucker victim from 1960s El Segundo and now lives as far away from L.A. as she can weighs in with how all this makes her feel, next post on this topic, likely Thursday PM.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.