Showing posts with label Cardinal Roger Mahony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cardinal Roger Mahony. Show all posts
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Where is accused pedophile Msgr. Loomis? On staff at upscale LA parish, while his files are in a big empty banker box. Watch video now at CAN-4
*****
"Before (Loomis) became a priest, he taught at Pater Noster High school where he was known as Brother Beckett (and) routinely molested children," reads the original complaint from Case #BC307934 in Clergy Cases 2007. Today Msgr. Richard Loomis is listed as pastor of Saints Felicitas and Perpetua Church in San Marino, CA.
Watch video at http://cityofangels4.blogspot.com/ of Joelle Casteix with other survivors in front of Our Lady of the Angels Thursday afternoon with a big empty file box, and a lot of questions.
Video can also be watched on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcjM83sPhcA
They agreed in July 2007, that files on perpetrator priests would be released, it was in the settlement when more than 500 plaintiffs settled lawsuits with the LA Archdiocese. Now not only are the files in limbo, but some accused priests from the 500 settled cases still serve in LA parishes.
Activists were in front of the cathedral downtown Thursday saying stop continuing to fight us over the files and stop putting the perpetrators' victims.
See Richard Loomis listed as pastor at church website: http://saintsfelicitasandperpetua.org/
Onward. . .
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Church fights release of LA files, hearing tomorrow in Elias court. Church claims no agreement to release anything, stop everything until they appeal
*****
By Kay Ebeling.
Surprise. Church Attorneys increase their full frontal attack to prevent release of LA pedophile priest personnel files in court tomorrow morning with an ex parte request filed September 15th and set for a hearing September 18th, 8:30 AM, Judge Emilie Elias’ Court (address below), a hearing arranged so quickly, it is not even on the public calendar.
A source told City of Angels: "They already have a stay in San Diego. They're trying to stop this process from going through at all, to have the release of documents put on hold for 60 days so (Church Attorney) Jassoy has time to go to the Court of Appeals."
The Catholic Church now argues: The 2007 settlements do not define and spell out how persnonel files will be released, or even if they will be released. The entire issue is up for argument.
“The Settlement Agreement and related stipulation do not reference the time period following issuance of the Order of Reference within which the personnel files must be sent to Judge Pate. (reviewing San Diego files). Paragraph 1I(a)(vii) to the stipulation / settlement agreement merely states that ‘the parties will immediately work with the Jurist to expedite review of the Files and the documents subpoenaed from Third Parties regarding the Accused offenders.’” So reads Notice of Ex Parte Application Requesting a Stay of Enforcement for this Court Order of Reference (which means stop the release of personnel files, or even the examining of personnel files to consider their release) submitted by attorney Robert K. Jassoy of San Diego, attorney for: “Specially Appearing Individuals.”
So again, obviously, the way to get these personnel files released is for some priest with a conscience to get hold of them and leak them to City of Angels Network or some other news medium. Church hierarchy are going to fight release of files to the end, as any organized crime hierarchy Mad Hatter teams of attorneys would do.
Motion on behalf of the Catholic Church goes on basically to say, Stop everything so that for one, the Church has time to prepare and file papers with the California Court of Appeals: “A stay is necessary to prevent IRREPARABLE INJURY and protect the individuals’ interests so that the files are not sent to and/or reviewed by Judge Pate before the (appeals) writ can be filed.” (Emphasis ours)
Two: “An identical application for Order of Reference is pending with respect to the Clergy I (LA) cases. That hearing is scheduled before this court on October 8, 2008. Should this court order a similar order of reference in the Clergy 1 Cases (should the court grant a stay on all progress in the LA cases as it has in the San Diego cases) it is anticipated that a writ (Appeal) will be filed with respect to that Order.
They will just keep fighting and fighting like they've gone solar, and can now last even longer than the Energizer Bunny.
And be just as irritating.
Evidently there is more going on October 8th than the current Superior Court website reveals, where they announce these hearings quietly as: "Hearing-Oral Argument."
The church has already gotten a stay like this in San Diego, and now we should wait until the hearing October 8th, where the church will ask for the same stay on efforts to release documents in LA, and as Jassoy seems to believe, the stay will of course be granted.
“Should this court issue a similar Order of Reference for Clergy I (LA) cases, it is anticipated that a writ (Appeal) will be filed with respect to that Order," reads the church's motion.
The church argues: “Interests of judicial economy will be served by staying” the work on release of documents in both San Diego and LA, “so that writs can be filed at the same time” with respect to the LA Cases and San Diego cases.
"And by this process keep the release of documents from going anywhere,” a source tells City of Angels.
They are asking the court for time to file an appeal so they can fight the entire process of release of documents.
Sorry to have to report it, folks.
City of Angels will try real hard to be at the hearing tomorrow on this stay on all work to release personnel files. This hearing was scheduled so quickly, it did not even make the online calendar. It takes place 8:30 AM in in department 308 at 600 South Commonwealth Ave. At noon today the calendar read: "In the next 14 days calendar, there is no calendar for Case Number JCCP4286."
Robert K. Jassoy, Esquire of San Diego filed the motion.
I have to fit this hearing in with my newest job, this month on "Chef Jeff" in production for The Food Network. . . .
Sigh. Onward
PLEASE put some clicks on the PayPal Donate button to help finance these stories and investigations into the pedophile network in the Roman Catholic Church.
By Kay Ebeling.
Surprise. Church Attorneys increase their full frontal attack to prevent release of LA pedophile priest personnel files in court tomorrow morning with an ex parte request filed September 15th and set for a hearing September 18th, 8:30 AM, Judge Emilie Elias’ Court (address below), a hearing arranged so quickly, it is not even on the public calendar.
A source told City of Angels: "They already have a stay in San Diego. They're trying to stop this process from going through at all, to have the release of documents put on hold for 60 days so (Church Attorney) Jassoy has time to go to the Court of Appeals."
The Catholic Church now argues: The 2007 settlements do not define and spell out how persnonel files will be released, or even if they will be released. The entire issue is up for argument.
“The Settlement Agreement and related stipulation do not reference the time period following issuance of the Order of Reference within which the personnel files must be sent to Judge Pate. (reviewing San Diego files). Paragraph 1I(a)(vii) to the stipulation / settlement agreement merely states that ‘the parties will immediately work with the Jurist to expedite review of the Files and the documents subpoenaed from Third Parties regarding the Accused offenders.’” So reads Notice of Ex Parte Application Requesting a Stay of Enforcement for this Court Order of Reference (which means stop the release of personnel files, or even the examining of personnel files to consider their release) submitted by attorney Robert K. Jassoy of San Diego, attorney for: “Specially Appearing Individuals.”
So again, obviously, the way to get these personnel files released is for some priest with a conscience to get hold of them and leak them to City of Angels Network or some other news medium. Church hierarchy are going to fight release of files to the end, as any organized crime hierarchy Mad Hatter teams of attorneys would do.
Motion on behalf of the Catholic Church goes on basically to say, Stop everything so that for one, the Church has time to prepare and file papers with the California Court of Appeals: “A stay is necessary to prevent IRREPARABLE INJURY and protect the individuals’ interests so that the files are not sent to and/or reviewed by Judge Pate before the (appeals) writ can be filed.” (Emphasis ours)
Two: “An identical application for Order of Reference is pending with respect to the Clergy I (LA) cases. That hearing is scheduled before this court on October 8, 2008. Should this court order a similar order of reference in the Clergy 1 Cases (should the court grant a stay on all progress in the LA cases as it has in the San Diego cases) it is anticipated that a writ (Appeal) will be filed with respect to that Order.
They will just keep fighting and fighting like they've gone solar, and can now last even longer than the Energizer Bunny.
And be just as irritating.
Evidently there is more going on October 8th than the current Superior Court website reveals, where they announce these hearings quietly as: "Hearing-Oral Argument."
The church has already gotten a stay like this in San Diego, and now we should wait until the hearing October 8th, where the church will ask for the same stay on efforts to release documents in LA, and as Jassoy seems to believe, the stay will of course be granted.
“Should this court issue a similar Order of Reference for Clergy I (LA) cases, it is anticipated that a writ (Appeal) will be filed with respect to that Order," reads the church's motion.
The church argues: “Interests of judicial economy will be served by staying” the work on release of documents in both San Diego and LA, “so that writs can be filed at the same time” with respect to the LA Cases and San Diego cases.
"And by this process keep the release of documents from going anywhere,” a source tells City of Angels.
They are asking the court for time to file an appeal so they can fight the entire process of release of documents.
Sorry to have to report it, folks.
City of Angels will try real hard to be at the hearing tomorrow on this stay on all work to release personnel files. This hearing was scheduled so quickly, it did not even make the online calendar. It takes place 8:30 AM in in department 308 at 600 South Commonwealth Ave. At noon today the calendar read: "In the next 14 days calendar, there is no calendar for Case Number JCCP4286."
Robert K. Jassoy, Esquire of San Diego filed the motion.
I have to fit this hearing in with my newest job, this month on "Chef Jeff" in production for The Food Network. . . .
Sigh. Onward
PLEASE put some clicks on the PayPal Donate button to help finance these stories and investigations into the pedophile network in the Roman Catholic Church.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Curious recusal of Justice Panelli may slow down, but will not stop plaintiffs in LA from pursuing pedophile priest confidential files per 7-07 orders
*
*****
By Kay Ebeling
Early next month LA Superior Court will kick restart the process of releasing priests’ files to plaintiffs from civil cases settled last year against Cardinal Roger Mahony and the Los Angeles Catholic Archdiocese. In an October 8th hearing plaintiffs ask Judge Emilie Elias to appoint a new referee to replace Edward A. Panelli, who suddenly recused himself last June. “Come October 8th we're going to have a name. Either we'll agree to a referee, or the judge will appoint one,” said Tony DeMarco.
Panelli’s recusal “very much took us by surprise,” DeMarco said. The plaintiff attorney from Kiesel Boucher Larson informed the court of Panelli’s recusal in a July hearing. “Defense counsel represented that they got a commitment from Panelli,” DeMarco said.
Did the Defendants pull the rug out from under you? I asked.
“(Panelli’s Recusal) calls into question whether or not archdiocese attorneys got the commitment from him at all,” DeMarco said, saying Panelli’s name was used continually during the negotiation process, for more than a year during pre and post settlement discussions between plaintiff and defense attorneys. DeMarco stopped short of accusing defense attorneys of anything untoward.
“I think it’s one of those things we will be judging down the road,” DeMarco said. “If the defendants try to utilize the recusal to create more delay, then I would have a strong belief in that.”
We'd Be Where We Are With San Diego Now. . .
DeMarco added: “When Panelli sent in the recusal it set us back awhile, because for one thing, I was doing hearings on production of documents in San Diego as well as LA. We just got the order in San Diego.
“We’d be in that position now in LA absent this recusal,” DeMarco said.
Production of documents and Panelli’s name are in print throughout the settlement agreement, for example in Paragraph 19:
“This is a general consensual reference for the purpose of permitting Justice Panelli to make final and binding determinations with respect to whether any documents that have been subpoenaed by any party to this settlement Agreement or otherwise, or were contained within the Personnel File relating to any accused offender to any of the lawsuits listed in Exhibit B shall be produced to the particular plaintiff in a particular settled action for public disclosure.”
Another reference to production of documents from Paragraph 19:
“The parties agree that the term ‘personnel file’ includes the personnel file, the confidential file, and any other documents, if any documents maintained by the Settling Defendants with respect to any accused offender in the particular Settled Action.”
And from the transcript of the settlement hearing in front of Judge Haley Fromholz July 17, 2007
Me, I think we are seeing another tap dance by attorneys for the LA Archdiocese:
Me: I think they think
That because they've paid out a large settlement to so many plaintiffs,
That this little issue of release of documents
Will --
Just
Go
Away
"Release of priest files is just a problem that will disappear," daydreams the Cardinal as he sips his cherry wine.
Just like they made the pedophile problem go away by transferring predator priests from one parish to another parish.
*****
The Fight For Release of Files Will Not End Any Time Soon
NOT if Kiesel Boucher Larson have anything to say about it:
“The firm has made a commitment to see that these documents are made public and that the agreement is honored,” DeMarco said. “It’s in the settlement agreement. They have to turn the files over.”
DeMarco added:
“I can understand if some folks wonder why are we continuing on with this. These lawsuits against the archdiocese are not just something we did. This is a passion and a cause for us, for the firm, for Ray Boucher. I have been getting nothing but complete support of this firm to continue on with this as long as it takes.
“The document production is critical,” DeMarco continued. “There’s more kids being abused out there
(In fact in a post earlier today at City of Angels we write about another perpetrator priest arrested in January 2008 in Anaheim.)
“We've developed so much expertise over the years working on this case, and this is difficult emotional trying work to do,” DeMarco said. “There was a huge climax to this in Southern California over 700 cases settled in 2006-2007."
Think about it. More than 700 cases settled in Southern California over a two-year period.
DeMarco asserted repeatedly: the Kiesel Boucher Larson law firm has "made a commitment to see that these documents are made public and the agreement is honored and we will continue to fight until they turn over the files."
Let me repeat that.
We Will Continue To Fight Until They Turn Over The Files.
"It’s in the settlement agreement. They have to turn the files over," DeMarco said.
The procedure as agreed to with Judge Emilie Elias in July 2008:
Both sides submit three names and then Judge Emilie Elias chooses from those names or otherwise appoints a new referee, as parties agreed last July.
Elias can appoint the new referee at the October 8th hearing.
Panelli’s recusal letter was blunt, stating:
“The referee has considered the application of Canon 6 to the subject of this reference and based thereon has decided to recuse himself in this manner.
“At the present time the undersigned is serving as the Chair of the Diocesan Review Board for the Diocese of San Jose. The role of this board is to investigate charges of clergy abuse and to report its findings to the Bishop of the Diocese.
“While none of these cases at issue in this litigation are connected in any way to San Jose, the referee believes there could be the appearance of impropriety should he serve as Referee.
“The matters of issue have gained a great deal of public attention and in keeping with the Canons that a judge should avoid the appearance of impropriety, I have decided to recuse myself from this assignment. Signed June 11, 2008, Justice Edward A. Panelli (Retired)."
END OF PANELLI'S RECUSAL LETTER
ME: TALK ABOUT the appearance of impropriety.
There was none until Panelli recused himself.
Now, we are all suspicious of him. And did you notice he never refers to himself except in the third person: "the refereee." Guy must have a starfish backbone. . . a wet starfish backbone
I asked DeMarco, wouldn't the referee's being on a review board make him really qualified to review priest personnel files?
“Frankly, Kay, I have found if you have someone looking at the wrongdoings of priests, Catholics are usually more outraged than someone without as much exposure.”
Panelli’s being on the San Jose Review board “would make him more qualified.” DeMarco said. “Those boards are theoretically independent.”
So this story will be continued after the hearing October 8th and more after that I'm sure.
From LA Superior Court Website under Case Summaries:
Future Hearings
10/08/2008 at 10:00 am in department 308 at 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005 Hearing-Oral Argument
Onward. . .
*****
By Kay Ebeling
Early next month LA Superior Court will kick restart the process of releasing priests’ files to plaintiffs from civil cases settled last year against Cardinal Roger Mahony and the Los Angeles Catholic Archdiocese. In an October 8th hearing plaintiffs ask Judge Emilie Elias to appoint a new referee to replace Edward A. Panelli, who suddenly recused himself last June. “Come October 8th we're going to have a name. Either we'll agree to a referee, or the judge will appoint one,” said Tony DeMarco.
Panelli’s recusal “very much took us by surprise,” DeMarco said. The plaintiff attorney from Kiesel Boucher Larson informed the court of Panelli’s recusal in a July hearing. “Defense counsel represented that they got a commitment from Panelli,” DeMarco said.
Did the Defendants pull the rug out from under you? I asked.
“(Panelli’s Recusal) calls into question whether or not archdiocese attorneys got the commitment from him at all,” DeMarco said, saying Panelli’s name was used continually during the negotiation process, for more than a year during pre and post settlement discussions between plaintiff and defense attorneys. DeMarco stopped short of accusing defense attorneys of anything untoward.
“I think it’s one of those things we will be judging down the road,” DeMarco said. “If the defendants try to utilize the recusal to create more delay, then I would have a strong belief in that.”
We'd Be Where We Are With San Diego Now. . .
DeMarco added: “When Panelli sent in the recusal it set us back awhile, because for one thing, I was doing hearings on production of documents in San Diego as well as LA. We just got the order in San Diego.
“We’d be in that position now in LA absent this recusal,” DeMarco said.
Production of documents and Panelli’s name are in print throughout the settlement agreement, for example in Paragraph 19:
“This is a general consensual reference for the purpose of permitting Justice Panelli to make final and binding determinations with respect to whether any documents that have been subpoenaed by any party to this settlement Agreement or otherwise, or were contained within the Personnel File relating to any accused offender to any of the lawsuits listed in Exhibit B shall be produced to the particular plaintiff in a particular settled action for public disclosure.”
Another reference to production of documents from Paragraph 19:
“The parties agree that the term ‘personnel file’ includes the personnel file, the confidential file, and any other documents, if any documents maintained by the Settling Defendants with respect to any accused offender in the particular Settled Action.”
And from the transcript of the settlement hearing in front of Judge Haley Fromholz July 17, 2007
Me, I think we are seeing another tap dance by attorneys for the LA Archdiocese:
Me: I think they think
That because they've paid out a large settlement to so many plaintiffs,
That this little issue of release of documents
Will --
Just
Go
Away
"Release of priest files is just a problem that will disappear," daydreams the Cardinal as he sips his cherry wine.
Just like they made the pedophile problem go away by transferring predator priests from one parish to another parish.
*****
The Fight For Release of Files Will Not End Any Time Soon
NOT if Kiesel Boucher Larson have anything to say about it:
“The firm has made a commitment to see that these documents are made public and that the agreement is honored,” DeMarco said. “It’s in the settlement agreement. They have to turn the files over.”
DeMarco added:
“I can understand if some folks wonder why are we continuing on with this. These lawsuits against the archdiocese are not just something we did. This is a passion and a cause for us, for the firm, for Ray Boucher. I have been getting nothing but complete support of this firm to continue on with this as long as it takes.
“The document production is critical,” DeMarco continued. “There’s more kids being abused out there
(In fact in a post earlier today at City of Angels we write about another perpetrator priest arrested in January 2008 in Anaheim.)
“We've developed so much expertise over the years working on this case, and this is difficult emotional trying work to do,” DeMarco said. “There was a huge climax to this in Southern California over 700 cases settled in 2006-2007."
Think about it. More than 700 cases settled in Southern California over a two-year period.
DeMarco asserted repeatedly: the Kiesel Boucher Larson law firm has "made a commitment to see that these documents are made public and the agreement is honored and we will continue to fight until they turn over the files."
Let me repeat that.
We Will Continue To Fight Until They Turn Over The Files.
"It’s in the settlement agreement. They have to turn the files over," DeMarco said.
The procedure as agreed to with Judge Emilie Elias in July 2008:
Both sides submit three names and then Judge Emilie Elias chooses from those names or otherwise appoints a new referee, as parties agreed last July.
Elias can appoint the new referee at the October 8th hearing.
Panelli’s recusal letter was blunt, stating:
“The referee has considered the application of Canon 6 to the subject of this reference and based thereon has decided to recuse himself in this manner.
“At the present time the undersigned is serving as the Chair of the Diocesan Review Board for the Diocese of San Jose. The role of this board is to investigate charges of clergy abuse and to report its findings to the Bishop of the Diocese.
“While none of these cases at issue in this litigation are connected in any way to San Jose, the referee believes there could be the appearance of impropriety should he serve as Referee.
“The matters of issue have gained a great deal of public attention and in keeping with the Canons that a judge should avoid the appearance of impropriety, I have decided to recuse myself from this assignment. Signed June 11, 2008, Justice Edward A. Panelli (Retired)."
END OF PANELLI'S RECUSAL LETTER
ME: TALK ABOUT the appearance of impropriety.
There was none until Panelli recused himself.
Now, we are all suspicious of him. And did you notice he never refers to himself except in the third person: "the refereee." Guy must have a starfish backbone. . . a wet starfish backbone
I asked DeMarco, wouldn't the referee's being on a review board make him really qualified to review priest personnel files?
“Frankly, Kay, I have found if you have someone looking at the wrongdoings of priests, Catholics are usually more outraged than someone without as much exposure.”
Panelli’s being on the San Jose Review board “would make him more qualified.” DeMarco said. “Those boards are theoretically independent.”
So this story will be continued after the hearing October 8th and more after that I'm sure.
From LA Superior Court Website under Case Summaries:
Future Hearings
10/08/2008 at 10:00 am in department 308 at 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005 Hearing-Oral Argument
Onward. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Kay