Are these people on Long Island behaving scandalously?

*


Signs like these below are too shocking for parishioners? I say where was their shock at priests raping children?







Actually I take issue with the above slogan, as nothing can murder my soul.

And in New Jersey Sunday October 5. . .

*
Pictures and comments from Robert Hoatson:

Today, in Mount Ephraim, New Jersey, approximately a dozen supporters of Paul Fanuka gathered to offer him support and leaflet Sacred Heart Parish where his abuser is pastor. Paul’s mom and dad, two brothers, and wife joined several others to get the word out that the continued presence of Fr. Robert Dunphy in that parish is unacceptable. The attached are some photos of the day’s events.

Unfortunately, no media showed up, but we are trying other ways to pique their interest.

Special thanks are extended to Chris Naples who went “public” two weeks ago regarding his abuser, and Barbara and Karen Polesir, veterans of the “leafleting movement,” for supporting Paul in his efforts to hold Dunphy accountable. The attached photos are courtesy of Karen Polesir’s camera.

In general, the parishioners of Sacred Heart Parish were as rude and un-compassionate as most of the Catholics we encounter. When several parishioners were told to meet Paul so he could tell them his story, they refused…TYPICAL!

A few months ago, Paul was found credible by the Diocese of Camden, but the Diocese has refused to remove Dunphy from ministry, violating the letter and spirit of the Dallas Charter.

Congratulations to Paul for his courage and perseverance. We are planning other events to get the word out about Dunphy.

.
.
.
............................Bob
........................Hoatson
.
.
Click photos to enlarge

Spiritual Redirection and Reaching Out drive the founding of upcoming events in Wichita, Kansas, and in Encino and Carlsbad, California

*****
By Kay Ebeling

I went to bishop accountability to read the stories about each pedophile priest in the database, starting with A. So I opened Rubin Abaya and found "Milla v. Tamayo, 187 Cal.App.3d 1453," where the State dismissed a Los Angeles decision. Abaya was one of seven perpetrator priests. In this case, a teenage girl got gang banged several times by a group of priests in South LA. The LA archdiocese did not deny the crimes took place, but won their

appeal to dismiss the case, because the family sued the church more than a year after the baby that was fathered by one of the priests was born, and besides, it was not the parents who were raped, how were they hurt enough to sue? The men of god tried but could not persuade young very Catholic girl to get an abortion, so they sent her to the Philippines to have her baby in abandoned squalor, until a family member finally found out and brought her home with the baby, both malnourished. That is just the first story under the first entry under A in bishop accountability - and it is so shocking most people reading it would not be able to get past the fact that Catholic priests would gang bang a 14 year old girl.

In 2005 I started getting regular emails from SNAP with a collection of recent news stories, and I had to unsubscribe at the time, as I could not read stories of priests raping altar boys between Masses without getting physically sick, back then. Now I dive into Abuse Tracker every morning and nothing surprises me. I have to stop and think. This could not be good for my soul.

Two “veterans” of the clergy sex assault survivor movement are running events in the coming weeks that open doors for survivors who are ready to take steps in new directions. In Wichita October 10-11, Hope in the Heartland connects clergy sex abuse with survivors of other child sex crimes and other forms of abuse.

“The lines cross,” says conference founder Janet Patterson. “All of us can help each other and so many times where can people go that have been verbally or physically but not sexually abused.” It is not too late to register for Hope in the Heartland this week in Wichita. Write to Janet at snapkansas@hotmail.com .

“It could be that because of our experiences, as horrible as they are, we have something remarkable we can do to the other extreme,” says Jaime Romo, “First step is to get out of the damaged place and start rebuilding.” Romo is running one-day Healing Hearts workshops in Carlsbad October 18 and in Encino November 23rd, in part because after five years running a SNAP group in San Diego, he saw the number of attendees dwindling. For more about Jaime’s workshops and workbook write to him at jr@jaimeromo.com

Romo’s case was part of the 2007 San Diego settlements, and he says, “This is new for me. I have a long career as a teacher of teachers.” These first workshops are free of charge and participants will go through the first two chapters of a workbook Romo has in development.

I plan to use Jaime’s workshop to work on healing the damage I’ve accrued. For years I have been so angry at these entities that are so huge, so overwhelming, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church as well as the entire American justice system from a city to national level, for cooperating with these thugs in gowns instead of seeing their way to the real truth enough to stop serious felony crimes being committed against children. I know I need some spiritual healing.

.
.
.
.
.
JAIME
ROMO
.
.
.
.
.
Romo said, “For a long time my anger was about wanting something back, as well as the things that had happened, a kind of mourning. I wanted to get back that comforting connection to what was familiar for a long time.”

Spirit and Hope in the Heartland

There is an element of spirit in the roots of Hope in the Heartland conference next week as well.
Organizer Janet Patterson told me how she found the location for the conference: “The Baha’ii faith believe in social justice. So here in Wichita when Baha’ii members found out what had happened to our family, they wanted me to speak to them, so I did speak at a Baha’ii event. Then they were so gracious and non judgmental, I asked them if we could hold a conference there. They said not only that but we'll give you the space free of charge.”

What Happened to Janet's Family?
Robert K. Larson molested Eric Patterson when he was a 12 year old altar boy, and at 29, after years of turmoil and hospitalizations and after finally telling people in his family what Larson did, Eric shot himself, committed suicide at age 29. Janet Patterson, grieving over her son, did enough research to find out that bishops knew Larson was a molester and just transferred him, and that this was the modus operandi for a pedophile network in the church. She became an advocate, and spoke to the bishops in Dallas in 2002.

This year is the third Hope in the Heartland conference, and some people, including City of Angels Network Staff of One, had to cancel travel plans, as a result of money disappearing from arenas across the country in late September early October 2008 in America.

I'm only working about 50 percent as much as usual. Last few weeks they've “pulled the plug” on a lot of TV production, even the skinflint budget reality shows on which I, first when the stock market crashed two weeks ago and now who knows what's going to happen.

A side trip about the PayPal campaign

Money to fund productions just dried up. So please click my PayPal button, not to send me on lavish trips to places like Wichita, but to help City of Angels pay the rent in November.

But I digress.

Janet Patterson is reaching out to Wichita area homeless organizations and women’s shelters, inviting them to the Hope in the Heartland conference, which I its third year is still relatively small, under 50 people.

The retreat center in Encino has paths laid out for walking meditation.

I can’t wait. At the retreat center in Encino where Romo’s workshop is in November they have spaces for walking meditation. I rediscovered walking meditation the other day in of all places, the LA Cathedral Plaza, before a SNAP press event was going to take place. I went exploring, and way in the back on the cathedral grounds,
as far away from the street as you can get, is a little landscaped area, large enough for about 10 small trees, and a pathway. It criss crosses and stops in front of statues of animals sculpted with pure whimsy. You can stop and contemplate one of these statues, or do what I did, bringing up from a deep memory from the days I used to spend in yoga ashrams in the 1970s.

You take one step, and stop, repeat a phrase, any phrase, then take another step, stop, repeat the phrase. Some people use the words Hari Om, or some people say Jesus save me, or you can even say God Bless Rock and Roll. The idea is to quiet the mind. On a meditation pathway, there are usually small stones, so you can take one small step then stop, say your mantra, then take one more step.

For a person in Los Angeles this is a challenge, as you always want to just take off across the lawn a straight line to the end, the quickest route. What you develop from this exercise is patience. You HAVE to stop, say god bless rock and roll or hari om or jesus save me, then take the next step and repeat.

About two-thirds of the way through a walking meditation, you start to appreciate the specialness of each moment - and laugh at people walking by in a frenzy as you slowly take your next step. Because in the end, we'll end up in the same place at about the same time anyway. This little meditation walk area on the LA Cathedral property appears to have been designed and maintained by Japanese zen masters posing as landscape workers. . . .

The meditation walks pictured above in this blog are on the grounds of the retreat center in Encino where Jaime Romo is holding his free workshop in November.

I’ll be there, unless I'm singing that Sunday with Hollywood Mass Choir.

Me, I'm going in November, unless we're singing that Sunday (I'm in Hollywood Mass Choir now).

I can’t wait to do these two questions from the workbook: “Which image that I have created or accepted of myself am I willing to let go of? Where did I get that image I have of myself?”

Those questions relate so much to me.

I know that as a result of being sexualized by a priest at such a young age, my image of myself was “party girl”: Fast, cheap, easy, which led to heavy drinking, loud swearing tough woman.

Truth is

That's not me, that's not who I see today.

I'm really this bookish, quiet woman with thick lens glasses who produces a lot more from her head than her body. I mourn today, the decades of my life I lost to pursuing the party animal identity when it wasn’t even real.

It wasn’t even really me.

I have plenty to write in Jaime Romo’s workbook when I get it.

City of Angels will try to run photos and a story through phone interviews with people at Hope in the Heartland next Saturday, so while they are partying in Wichita, we will be here being studious and bookish working with the words and pictures in LA.

Onward

Church Objection to Transfer of Personnel Files (on behalf of 31 priests) says: No one agreed to release of private papers belonging to the Pope

*****

Objection brief by church attorneys is copy and pasted here at City of Angels Network below. List of 31 priests is just before "Conclusion."

Quotable quotes: “These priests are presumptive child molesters. Not a single one of the objecting individuals consented to a process where a retired judge reviewed their files. The relationship between a Roman Catholic priest and his employer, the Archdiocese in this case, is a uniquely close, all-encompassing one, in which the employer is also the direct spiritual superior of the employee, and between them there can be no secrets.”

So is the relationship spritual or business, or are the crimes of pedophile priests part of whichever relationship is convenient for the Los Angeles Archdiocese at the moment. Apparently Cardinal Roger Mahony knows everything these priests did, and he knew it from the time they committed the crimes. Why the US Attorney or local DA does not cease these documents, I do not understand. More quotable quotes:

“Two important interests that will be seriously damaged or destroyed by the process of forwarding their files for public disclosure after the cases have been dismissed: their Constitutionally protected privacy rights will be violated, and their reputations will be harmed.”

“While the plaintiffs pursued monetary damages, these (31) individuals had no interest in the outcome of that litigation. (Then) settlement documents sought to reach farther than monetary damages. "The cases have been dismissed," and the proposed process "threatens public disclosure of employee records.”

“Hearing-Oral Arguments” on this and similar filings, October 8th in Dept. 308, the Superior Court on South Commonwealth Ave. Here is the objection in full filed by Donald Steier, who has testified in Supreme Court of CA that he is paid by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

OBJECTION TO PROPOSED TRANSFER AND RELEASE OF EMPLOYEE RECORDS AND ASSERTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

The individuals listed below, none of whom are parties to the settlement and release executed between Plaintiffs and Defendants in these coordinated actions, by and through their attorney Donald H. Steier, appearing specially, hereby OBJECT to the proposed transfer of their personnel files and employee records to Justice Panelli or any other judicial officer or referee for the purpose of eventual public disclosure of any part of the contents.

This objection is made on the following grounds:

1. THESE OBJECTING NON-PARTIES ARE “INDISPENSABLE PARTIES” WHO ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.

In this historic litigation, the Plaintiffs pursued monetary damages from various religious institutions that employed individuals as clergy. With few exceptions, the individual alleged tort feasors were never parties to the litigation, but were referred to as non-party “Perpetrators.”1 All of the persons objecting herein were alleged perpetrators in the litigation.

While the plaintiffs pursued monetary damages, these individuals had no interest in the outcome of the litigation. However, the settlement documents sought to reach farther than monetary damages. Although the plaintiffs have accepted monetary payment and the cases have been dismissed, the plaintiffs and religious entities-defendant agreed to create a process that threatens public disclosure of the employee records of the objecting individuals herein, as well as other non-party priests.

The plaintiffs have contended they must disclose the contents of these private files to notify the public that these priests are presumptive child molesters. Not a single one of the objecting individuals consented to a process conferring jurisdiction to permit a retired judge to review their files. All employees enjoy legally protected rights in the contents of their personnel records.

*****************
"Now, after all the cases have been dismissed, the plaintiffs seek to exact vigilante justice...
***********************

While a corporate employer may not have a right of privacy from the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1, the individual employee does enjoy such a right as to the entire contents of his employee files. “[I]t is clear . . . personnel records and employment history are within the scope of the [privacy] protection provided by the state and federal Constitutions.”

San Diego Trolley, Inc. v. Superior Court [2001]
87 Cal. App.4th 1083, at 1097; Board of Trustees of Stanford University v. Superior Court
[1981] 119 Cal. App.3rd 516; Harding Lawson Associates v. Superior Court [1992] 10 Cal. App.4th 7; El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court [1987] 190 Cal.App.3d 342.

In many of these cases, the personnel files contain records pertaining to psychotherapy obtained by the employees, as well as ecclesiastical disciplinary information, medical records, financial information, and other extremely private and even intimate information concerning the employee, and sometimes, other third persons who are not parties to this litigation. The relationship between a Roman Catholic priest and his employer, the Archdiocese in this case, is a uniquely close, all-encompassing one, in which the employer is also the direct spiritual superior of the employee, and between them there can be no secrets.

Disclosure of the information contained in these confidential employee files will clearly violate the Constitutional privacy rights of these objecting individuals. In Susan S. v. Israels [1997] 55 Cal. App.4th 1290, the court held that the unauthorized “reading and dissemination” of private files obtained by court process was a “serious invasion of the person's privacy.” And it was found to be actionable.

*************
"Simply put, the Panelli process part of the settlement agreement was made by parties who had no right."
*********************

California adheres to the “primary rights” principles to define causes of action. One of those primary rights is the right to freedom of injury to reputation. Burdette v. Carrier Corp. [2008] --- Cal. App.4th ___, WL 152706; 4 Witkin, Cal.Procedure, Pleading § 23. The clear goal of the plaintiffs in attempting to finesse a post-settlement disclosure of the personnel records of these objecting non-parties is to further destroy their reputations.

Thus, these objecting individuals have two important interests that will be seriously damaged or destroyed by the process of forwarding their files for public disclosure after the cases have been dismissed: their Constitutionally protected privacy rights will be violated, and their reputations will be harmed.

In contrast to these damages, the settling entity-defendants, as custodian of records, have no rights at risk in the process – the contents of the files relate only to the individual priest-employees, and only those priests will have their privacy rights invaded and personal reputations damaged. The Archbishop, as employer and custodian of these confidential records belonging to the priest-employees, has an affirmative legal duty, in fact – to defend the contents of these files from disclosure.
People v. Superior
Court [Laff] [2001] 25 Cal.4th
703 Code of Civil Procedure § 389

provides that a person is “indispensable” to litigation when that person “claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may . . . as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest.”

The disposition of this action by the process of exposing these individual objectors to disclosure of their confidential personnel records will definitely “impede or impair” their privacy and reputational interests. Failure to join indispensable parties so that they may defend their interests violates the Due Process of those persons.
Shields v. Barrow [1854] 58 U.S. 129;
Fletcher Aircraft Co. v. Bond [1977, D.C. Cal.] 77 F.R.D. 47.

But plaintiffs cannot now join them, because the applicable statute of limitations has lapsed as to all of these individuals.

Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1;
Sierra Club, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission [1979]
95 Cal. App.3rd 495.

With regard to those individuals not included in this objection, but similarly situated, the court has an independent duty to raise the issue of an absent indispensable party sua sponte.
Francis v. United Technologies Corp. [1978]
458 Fed. Supp. 84.

************
No one “agreed to settle a dispute by releasing private papers belonging to the Pope.”
*************************

Plaintiffs have attempted to manipulate this court into being their unwitting instrument for violating the important rights of the non-party employees, but their stratagem is clearly prohibited by statute and important Constitutional principles. Inasmuch as all of the cases at issue have been dismissed, the court is without jurisdiction over the priest-employees whose private files and reputations are at risk, and in their absence may not enter an order that might have the effect of jeopardizing the rights of these objecting and “indispensable” individuals.

2. DUE PROCESS PROHIBITS THE COURT FROM MAKING ORDERS AFFECTING THE INTERESTS OF PERSONS NOT UNDER ITS JURISDICTION.

Closely akin to the concept of “indispensable parties” is the more fundamental protection of Due Process, part of Anglo-American jurisprudence since the Magna Carta.

A court cannot adjudicate directly upon a person's rights without such person being either actually or constructively before the court.
Hanson v. Denckla [1958] 357
U.S. 235; Mallow v. Hinde [1827] 1 Ohio Fed. Dec. 150.

A judgment cannot be amended to affect the rights of a person not under the court’s jurisdiction.
Boyer v. Jensen [2005] 129 Cal. App.4th 62.

As noted above, it is clear that none of these objecting priest-employees is, or can be, under the jurisdiction of this court. For the court to make an order that will affect their rights would be the most basic violation of the Due Process Clauses of the United States and California Constitutions.

3. THE PLAINTIFFS AND ENTITY-DEFENDANTS HAD NO RIGHT TO ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT THAT SACRIFICES THE LEGALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS OF OTHERS

Another way in which the proposed Panelli process provisions of the release agreements violates basic principles of law is that it does not involve a ripe “case or controversy” between adverse parties.

It would be no different if one of these objecting non-parties agreed to settle a dispute by releasing private papers belonging to the Pope – they would have no right to do so. Neither did the Archbishop have a right to satisfy the plaintiffs by agreeing to public disclosure of the confidential employee files protected by the Right of Privacy of these priest-employees.

The recent case of O'Grady v. Superior Court [2006] 139 Cal. App.4th 1423 discussed these important principles. “The doctrine arises from several considerations. The requirement of a genuine controversy reflects the desirability of avoiding not only collusive litigation, but cases in which one or both parties lack a real motive to diligently contest the issues. If the competing considerations are not adequately explored and presented, the court may reach a less-than-circumspect result, potentially sending the law down a wrong precedential trail.”

In People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court [1970] 1 Cal.3rd 910, the Attorney General filed suit to declare rights under a prejudgment garnishment act – but the suit failed to include as a party anyone who actually was subject to such garnishment. The Supreme Court characterized the matter as an effort to obtain an “advisory opinion,” in violation of the ripeness doctrine.

That rule was followed recently in Phelps v. State Water Resources Control Bd. [2007] 157 Cal. App.4th 89. Similarly here, there is no party who agreed to the proposed Panelli process whose rights are actually affected by it – and thus, the matter is not “ripe” and suitable for this court to enforce.

*************
"The Archbishop (Mahony) threw in disclosure of these confidential personnel records to satisfy plaintiffs’ demands"
***************************

In this case, the Archbishop, having neither privacy nor reputational rights at stake, lacks the motive to protect those rights.2 “Throwing in” the disclosure of these confidential personnel records to satisfy plaintiffs’ demands has no cost to the settling entity, but it means everything to the individuals whose rights actually will be violated.

Simply put, the Panelli process part of the settlement agreement was made by parties who had no right to agree to any disposition that destroyed the privacy rights and reputations of these non-party objecting individuals. In Constitutional terms, it could be said to be a collusive settlement or a matter that is not ripe – but in any event, it cannot be permitted.

Indeed, the plaintiffs and the Archdiocese “have priors” in this regard. In December, 2004, in connection with this same litigation, plaintiffs and the Archdiocese agreed among themselves to disclose publicly mediation “proffers” derived from the contents of many of the same personnel files at issue here.

The appellate opinion of Doe 1 v. Superior Court [2005] 157 Cal. App.4th 89 prevented them from violating the rights of the priest-employees because the priests had not agreed to the process.

4. THE CONTENTS OF THE FILES ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY THE RIGHTS OF PRIVACY AND OTHER PARTICULAR PRIVILEGES.

The objecting non-party individuals further hereby assert the following

Constitutional Rights and Constitutional and statutory privileges concerning the contents of the files, and thereby object to their disclosure:

Right of Privacy established in California Constitution, Article I, Section 1,
Therapist-Patient Privilege [Evidence Code 1010 et seq.]

Right to be Free of Unreasonable Searches and Seizures as provided in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Privilege Against Self-Incrimination as provided in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Attorney-Client Privilege [Evidence Code 950 et seq.]

Work Product Privilege [Code of Civil Procedure 2018]

Priest-Penitent Privilege [Evidence Code 1030 et seq.]

Sexual Assault Victim-Counselor Privilege [Evidence Code 1035 et seq.]

Right to Free Exercise of Religion as established by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Physician-Patient Privilege [Evidence Code 990 et seq.] California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act [Civil Code 56.20]

Settlement Privilege [Evidence Code 1152]

Mediation Privilege [California Constitution, Article I, Section 1, and Evidence Code 1115 et seq.].

These individuals reserve the right to assert additional privileges in the event that they discover that the contents of their files include documents protected by such other privileges.

The foregoing objections are made on behalf of the following individuals:

MICHAEL BAKER
FRANKLIN BUCKMAN
MICHAEL CARROLL
LYNN CAFFOE
SEAN CRONIN
JOHN DAWSON
EDWARD DOBER
DONALD FARMER
WALTER FERNANDO
DAVID GRANADINO
RODERIC GUERRINI
BRIAN HANLEY
RICHARD HENRY
STEPHEN HERNANDEZ
PAUL KREUTZER
RICHARD LOOMIS
RICHARD MARTINI
GEORGE MILLER
DONAL O’CONNOR
SAMUEL ORELLANA
MICHAEL PECHARICH
JOSEPH PINA
DONALD ROEMER
MICHAEL ROBERT
GEORGE RUCKER
MANUEL SANCHEZ
CARL SUTPHIN
MICHAEL TERRA
FRANCISCO VITELLA
MICHAEL WEMPE
G. PATRICK ZIEMANN

CONCLUSION

************
The plaintiffs and entity-defendants have agreed between themselves...
******************************

The plaintiffs and entity-defendants have agreed between themselves to refer these individuals’ employee records to Justice Panelli for possible disclosure of their contents to the public. The plaintiffs, having signed releases in which liability by the alleged perpetrators is expressly denied, now, after all the cases have been dismissed, the plaintiffs seek to exact vigilante justice with the court’s help, and publicly brand all of the priests with infamy without the Benefit of any trials.

No matter what the reason or purpose for such a process, it cannot be undertaken without impairing and prejudicing – destroying, in fact – the legal rights these objecting individuals have in their own employee records.

Since all of the cases involving the objecting individuals have now been dismissed, and none of these individuals stipulated to confer jurisdiction for the proposed Panelli process, this court should not permit the transfer of files for any objecting person whose rights will be impacted by the relief sought by the plaintiffs.

January 2008 Respectfully submitted,

GUZIN & STEIER
DONALD H. STEIER
Attorney for Non-Party Objectors

DONALD H. STEIER [SBN 58391]
GUZIN & STEIER
4525 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 201
LOS ANGELES, CA 90010
[323] 932-1600 / Fax [323] 932-1873

Special Appearance by Attorney for Non-Parties Whose Interests Will Be Impaired
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
COORDINATED PROCEEDING
SPECIAL TITLE [Rule 1550 (b)]

The Clergy Cases
JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION
PROCEEDING NOS. 4286

Trial Coordinating Judge:
Hon. Emily Elias
Department 308 [CCW]