***
Posted by City of Angels Network
DAVID L. NYE (Bar #67009)
TIMOTHY C. HALE (Bar #184882)
NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING & HALE, LLP
33 West Mission St., Suite 201
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 963-2345
Facsimile: (805) 563-5385
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Los Angeles
COORDINATION PROCEEDING SPECIAL TITLE (RULE 1550(b))
THE CLERGY CASES I
This s Document Relates to:
MARY JONES, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Franciscan Friars of California, Inc.; Old Mission Santa Barbara; and Does 5 through 100, Inclusive.
Defendants.
Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1265207
JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING
No. 4286
PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO ADD ON SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 1265207 AND FOR STAY; DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY HALE
California Rule of Court Rule 3.544(b)
Dept.: 308
Coordination Judge: Honorable Emilie H. Elias
Plaintiff Mary Jones submits this Opposition to the Request to Add On Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1265207 and for Stay filed by Defendant Franciscan Friars of California, Inc. (AFranciscans@) and Defendant Old Mission Santa Barbara (AOld Mission@).
I.
INTRODUCTION
Secrecy is the name of the Franciscans’ deadly game. For decades the Franciscans of the Province of St. Barbara (Province) have concealed and protected Franciscan perpetrators of childhood sexual abuse. Instead of notifying law enforcement and empowering the public to protect their children, the Franciscans’ have sheltered these predators and thereby thrown to the wolves children in the communities throughout the Western United States where the Franciscans conduct their ministry.
Starting at least as early as 1964, and continuing as recently as the abuse committed in Idaho by former Franciscan Louis Ladenburger in 2007, Franciscan corporate practices have created countless victims of childhood sexual abuse, and continue to put an even greater number of today’s children at risk to be sexually assaulted by predators whose identities and propensities are known only to the Franciscans.
No community has suffered greater harm to its children, as a result of Franciscan criminal conduct, than Santa Barbara. Since 1964 the Franciscans have allowed no less than twenty-four (24) Franciscan perpetrators to live in Santa Barbara without any warning to the community. The tragic results have been at least fifty-nine (59) Santa Barbara children sexually assaulted by Franciscans since 1964. These numbers would be outrageous anywhere, but are particularly shocking for a city with a population of approximately 90,000.
*************
The subject lawsuit seeks a court order ending the secrecy. The Franciscans’ corporate practice is a continuing Public Nuisance.
*********************
The subject lawsuit seeks a court order ending the secrecy. The Franciscans’ corporate practice is a continuing Public Nuisance.
It has stifled the ability of law enforcement to protect the public and prosecute these men by concealing their identities until the criminal statutes of limitations have expired. And it has rendered the civil process the last resort for the public to end these practices. Numerous million dollar settlements have not changed the Franciscans’ approach to managing perpetrators and sacrificing children. Equitable, proactive relief is now sought to force the Franciscans to change their ways.
The subject Request to Add On is consistent with the Franciscans’ policy of secrecy. With twenty-four (24) Franciscan perpetrators and fifty-nine (59) victims since 1964, Santa Barbara is the epicenter in the Province of the harm caused by the Franciscans. As they have done so often with their perpetrators, it comes as no surprise that the Franciscans now seek to transfer this case as far away from Santa Barbara as possible, to a comparably disinterested community in Los Angeles where the lawsuit will most likely be ignored. Justice requires this case be heard in Santa Barbara, the community most severely injured by the Franciscans’ conduct.
II.
BACKGROUND
In 1998, plaintiff’s counsel, Nye, Peabody, Stirling & Hale, LLP, began litigating claims involving the criminal conduct of Franciscan perpetrators and hierarchy in Santa Barbara. Since the inception of that litigation the Franciscans’ defense strategy has been consistent and unwavering: preserve the Franciscans’ secrets by narrowing the focus of each lawsuit filed to one victim and one perpetrator. This strategy’s sole purpose is to keep the public ignorant by shifting attention away from the despicable Franciscan corporate practice of concealing the identities, propensities, and current assignments and/or residences of Franciscan perpetrators.
After nearly eleven years of litigation, the Franciscans’ strategy is failing. As a result of discovery and investigation conducted since 1998, plaintiff’s counsel has identified no less than twenty-five (25) Franciscan perpetrators assigned or in residence in Santa Barbara since 1936, and sixty (60) Santa Barbara children who have been sexually assaulted by these men. This tragedy is the result of the Franciscan corporate practice of concealing perpetrators of childhood sexual abuse.
*************
The subject Request for Add On continues the Franciscans’ battle for secrecy.
***********************
The subject Request for Add On continues the Franciscans’ battle for secrecy. Nothing has changed. Once again they are attempting inappropriately to narrow the focus of a lawsuit to one Franciscan perpetrator, one Franciscan victim. A cursory review of the First Amended Complaint makes clear the true focus of the lawsuit: the threat to all children at any location where the Franciscans continue to conduct their business, and the heightened threat to Santa Barbara children where the Franciscans have dumped so many of their perpetrators without any warning to the community. The Franciscans have created a continuing Public Nuisance.
In a preemptive attack on the Public Nuisance cause of action, the Franciscans describe it as Aan attempt to plead around the >Hightower= bar.@ Although a continuing Public Nuisance cause of action is not subject to Hightower, this theory was not incorporated in plaintiff’s complaint in response to that opinion.
Plaintiff’s counsel does not believe this misstatement was an intentional effort by defense counsel to mislead the Court. Rather, this misstatement is the result of defense counsel’s never having represented the Franciscans, to plaintiff’s counsel’s knowledge, prior to this lawsuit. They apparently are unaware that plaintiff’s counsel first began alleging the Franciscans’ conduct constituted a continuing Public Nuisance in 2000, six years before the Hightower opinion was published.
Plaintiff’s counsel first filed a lawsuit against the Franciscans in 1998, Allen v. Van Handel et al., Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 228296. Early in Allen the Franciscan defense strategy of preserving secrecy by narrowing the focus of each lawsuit to one perpetrator, one victim, became clear. As investigation and discovery continued in Allen the Franciscans’ motivation for pressing this strategy became obvious: the Franciscan hierarchy had allowed the adjoining properties of St. Anthony’s Seminary and the Old Mission Santa Barbara to serve for decades as a feeding ground for Franciscan predators.
*****************
"The Franciscan hierarchy had allowed the adjoining properties of St. Anthony’s Seminary and the Old Mission Santa Barbara to serve for decades as a feeding ground for Franciscan predators."
***************************
It quickly became apparent that thanks in large part to a purportedly independent inquiry in 1994 that actually was a Franciscan-controlled whitewash, the public remained unaware of the continuing threat posed to their children by the Franciscans. Consequently, plaintiff’s counsel began to research theories of liability to counter the Franciscans’ defense strategy of narrowing the focus of each lawsuit, and to end the Franciscans’ dangerous culture of secrecy.
After substantial legal research it became clear the Public Nuisance cause of action was the ideal theory to address and terminate the Franciscans’ criminal conduct. Consequently, leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint alleging the Public Nuisance cause of action was sought in Allen in 2000. Since that date, every complaint plaintiff’s counsel has filed against the Franciscans has included the Public Nuisance cause of action. In short, the Franciscans’ contention the Public Nuisance cause of action was "creatively added" to plaintiff’s complaint Ato plead around the >Hightower= bar@ is patently false.
No court has ever issued an order addressing the viability of the Public Nuisance cause of action against the Franciscans. Shortly after the Fourth Amended Complaint was filed in Allen in 2000, the Franciscans settled that lawsuit before the Santa Barbara court could rule on their demurrer to the Public Nuisance cause of action. Since then, the Franciscans have settled fourteen more claims on behalf of plaintiffs represented by plaintiff’s counsel, all resolved before any court addressed the Public Nuisance cause of action.
III.
ARGUMENT
When civil actions share a common question of fact or law with actions coordinated pursuant to section 404 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff or defendant may request an order from the judge assigned to hear the coordinated actions to coordinate the add-on action. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ' 404.4.
Cases considered for coordination must share common questions of fact or law. The determination of whether cases share common questions of fact or law is a "threshold" standard, since it must be satisfied at the outset of the coordination procedure. Keenan v. Superior Court, 111 Cal.App.3d 336, 342 (1980).
A. Plaintiff Concedes Her Lawsuit Meets The Threshold Requirement.
Plaintiff does not dispute that her lawsuit shares some common questions of law and fact with the Clergy Cases. Many of the causes of action utilized in the Master Complaint in the coordination are incorporated into plaintiff’s complaint. And as in the Clergy Cases, Plaintiff alleges that, while a minor, she was sexually abused by a member of the clergy acting under the supervision and control of the Roman Catholic Church.
However, unlike the Clergy Cases, the subject complaint alleges the sexual abuse of plaintiff was a symptom of a problem much bigger than the oversimplification continually argued for by the Franciscans, i.e. the criminal acts of a rogue Franciscan against a solitary victim. In fact, it is here the subject complaint drastically departs from the Master Complaint and alleges detailed facts -
the Franciscan corporate practice of concealing the identities of their pedophilic brethren and transferring them into unexpecting communities - and theories
- the continuing Public Nuisance created by this conduct - that set it apart from any prior pleading ever addressed in this coordination or any other court.
Thus, while the complaint may meet the threshold requirement, the balancing test which is the next and final step in the process merits denying the Request for Add On. Justice will be denied, and children will be placed at risk, if the subject lawsuit is transferred from Santa Barbara to Los Angeles.
B. Promoting The Ends Of Justice - The Balancing Test.
Once the threshold requirement is satisfied, the coordination judge must determine whether coordination will serve to "promote the ends of justice." Code of Civ. Proc. ' 404.1 mandates that the coordination judge take into account:
(1) whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation;
(2) the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel;
(3) the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel;
(4) the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower;
(5) the calendar of the courts;
(6) the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and
(7) the likelihood of settlement of the action without further litigation should coordination be denied.
Consideration of these factors involves a "weighing and balancing . . . to determine whether coordination . . . best serves the ends of justice in the particular case." Pesses v. Superior Court, 107 Cal.App.3d 117, 126 (1980). Here, denying the request for coordination will best serve the ends of justice.
(1) The Unique Questions Of Fact And Law In Plaintiff's Case Are Predominating And Significant.
Defendants all but concede this point, but attempt to minimize their concession by labeling the Public Nuisance cause of action as a creatively adde "attempt to plead around the >Hightower= bar.
The focus of the First Amended Complaint is the pattern of conduct of the Franciscan hierarchy. The abuse of plaintiff is a symptom of that conduct, and gives her standing as one of the special injuries required for her to prosecute a nuisance claim on behalf of the general public. No court, in the coordination or otherwise, has ever issued an order addressing the viability of the nuisance theory in this context with these facts. These unique questions of fact and law are predominant and significant, and distinguish this lawsuit from any other in the coordination.
Accordingly, this factor weighs against granting the Franciscans’ request.
(2) The Inconvenience To The Parties, Witnesses, And Counsel Merits Denial Of The Petition.
The witnesses, parties, and counsel will be substantially inconvenienced if forced to participate in the coordinated action in Los Angeles.
At the start of this coordinated proceeding in 2003, three of the four law firms representing twenty-five survivors (25) of Franciscan sexual abuse were located in the counties of Los Angeles and Orange. Those three law firms filed lawsuits against the Franciscans in Los Angeles. A number of the twenty-five survivors of Franciscan sexual abuse also lived in the counties of Los Angeles and Orange. And defense counsel for the Franciscans were located in downtown Los Angeles. Thus, prior to the 2006 Franciscan global settlement, there was at least an argument to be made that convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel supported coordination of the Franciscan lawsuits.
Now, to plaintiff’s counsel’s knowledge, this is the only currently pending Franciscan lawsuit in California. Plaintiff Mary Jones lives in Northern California in Fairfax. Defendant Old Mission is located in Santa Barbara, with its agent for service of process in Oakland, CA. Defendant Franciscans’ corporate offices are located in Oakland. The Franciscans’ new defense counsel are located in San Francisco. Plaintiff’s counsel are located in Santa Barbara. And most if not all of the key witnesses of which plaintiff’s counsel are aware are located in Santa Barbara or Northern California.
In fact, out of the twenty-eight (28) depositions taken in Franciscan cases litigated in the coordinated proceedings, only four (4) took place in Los Angeles, with the vast majority going forward in and/or far north of Santa Barbara. Accordingly, with the global settlement of the twenty-five Franciscan claims in 2006, the convenience factor now weighs strongly against coordination.
(3) The Status Of Plaintiff’s Lawsuit Case Does Not Support The Franciscans’ Request For Coordination.
Plaintiff’s lawsuit is at a preliminary stage of development. Defendants recently accepted service, and have not yet filed their responsive pleading. Plaintiff was about to serve written discovery when Defendants filed their Request for Add On and Stay. Plaintiff also was about to notice depositions for witnesses whose health and age create the risk their testimony may be lost. In short, the Request for Add
On and Stay has already delayed and slowed the proceedings. Additionally, as the only currently filed Franciscan lawsuit, and the only clergy abuse lawsuit proceeding on a Public Nuisance theory, this lawsuit cannot be consolidated with like cases in a single, efficient forum. To the contrary, there are no like cases to consolidate it with.
(4) Coordination Will Not Foster The Efficient Utilization of Judicial Facilities And Manpower, And Minimize The Burden Upon The Calendar Of The Courts.
Coordination will not result in a more efficient use of judicial resources. This lawsuit shares no common defendants with any other currently filed lawsuits. While there are some common factual allegations with current coordinated lawsuits, none of those coordinated lawsuits are based on allegations and evidence of a continuing Public Nuisance. Accordingly, as there is no risk of multiple courts making disparate rulings related to the continuing Public Nuisance theory, coordination will not result in a more efficient use of judicial resources.
It is also worth noting that courts around the state and outside the coordination continue to rule on the same issues that the Franciscans contend must be decided only by this Court. Five years of coordination have produced a substantial body of caselaw to guide these courts. There will be no duplication of effort if this case proceeds separately. The resolution of this lawsuit can be accomplished just as efficiently by the Santa Barbara trial court.
(5) There Is No Risk Of Duplicative Or Inconsistent Rulings, Orders, And Judgments.
Whereas the remaining coordinated lawsuits have as their foundations childhood sexual abuse by a Roman Catholic Priest or brother, such abuse in Plaintiff’s lawsuit is simply one of the special injuries required for plaintiff to prosecute a Public Nuisance claim on behalf of the general public. The foundation for Plaintiff’s lawsuit is the Franciscan corporate practice of concealing the identities of their pedophilic brethren and transferring them into unsuspecting communities. Plaintiff’s counsel has indisputable evidence of nearly forty-five years of the Franciscans’ corporate practice placing children at risk and creating a continuing Public Nuisance. No other law firm in the history of this coordination has developed such a detailed and continuing history of criminal conduct by a single Roman Catholic entity as a result of ten years investigating and litigating against that entity. As a result, no other firm has filed a lawsuit based on a continuing Public Nuisance. (6) Coordination Will Not Increase The Likelihood Of Settlement Of The Action Without Further Litigation.
Settlement is no more likely in the context of the coordination, and is less likely in Los Angeles than in Santa Barbara.
The parties have already discussed mediation. The Franciscans proposed and plaintiff agreed to mediation dates. Plaintiff even agreed to mediate before, among others, the Honorable Ronald Sabraw, the coordination/trial court judge who presided over Hightower. However, the Franciscans appear to have lost interest in mediation. Adding this case to a coordination proceeding where there are no other Franciscan lawsuits pending will not increase the likelihood of settlement without further litigation. In fact, it likely will decrease the likelihood of settlement.
Numerous communities have seen their children harmed and put at risk by the Franciscan efforts to conceal and cover up their continuing corporate practice of handling their perpetrators. However, with twenty-four Franciscan perpetrators and fifty-nine victims identified since 1964 in a city of approximately 90,000 residents, no city has been harmed more gravely than Santa Barbara. Transferring this case out of Santa Barbara to Los Angeles, a community with a comparably far smaller interest in the Franciscans’ conduct, plays into the Franciscan corporate practice of secrecy by keeping the communities who most need to know in the dark, and will do nothing to enhance the likelihood of settlement. If anything, it will encourage the Franciscans to believe they have once again flown under the radar and will not be held accountable for their conduct in the community where so many of these crimes have been committed. The determination of whether this conduct constitutes a Public Nuisance should be made by a trier of fact from the community in which the conduct occurred.
IV.
DEFENDANTS’ PETITION FOR A STAY OF DISCOVERY SHOULD BE DENIED
Defendants offer no support nor any reason for their request for a discovery stay. While such a stay may have been necessary at one time due to the remarkably high volume of coordinated cases, and the resulting chaos 600+ concurrent discovery disputes could have produced, those high volume days are long since past in Clergy I. Defendants’ sole motivation for requesting the stay is to continue the Franciscans’ ongoing practice of delaying litigation for as long as possible. Obviously, this is not a legitimate basis for requesting a discovery stay.
Additionally, numerous Franciscan witnesses with critical information are aged and infirm, and their testimony is at risk to be lost with each passing day. As a result, Plaintiff will be highly prejudiced by a stay of discovery, particularly where these defendants demand discovery stays while knowing they have and will continue to argue they are incapable of defending themselves due to the loss of key witnesses.
Accordingly, plaintiff requests that Defendants’ request for a discovery stay be denied.
V.
CONCLUSION
Survivors in clergy abuse cases in Northern and Central California are not being deprived of their right to have their lawsuits heard in the communities where the crimes were committed or covered up. Doe v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockton et al., Case No. C057895 was filed in Stockton and is currently pending before the Third District Court of Appeal on statute of limitations issues shared by many of the currently coordinated lawsuits. Similarly, Dengler v. Doe 1, Case No. A116907 was filed in Sonoma and was decided last year by the First Appellate District. And Neff v. Doe 1 et al., involving the same plaintiff’s counsel and defense counsel in this lawsuit, is one of a number clergy abuse cases currently pending in Northern California trial courts. All of these matters have been or will be guided by the substantial body of caselaw generated in this coordinated proceeding, with no plaintiff deprived of his or her right to file their lawsuit where most appropriate.
The Santa Barbara Superior Court has presided over Franciscan litigation in the past, and is just as capable as the courts in Northern and Central California of applying the caselaw produced by the coordinated proceeding.
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is not a defendant in this lawsuit.
The factors that once supported adding prior Franciscan cases to the coordination are no more.
***************
The Franciscans’ Request for Coordination is an obvious attempt to avoid being held accountable in a court in the community most victimized by the Franciscan conduct set forth in plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
***********************
The Franciscans’ Request for Coordination is an obvious attempt to avoid being held accountable in a court in the community most victimized by the Franciscan conduct set forth in plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff respectfully requests the Request to Add On Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1265207 and for Stay be denied.
DATED: September 24, 2008
NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING & HALE LLP
By:
DAVID L. NYE
TIMOTHY C. HALE
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY C. HALE
I, Timothy C. Hale, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in all of the courts of the State of California, and am one of the attorneys representing plaintiff Mary Jones in the above action. I am a partner in the law firm of Nye, Peabody, Stirling & Hale, LLP (ANPSH@).
2. I have personal knowledge of the statements set forth in this declaration, except for those stated on information and belief, and if called as a witness in this matter, could and would competently testify thereto.
3. I make this declaration in support of plaintiff’s Opposition to the Request to Add On Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1265207 and for Stay filed by Defendant Franciscan Friars of California, Inc. (AFranciscans@) and Defendant Old Mission Santa Barbara (AOld Mission@).
4. In 1998 the Santa Barbara law firm of Nye, Peabody, Stirling & Hale, LLP, began litigating claims involving the criminal conduct of Franciscan perpetrators and hierarchy in Santa Barbara. I joined the team of lawyers working on the Franciscan cases in 1999.
****************
5. Since our first lawsuit against the Franciscans their defense strategy has been consistent and unwavering: preserve the Franciscans’ secrets as much as possible by narrowing the focus of each lawsuit filed to one victim and one perpetrator.
**************************
5. Since our first lawsuit against the Franciscans their defense strategy has been consistent and unwavering: preserve the Franciscans’ secrets as much as possible by narrowing the focus of each lawsuit filed to one victim and one perpetrator.
6. After the scandal first broke in Santa Barbara in 1989, the Franciscans’ retained large defense firms, Sedgwick Detert in particular, who utilized their tremendous resources to implement this strategy quite effectively for nearly ten years, battering smaller plaintiffs’ firms into settling lawsuits for relatively small amounts while limiting the focus of discovery to the perpetrator rather than on the enabling conduct of the Franciscan hierarchy.
7. NPSH first filed a lawsuit against the Franciscans in 1998, Allen v. Van Handel et al., Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 228296. Early in Allen the Franciscan defense strategy of preserving secrecy by narrowing the focus of each lawsuit to one perpetrator, one victim, became clear. As investigation and discovery continued in Allen the Franciscans’ motivation for pressing this strategy became obvious: the Franciscan hierarchy had allowed the adjoining properties of St. Anthony’s Seminary and the Old Mission Santa Barbara to serve for decades as a feeding ground for Franciscan predators.
8. It also quickly became apparent during Allen that the public remained unaware of the continuing threat posed to their children by the Franciscans. This was due in large part to the Franciscans’ creation of a purportedly independent inquiry in 1994 that actually was a Franciscan-controlled whitewash. The Franciscans’ AIndependent Board of Inquiry@ was tasked with investigating abuse allegations at St. Anthony’s Seminary, the property adjoining the Old Mission in Santa Barbara. The Board issued its report in 1994, confirming there had been twelve Franciscan perpetrators, but identifying none of them. It also made no reference to numerous instances of notice of abuse received by the Franciscans. These omissions were less than surprising given that one of the Board’s member was a Franciscan from another Province, and, more importantly, given that the Franciscans’ Provincial Minister had to approve the report before it was released to the public.
9. As the Sedgwick firm in Allen continued aggressively to press the Franciscan strategy of narrowing the focus of each lawsuit and the scope of discovery to one perpetrator and one victim, our investigation in Allen was revealing a shocking pattern of conduct by Franciscans with regards to their managing Franciscan perpetrators for whom they had received notice were sexually abusing Santa Barbara children.
As a result of the growing body of evidence of the Franciscans’ deadly approach to managing Franciscan perpetrators, and in response to the Sedgwick firm’s continuing efforts to narrow the scope of discovery, the lead trial attorneys for the plaintiff tasked myself and another associate with researching theories of liability to counter the Franciscans’ defense strategy.
10. After substantial legal research it became clear to us the Public Nuisance cause of action was the ideal theory to respond to the Franciscans’ narrowing strategy. Consequently, we sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint alleging the Public Nuisance cause of action in Allen in 2000. Since that date, every complaint we have filed against the Franciscans has included the Public Nuisance cause of action. At the time I drafted the Public Nuisance cause of action, there was no Hightower opinion, nor was there any concern over the statute of limitations for the plaintiff in Allen. The Franciscans’ contention the Public Nuisance cause of action was Acreatively added@ Ato plead around the >Hightower= bar@ is patently false.
However, I do not believe this misstatement was an intentional effort by Tobin & Tobin to mislead the Court. This is not our first case with their firm, and we have always known them to be honest and highly skilled clergy abuse defense attorneys. That said, to my knowledge, they have never represented the Franciscans prior to this lawsuit, and presumably are unaware that NPSH first began alleging the Franciscans’ conduct constituted a continuing Public Nuisance six years before the Hightower opinion was published.
11. To my knowledge, no court has ever issued an order addressing the viability of the Public Nuisance cause of action against the Franciscans. Shortly after the Fourth Amended Complaint was filed in Allen in 2000, the Franciscans settled that lawsuit before the Santa Barbara court could rule on their demurrer to the Public Nuisance cause of action. Since then, the Franciscans have settled fourteen more claims on behalf of plaintiffs represented by NPSH, all resolved before any court addressed the Public Nuisance cause of action.
12. Three lawsuits on behalf of five plaintiffs represented by NPSH were part of the first group of cases released in this coordinated proceeding. Each complaint alleged Public Nuisance. However, all five of those claims settled and were dismissed long before Judge Fromholz ruled on the Omnibus Demurrers. As a result, the court order on the Omnibus Demurrers does not consider or even mention the Public Nuisance cause of action.
13. After nearly eleven years of almost uninterrupted investigation and discovery against the Franciscans we have identified no less than twenty-five (25) Franciscan perpetrators assigned or in residence in Santa Barbara since 1936, and sixty (60) Santa Barbara children who have been sexually assaulted by these men. Twenty-four (24) of those Franciscan perpetrators and fifty-nine (59) of those victims have been in Santa Barbara post -1964.
14. At the start of this coordinated proceeding in 2003, three of the four law firms representing eleven (11) of the twenty-five survivors (25) of Franciscan sexual abuse were located in the counties of Los Angeles and Orange. Those three law firms filed lawsuits against the Franciscans in Los Angeles. A number of the twenty-five survivors of Franciscan sexual abuse also lived in the counties of Los Angeles and Orange. And defense counsel for the Franciscans, Lewis Brisbois, were located in downtown Los Angeles. All of those twenty-five claims were part of the 2006 global settlement involving the Franciscans.
15. To my knowledge this is the only currently pending Franciscan lawsuit in California. Plaintiff Mary Jones lives in Northern California in Fairfax. Defendant Old Mission is located in Santa Barbara, with its agent for service of process in Oakland, CA. Defendant Franciscans’ corporate offices are located in Oakland. Tobin & Tobin are located in San Francisco. NPSH is located in Santa Barbara. And most if not all of the key witnesses of which I am aware are located in Santa Barbara or Northern California. In fact, out of the twenty-eight (28) depositions taken in Franciscan cases in the coordinated proceedings, only four (4) took place in Los Angeles, with the vast majority going forward in and/or far north of Santa Barbara.
16. Settlement is much less likely to occur if this case is litigated in Los Angeles rather than in Santa Barbara. The parties have already discussed mediation. The Franciscans proposed and plaintiff agreed to mediation dates. Plaintiff even agreed to mediate before, among others, the Honorable Ronald Sabraw, the coordination/trial court judge who presided over Hightower. However, the Franciscans appear to have lost interest in mediation. Adding this case to a coordination proceeding where there are no other Franciscan lawsuits pending will not increase the likelihood of settlement without further litigation.
In fact, it likely will decrease the likelihood of settlement. Transferring this case out of Santa Barbara to Los Angeles, a community with a comparably far smaller interest in the Franciscans’ conduct, plays into the Franciscan corporate practice of secrecy by keeping the communities who most need to know in the dark, and will do nothing to enhance the likelihood of settlement. If anything, it will encourage the Franciscans to believe they have once again flown under the radar and will not be held accountable for their conduct in the community where so many of these crimes have been committed. The determination of whether this conduct constitutes a Public Nuisance should be made by a trier of fact from the community in which the conduct occurred.
17. Survivors in clergy abuse cases in Northern and Central California are not being deprived of their right to have their lawsuits heard in the communities where the crimes were committed or covered up. Doe v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockton et al., Case No. C057895 was filed in Stockton and is currently pending before the Third District Court of Appeal on statute of limitations issues shared by many of the currently coordinated lawsuits. Similarly, Dengler v. Doe 1, Case No. A116907 was filed in Sonoma and was decided last year by the First Appellate District. And Neff v. Doe 1 et al., involving NPSH and Tobin & Tobin, is one of a number clergy abuse cases of which I am aware that currently are pending in Northern and Central California trial courts.
18. The Santa Barbara Superior Court has presided over Franciscan litigation, such as Allen, in the past, and is just as capable as the courts in Northern and Central California of applying the caselaw produced by the coordinated proceeding.
19. As a result of discovery conducted to date, I am aware of numerous Franciscan witnesses with critical information who are aged and infirm, and whose testimony is at risk to be lost with each passing day. For instance, Br. Sam Cabot, the likely perpetrator in this case, has had open-heart surgery in recent years and is known to be in poor health. The Provincial Ministers who are responsible for this pattern of conduct are all, with one possible exception, in their late 60s, 70s, and in some cases, 80s. As a result, plaintiff will be highly prejudiced by a stay of discovery.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on this 19th day of September 2008, at Santa Barbara, California.
TIMOTHY C. HALE
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
MORE PROOF: Sick priests put in parishes: Minutes of the March 1967 meeting of Servants of Paraclete, 6 pages scanned in here today
***
Hundreds of pages of Servants of the Paraclete documents are below or linked from this post.
*****
MINUTES
of the March 13, 1967, meeting of Paracletes leaders, six pages beginning at left, at first appears to be a dull read, especially in this 1960s typewriter 9 point cloistered type.
But take time to digest, read through it, it reveals the back and forth discussion that took place between Director Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, with his pure spiritual approach and John. A Salazar, Ph.D., whose influence was growing.
In the heat of debate over use of private cars for members going to do weekend supply priest work in the region:
“Fr. Feit remarked: ABUSUS NON TOLLET USUS. Everybody laughed.”
(On Page 5 below.)
The Latin translates roughly to:
"The abuse does not abolish the use"
Father John Feit said that in Latin during the meeting as they began arguing, and it made everybody laugh.
Ha. Ha.
Pages 4-6 are below:
Page 5
Page 6
The talk gets hotter after the coffee break. On Page 4 to 6. The minutes show they discussed
The logistics of getting these priests in alcoholism and pedophilia rehab out to their “supply priest” work on weekends in the community.
Should the pedophile priests on weekend leave use private cars?
How much should pedophile priests be paid to do “supply” work in local parishes?
Priests in rehab at Via Coeli, the foremost treatment center for priests identified as pedophiles, served in the local New Mexico parishes on weekends, unsupervised, moving freely through nearby towns on weekend leave, then returning to Via Coeli Mondays to continue treatment for alcoholism and or pedophilia and other “psycho-sexual problems.”
More PROOF
The Catholic Church in New Mexico sent sick priests to do supply work regularly in the parishes within close driving distance of Jemez Springs.
Onward.
MORE DOCUMENTS HERE:
AND HERE
SALESIAN CONNECTION as it was cases against that religious order that produced these docs in the Los Angeles 2003 lawsuits.
.
THE L.A. Connection through St. John Seminary
.
Hundreds of pages of Servants of the Paraclete documents are below or linked from this post.
*****
MINUTES
of the March 13, 1967, meeting of Paracletes leaders, six pages beginning at left, at first appears to be a dull read, especially in this 1960s typewriter 9 point cloistered type.
But take time to digest, read through it, it reveals the back and forth discussion that took place between Director Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, with his pure spiritual approach and John. A Salazar, Ph.D., whose influence was growing.
In the heat of debate over use of private cars for members going to do weekend supply priest work in the region:
“Fr. Feit remarked: ABUSUS NON TOLLET USUS. Everybody laughed.”
(On Page 5 below.)
The Latin translates roughly to:
"The abuse does not abolish the use"
Father John Feit said that in Latin during the meeting as they began arguing, and it made everybody laugh.
Ha. Ha.
Pages 4-6 are below:
Page 5
Page 6
The talk gets hotter after the coffee break. On Page 4 to 6. The minutes show they discussed
The logistics of getting these priests in alcoholism and pedophilia rehab out to their “supply priest” work on weekends in the community.
Should the pedophile priests on weekend leave use private cars?
How much should pedophile priests be paid to do “supply” work in local parishes?
Priests in rehab at Via Coeli, the foremost treatment center for priests identified as pedophiles, served in the local New Mexico parishes on weekends, unsupervised, moving freely through nearby towns on weekend leave, then returning to Via Coeli Mondays to continue treatment for alcoholism and or pedophilia and other “psycho-sexual problems.”
More PROOF
The Catholic Church in New Mexico sent sick priests to do supply work regularly in the parishes within close driving distance of Jemez Springs.
Onward.
MORE DOCUMENTS HERE:
AND HERE
SALESIAN CONNECTION as it was cases against that religious order that produced these docs in the Los Angeles 2003 lawsuits.
.
THE L.A. Connection through St. John Seminary
.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Added June 26
***********
"This diocese is so indebted to you," writes the
Bishop of San Diego to Gerald Fitzgerald in 1954. In the 1950 letter below, Bishop Buddy pledges a thousand dollars to Fitzgerald and Via Coeli.
Again, Click to enlarge and print.
First the 1950 letter:
1953 Fitzgerald to Buddy
1954 Buddy to Fitzgerald
1954 Fitzgerald to Buddy
1955 Fitzgerald to Buddy
1956 - Fitzgerald to Buddy
**********
1947 LETTER
"Help Us Help Priests"
At this Apostolate "we have begun here at Jemez Springs"
Thanks to
"Generosity and enlightened charity of the Cardinal Archbishop of New York"
1947 Letter (above left) in a way an introduction, emphasizing that the Paracletes are “Priest to Priest” help, they do not involve the laity in the therapy or the fundraising. Letter shines rare light on the foundation of Servants of the Paracletes, under the guidance of the bishop of Santa Fe, made possible by the “charity of our Cardinal Archdiocese of New York.”
Fr. Gerald, ever the promoter, introduces the letter, “Help us Help Priests” as “we have begun here at Jemez Springs an Institution”
Re not involving the Laity:
“In general we prefer to seek this aid from those who partake of Christ’s Priesthood.”
They only raise funds and promote the Paracletes to the priesthood.
We don’t want our parishioners finding out some of these priests are freaks.
1954 Letter
At left, The paper, the margins, even the typewriter apparently is the same.
Fr. Gerald apparently knocked out these poetic appeals for building fund fees over and over to bishops around the country. Here in 1954, again to Bishop Buddy, same as in 1947 letter above:
"We cannot turn these men away simply because they do not have a claim to justice upon some Bishop or religious community."
Hmm, seems to refer to legal problems these priests bring with them to Jemez Springs.
Aiding and abetting
anyone?
*************
So for anyone raped by a pedophile priest in a San Diego diocese parish since 1947, the hierarchy in San Diego were actively interacting with Servants as the Paraclete as far back as 1947, as shown in the letters above. So they knew about pedophile priests, they could have handled the problem. Your rapes did not need to happen.
*************
Aiding and abetting
anyone?
"This diocese is so indebted to you," writes the
Bishop of San Diego to Gerald Fitzgerald in 1954. In the 1950 letter below, Bishop Buddy pledges a thousand dollars to Fitzgerald and Via Coeli.
Again, Click to enlarge and print.
First the 1950 letter:
1953 Fitzgerald to Buddy
1954 Buddy to Fitzgerald
1954 Fitzgerald to Buddy
1955 Fitzgerald to Buddy
1956 - Fitzgerald to Buddy
**********
1947 LETTER
"Help Us Help Priests"
At this Apostolate "we have begun here at Jemez Springs"
Thanks to
"Generosity and enlightened charity of the Cardinal Archbishop of New York"
1947 Letter (above left) in a way an introduction, emphasizing that the Paracletes are “Priest to Priest” help, they do not involve the laity in the therapy or the fundraising. Letter shines rare light on the foundation of Servants of the Paracletes, under the guidance of the bishop of Santa Fe, made possible by the “charity of our Cardinal Archdiocese of New York.”
Fr. Gerald, ever the promoter, introduces the letter, “Help us Help Priests” as “we have begun here at Jemez Springs an Institution”
Re not involving the Laity:
“In general we prefer to seek this aid from those who partake of Christ’s Priesthood.”
They only raise funds and promote the Paracletes to the priesthood.
We don’t want our parishioners finding out some of these priests are freaks.
1954 Letter
At left, The paper, the margins, even the typewriter apparently is the same.
Fr. Gerald apparently knocked out these poetic appeals for building fund fees over and over to bishops around the country. Here in 1954, again to Bishop Buddy, same as in 1947 letter above:
"We cannot turn these men away simply because they do not have a claim to justice upon some Bishop or religious community."
Hmm, seems to refer to legal problems these priests bring with them to Jemez Springs.
Aiding and abetting
anyone?
*************
So for anyone raped by a pedophile priest in a San Diego diocese parish since 1947, the hierarchy in San Diego were actively interacting with Servants as the Paraclete as far back as 1947, as shown in the letters above. So they knew about pedophile priests, they could have handled the problem. Your rapes did not need to happen.
*************
Aiding and abetting
anyone?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Ongoing scanning and posting of the Paracletes Documents for City of Angels Network
*****
By Kay Ebeling
We will continue to scan and upload Paracletes Documents at City of Angels 11 over next week, then leave them here for the next months.
Add the letter on the right in with Island Letters from a previous post. Here we see the Paracletes have to get rid of the Island of Tortola, where they have sent problem priests to keep them away from the public. Dated November 1960. (Click to enlarge and print)
The second page, 1960 technology photocopy is at right. Father Gerald worked hard to establish these colonies to keep the pedophiles away from parishes, but by 1960 he was losing to a secular AA 12 step influenced form of treatment.
********************
Fitzgerald Pioneered Direct Mail Marketing sending letters to Archbishops All Over The Country about the Paracletes and their work with Problem Priests
********************************
April 9, 1950 Letter from Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald to Bishop Charles Buddy of San Diego is at right, click to enlarge and print.
This is a fundraising letter for the already thriving Via Coeli treatment center for priests with problems including sex with children. It states they are treating priests "from more than 35 dioceses and 9 religious orders."
***********
The word "homosexual" in a 1950-60's letter between priests does not mean what the word means to us today.
*****************
In letters from the 1950s and 1960s concerning Servants of the Paracletes, the "padres" often use euphemisms. “Psycho sexual problems” was an official term, but it was agreed (in other documents here) that “homosexual acts” included pedophilia.
And they were likely sex acts with children if they also involved the poice and criminal charges.
April 9, 1950 letter Quotes of Note:
Our institution is in no way Diocesan or provincial, and, due to the charity of our ecclesiastical superior, priests are received here from all over the country.
Demonstrates how they kept the Servants of the Paracletes work secret from parishioners and lay members of the churches.
Fundraising appeals were direct to the bishops. This letter was most likely typed and retyped, with a different address put in at the top, then the generic greeting and content of letter.
The April 1950 letter was likely sent to bishops all over the country since it states they are treating priests "from all over the country."
Hard to believe the bishops and their nearby colleagues did not know about pedophilia amidst all the fund raising and promotional work of Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald.
'nother quote from the letter:
“Hence this direct appeal to the Hierarchy for donations to build and equip a proper, modest monastic retreat house unit.
AND AGAIN proving the work of Paracletes with problem priests was no secret from church hierarchy, from April 9, 1950 letter:
"At the present moment we have priests at Via Coeli from more than 35 diocesses and archdioceses and from 9 religious communities."
**********
The June 1953 Letter
***********************
June 21, 1953,Letter at right, (click to enlarge and print) another fundraising appeal as: “where else shall we find means to care for these most abject and despised of men.”
Another national appeal to bishops “all over the country” to “All the Archbishops” including another invitation to visit and tour.
Again, how can bishops claim they had no knowledge of priest pedophiles when Fr. Gerald, as he pioneered direct mail marketing techniques, bothered them for donations regularly, and reminded them of the Servants of the Paracletes work.
QUOTES
from the June 21, 1953 letter.
Fitzgerald is
ASKING:
“Of the Archbishops and Bishops of our country: from the Archbishops and the Archdioceses of America a yearly donation.”
“Last year less than half the Hierarchy gave anything directly to this apolstolate of priestly succoring."
FINALLY: Y’ALL COME DOWN VISIT
“We invite Your Excellency to visit us at any time in this Vally of the Blessed Sacrament, Jemez Springs, New Mexico.”
**********
NOTE FROM KAY: I'm swamped at work, working double shift so I can take time off next month and go to Chicago. So all this week, I'm doing a Renovation Nation tape, a Hulk Hogan Celebrity Wrestling tape, and then scanning a document, one after the other over the next week. . . onward.
*****
By Kay Ebeling
We will continue to scan and upload Paracletes Documents at City of Angels 11 over next week, then leave them here for the next months.
Add the letter on the right in with Island Letters from a previous post. Here we see the Paracletes have to get rid of the Island of Tortola, where they have sent problem priests to keep them away from the public. Dated November 1960. (Click to enlarge and print)
The second page, 1960 technology photocopy is at right. Father Gerald worked hard to establish these colonies to keep the pedophiles away from parishes, but by 1960 he was losing to a secular AA 12 step influenced form of treatment.
********************
Fitzgerald Pioneered Direct Mail Marketing sending letters to Archbishops All Over The Country about the Paracletes and their work with Problem Priests
********************************
April 9, 1950 Letter from Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald to Bishop Charles Buddy of San Diego is at right, click to enlarge and print.
This is a fundraising letter for the already thriving Via Coeli treatment center for priests with problems including sex with children. It states they are treating priests "from more than 35 dioceses and 9 religious orders."
***********
The word "homosexual" in a 1950-60's letter between priests does not mean what the word means to us today.
*****************
In letters from the 1950s and 1960s concerning Servants of the Paracletes, the "padres" often use euphemisms. “Psycho sexual problems” was an official term, but it was agreed (in other documents here) that “homosexual acts” included pedophilia.
And they were likely sex acts with children if they also involved the poice and criminal charges.
April 9, 1950 letter Quotes of Note:
Our institution is in no way Diocesan or provincial, and, due to the charity of our ecclesiastical superior, priests are received here from all over the country.
Demonstrates how they kept the Servants of the Paracletes work secret from parishioners and lay members of the churches.
Fundraising appeals were direct to the bishops. This letter was most likely typed and retyped, with a different address put in at the top, then the generic greeting and content of letter.
The April 1950 letter was likely sent to bishops all over the country since it states they are treating priests "from all over the country."
Hard to believe the bishops and their nearby colleagues did not know about pedophilia amidst all the fund raising and promotional work of Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald.
'nother quote from the letter:
“Hence this direct appeal to the Hierarchy for donations to build and equip a proper, modest monastic retreat house unit.
AND AGAIN proving the work of Paracletes with problem priests was no secret from church hierarchy, from April 9, 1950 letter:
"At the present moment we have priests at Via Coeli from more than 35 diocesses and archdioceses and from 9 religious communities."
**********
The June 1953 Letter
***********************
June 21, 1953,Letter at right, (click to enlarge and print) another fundraising appeal as: “where else shall we find means to care for these most abject and despised of men.”
Another national appeal to bishops “all over the country” to “All the Archbishops” including another invitation to visit and tour.
Again, how can bishops claim they had no knowledge of priest pedophiles when Fr. Gerald, as he pioneered direct mail marketing techniques, bothered them for donations regularly, and reminded them of the Servants of the Paracletes work.
QUOTES
from the June 21, 1953 letter.
Fitzgerald is
ASKING:
“Of the Archbishops and Bishops of our country: from the Archbishops and the Archdioceses of America a yearly donation.”
“Last year less than half the Hierarchy gave anything directly to this apolstolate of priestly succoring."
FINALLY: Y’ALL COME DOWN VISIT
“We invite Your Excellency to visit us at any time in this Vally of the Blessed Sacrament, Jemez Springs, New Mexico.”
**********
NOTE FROM KAY: I'm swamped at work, working double shift so I can take time off next month and go to Chicago. So all this week, I'm doing a Renovation Nation tape, a Hulk Hogan Celebrity Wrestling tape, and then scanning a document, one after the other over the next week. . . onward.
*****
Monday, June 16, 2008
LA PROOF: Ties between St. John Seminary, LA Archbishop, & Paracletes rehab center for pedophile priests shown in deposition testimony & letters
*****
By Kay Ebeling
The bishops claim times were different back then, how could they know about pedophile priests? Truth is in the 1960s Timothy Manning, Archbishop of Los Angeles, was sending so many priests to Via Coeli in New Mexico, (in photo below right), he was talking with center director Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald about opening a branch of the rehab center near Los Angeles.
Fitzgerald's assistant, Fr. Joseph McNamara, even made a trip to San Bernardino to meet with Bishop Phillip Straling about opening up such a branch.
Below, McNamara testifies for the LA Clergy Cases about the relationship between the LA Archdiocese and Via Coeli in a June 2007 deposition. He confirms he and Father Gerald took bishops from all over the country on tours of the rehab center. Also below, Letters from 1959 and
1960 reveal a regular conversation between hierarchy "padres" about the pedophile priest problem in the LA Archdiocese and at St. John's Seminary in Camarillo Ca. (A young McNamara is pictured at right.)
Click the docs here to enlarge, read them, print them, there are more to come next week from this Paracletes Collection. You should be able to print a copy of the enlarged docs for yourself from your screen.
How about if 50 or so activists print these and other particularly condemning documents and take them to the US congressional offices in our regions? We can use this blog as a platform to make sure people all over the country have a collection of items. This calls for a concerted organized effort, if anyone is getting concerted and organized. In 2009, when the new US Congress begins, we could all go on the same day and drop a stack of docs on our local US representatives' desks and say, We Want a Federal Investigation We Want Hearings.
That is just one idea. Please, click the docs, read, and cogitate, then email me with ideas:
Page 2
Page 3
\
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
***********
THERE’S MORE:
READ the First Kenneally letter below:
The above letter from William J. Kenneally to James Francis Cardinal McIntyre, then Archbishop of Los Angeles (April 6, 1959, date of this letter) significant because it references Via Coeli and conversations between McIntyre and Kenneally, who was Rector of St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, California, at the time.
Yes, St. John’s Seminary, where future pedophiles were trained by practicing pedophiles, and later turned loose on the Southern California population as parish priests.
QUOTES OF NOTE FROM THE April 6, 1959 Kenneally letter above:
“A recent letter from a priest guest at Via Coeli informs me that they have begun a series of informal lectures there for padres. I do not know whether there is any information between this fact and our recent conversations, but I thought Your Eminence might like to know this fact.”
Reveals that the Archbishop of LA and the Rector of St. John's seminary discussed priests with sexual problems and treatment at Via Coeli in 1959.
Also in the above letter they discuss a pedophile priest Cleve Carey, from the era. We have the Rector of St. John’s Seminary saying:
“Many thanks for deciding the case of MR. CLEVE CAREY whose scrutinium was somewhat uncomplimentary. Actually we felt the same about it as does Your Eminence.”
The Rector of the seminary and the Archbishop of Los Angeles here are talking over Cleve Carey, soon to become a pedophile priest.
And it's 1959!!!!
PROOF
The Archbishop of Los Angeles talked over Via Coeli including its tours with the Rector of St. John's Seminary. And wait until you see the Bishop Buddy letters about San Diego pedophile priests who went to Via Coeli, soon to be scanned for a post next week.
=========
BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY HAS THIS TO SAY ABOUT CLEVE CAREY:
Dead. Los Angeles. Accused of abuse between 1963-1966. Died 1988. LA archdiocese says 2 accusers. Named in at least 1 civil suit.
This is from the LA Times database in bishop accountability:
(Note seven transfers since the Rector of St. John's Seminary and the Archbishop of Los Angeles discussed him in 1959 in the same letter where they discussed Via Coeli.)
FATHER CLEVE W. CAREY
Diocese
Status: Dead
Named in civil lawsuit and in archdiocesan report.
Assignments
1961-63 St. Barnabas Catholic Church Long Beach
1964-66 St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church Gardena
1967-67 St. Kevin Catholic Church Los Angeles
1968-70 Holy Cross Catholic Church Los Angeles
1971-71 St. Luke Hospital Pasadena
1972-74 Little Company of Mary Hospital Torrance
1975-76 St. Frances X. Cabrini Catholic Church Los Angeles
1977- Retired
Lawsuits
Each entry represents an allegation of molestation of one plaintiff at the location. Some plaintiffs have accused a priest of sexual misconduct in more than one parish or other location.
1958, 1963-66 St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church Gardena
1963-64 St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church Gardena
1963-64 St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church Gardena
1964-65 St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church Gardena
************
Something tells me there are more victims of Cleve Carey.
************************************
AND THERE'S MORE DOCUMENTS HERE:
Read the back and forth between Kenneally and Gerald Fitzgerald in the 1959 letter below:
In the 2nd Kenneally Letter, (at left) we have a banter about AA, and how it calls, “unscientific and outmoded the good old fashioned sensible petition of the Church. Interesting because it shows the friendship and closeness between Kenneally and Fitzgerald.
But the letter (Page 2 at left) also reveals the chism Fitzgerald was beginning to feel as the new secular approaches came in and made his treatment techniques, which were based on prayer and the spirit, seem to be outmoded.
The letter above left shows a pretty close friendship between Fitzgerald and the Rector of St. John’s Seminary, and open talk about the treatment at Via Coeli.
In 1959!!!
==============
IT DOES NOT STOP:
August 1960 letter below from Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald to "Very Reverend Provincial"
QUOTES:
“In God’s Name, get this man laicized as quickly as possible.”
“Men who sin repeatedly with little children certainly fall under the classification of those who ‘it were b better had they not been born.’
“As a layman, the civil authorities will make short work of his activity and place him in the protective custody that his type merit.
“As there are many little children in this Canyon, where I am the shepherd of souls, I could not in conscience consider receiving him here.”
August 1960 letter to Provincial is below:
ABOVE: In God's Name get this man laicized.
Could they have been talking about Titian Miani?
***********
THERE's MORE
*****************
Coming next week, the San Diego Bishop Buddy letters and a variety of new items to read about Servants of the Paracletes and the pedophile priests who found solace and succor there hiding from the laity in New Mexico . . .
By Kay Ebeling
The bishops claim times were different back then, how could they know about pedophile priests? Truth is in the 1960s Timothy Manning, Archbishop of Los Angeles, was sending so many priests to Via Coeli in New Mexico, (in photo below right), he was talking with center director Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald about opening a branch of the rehab center near Los Angeles.
Fitzgerald's assistant, Fr. Joseph McNamara, even made a trip to San Bernardino to meet with Bishop Phillip Straling about opening up such a branch.
Below, McNamara testifies for the LA Clergy Cases about the relationship between the LA Archdiocese and Via Coeli in a June 2007 deposition. He confirms he and Father Gerald took bishops from all over the country on tours of the rehab center. Also below, Letters from 1959 and
1960 reveal a regular conversation between hierarchy "padres" about the pedophile priest problem in the LA Archdiocese and at St. John's Seminary in Camarillo Ca. (A young McNamara is pictured at right.)Click the docs here to enlarge, read them, print them, there are more to come next week from this Paracletes Collection. You should be able to print a copy of the enlarged docs for yourself from your screen.
How about if 50 or so activists print these and other particularly condemning documents and take them to the US congressional offices in our regions? We can use this blog as a platform to make sure people all over the country have a collection of items. This calls for a concerted organized effort, if anyone is getting concerted and organized. In 2009, when the new US Congress begins, we could all go on the same day and drop a stack of docs on our local US representatives' desks and say, We Want a Federal Investigation We Want Hearings.
That is just one idea. Please, click the docs, read, and cogitate, then email me with ideas:
Page 2
Page 3
\
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
***********
THERE’S MORE:
READ the First Kenneally letter below:
The above letter from William J. Kenneally to James Francis Cardinal McIntyre, then Archbishop of Los Angeles (April 6, 1959, date of this letter) significant because it references Via Coeli and conversations between McIntyre and Kenneally, who was Rector of St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, California, at the time.
Yes, St. John’s Seminary, where future pedophiles were trained by practicing pedophiles, and later turned loose on the Southern California population as parish priests.
QUOTES OF NOTE FROM THE April 6, 1959 Kenneally letter above:
“A recent letter from a priest guest at Via Coeli informs me that they have begun a series of informal lectures there for padres. I do not know whether there is any information between this fact and our recent conversations, but I thought Your Eminence might like to know this fact.”
Reveals that the Archbishop of LA and the Rector of St. John's seminary discussed priests with sexual problems and treatment at Via Coeli in 1959.
Also in the above letter they discuss a pedophile priest Cleve Carey, from the era. We have the Rector of St. John’s Seminary saying:
“Many thanks for deciding the case of MR. CLEVE CAREY whose scrutinium was somewhat uncomplimentary. Actually we felt the same about it as does Your Eminence.”
The Rector of the seminary and the Archbishop of Los Angeles here are talking over Cleve Carey, soon to become a pedophile priest.
And it's 1959!!!!
PROOF
The Archbishop of Los Angeles talked over Via Coeli including its tours with the Rector of St. John's Seminary. And wait until you see the Bishop Buddy letters about San Diego pedophile priests who went to Via Coeli, soon to be scanned for a post next week.
=========
BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY HAS THIS TO SAY ABOUT CLEVE CAREY:
Dead. Los Angeles. Accused of abuse between 1963-1966. Died 1988. LA archdiocese says 2 accusers. Named in at least 1 civil suit.
This is from the LA Times database in bishop accountability:
(Note seven transfers since the Rector of St. John's Seminary and the Archbishop of Los Angeles discussed him in 1959 in the same letter where they discussed Via Coeli.)
FATHER CLEVE W. CAREY
Diocese
Status: Dead
Named in civil lawsuit and in archdiocesan report.
Assignments
1961-63 St. Barnabas Catholic Church Long Beach
1964-66 St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church Gardena
1967-67 St. Kevin Catholic Church Los Angeles
1968-70 Holy Cross Catholic Church Los Angeles
1971-71 St. Luke Hospital Pasadena
1972-74 Little Company of Mary Hospital Torrance
1975-76 St. Frances X. Cabrini Catholic Church Los Angeles
1977- Retired
Lawsuits
Each entry represents an allegation of molestation of one plaintiff at the location. Some plaintiffs have accused a priest of sexual misconduct in more than one parish or other location.
1958, 1963-66 St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church Gardena
1963-64 St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church Gardena
1963-64 St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church Gardena
1964-65 St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church Gardena
************
Something tells me there are more victims of Cleve Carey.
************************************
AND THERE'S MORE DOCUMENTS HERE:
Read the back and forth between Kenneally and Gerald Fitzgerald in the 1959 letter below:
In the 2nd Kenneally Letter, (at left) we have a banter about AA, and how it calls, “unscientific and outmoded the good old fashioned sensible petition of the Church. Interesting because it shows the friendship and closeness between Kenneally and Fitzgerald.
But the letter (Page 2 at left) also reveals the chism Fitzgerald was beginning to feel as the new secular approaches came in and made his treatment techniques, which were based on prayer and the spirit, seem to be outmoded.
The letter above left shows a pretty close friendship between Fitzgerald and the Rector of St. John’s Seminary, and open talk about the treatment at Via Coeli.
In 1959!!!
==============
IT DOES NOT STOP:
August 1960 letter below from Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald to "Very Reverend Provincial"
QUOTES:
“In God’s Name, get this man laicized as quickly as possible.”
“Men who sin repeatedly with little children certainly fall under the classification of those who ‘it were b better had they not been born.’
“As a layman, the civil authorities will make short work of his activity and place him in the protective custody that his type merit.
“As there are many little children in this Canyon, where I am the shepherd of souls, I could not in conscience consider receiving him here.”
August 1960 letter to Provincial is below:
ABOVE: In God's Name get this man laicized.
Could they have been talking about Titian Miani?
***********
THERE's MORE
*****************
Coming next week, the San Diego Bishop Buddy letters and a variety of new items to read about Servants of the Paracletes and the pedophile priests who found solace and succor there hiding from the laity in New Mexico . . .
Proof: Bishops knew about pedophile priests as far back as 1950s and worked to keep the problem secret. Documents here, click to enlarge
By Kay Ebeling
The documents below prove the Catholic Church hierarchy knew pedophile priests were a problem as far back as the 1950s. Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, director of Via Coeli in New Mexico, (pictured at right) realized after years of treating sexually deviant priests that there was no “cure” and wanted to put the predator priests on a remote island where they could do no damage. He pled his case to bishops all over the country with personal visits and correspondence back and forth, some of which is scanned in below. But a growing belief in 12-step programs and surprisingly secular treatment concepts defeated Fitzgerald. Via Coeli instead in the sixties began treating pedophile priests as men with “issues” in need of talk therapy.
In the meantime, not only did the church know about pedophiles, they had more knowledge about pedophilia than the general public. Bishops and other hierarchy destroyed documents and worked to keep Via Coeli and its work with problem priests secret from the general public, all the while sending pedophiles and other sexually deviant priests to Via Coeli, beginning in the 1950s, as these documents prove.
What I hope is something gets done with this information. My idea is a group of us from as many regions as possible, print out these documents. Then all on us the same day, with word going out to the press, carry these documents into our local Congressional district offices, hand delivering them to our congressmen across the country all on the same day.
TO DEMAND FEDERAL INVESTIGATION
As a group all on the same day, we’d deliver the docs to local congressional offices and ask for a federal investigation and hearings.
That's just one idea.
I hope people will read this post and email me at cityofangleslady@yahoo.com with feedback about ways to use this material.
The post in its entirety will stay at city of angels 11 (linked at left) so as more posts go up here at City of Angels 4, you will be able to easily access this post in the next few weeks at City of Angels 11.
This is a long post with only a sampling of the documents from a lawsuit against the Paracletes in 2007 in New Mexico, which were released to the public last year, see the court order scanned in the June 7 post at city of angels blog below.
The story begins with Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants Motion in Limine to exclude reference to Servants of the Paracletes is the LA Clergy Cases, quoted here:
“Defendants (the church) take the position that they were blind to the warning signs and nature of pedophilia, because in the past, when the abuse of plaintiffs occurred, times were different. They (Church attorneys) have stated that the Salesians, like the public at large, were unaaware of the epidemic of clergy sexual abuse.
The evidence developed . . . demonstrates that the Catholic Church was well aware of the problem of clergy sexual abuse before and durign the time plaintiffs were sexually abused. In fact the Catholic Church were in fact experts in the problems of pedophilia priests and the recidivist nature of pedophilia.”
Read the documents. They show that Fr. Fitzgerald was a lone voice, calling out in letters, personal visits, even magazine articles to bishops from the time of the mid-1950s. Pedophile priests cannot be returned to the parishes. They should be put on a remote island. Fitzgerald was just beginning to develop this
ABOVE: Gerald Fitzgerald met with Pope Paul VI in 1963 to discuss the pedophile priest problem.
*****
In August 1963, convinced that pedophile priests posed a serious problem for the Catholic Church, Father Gerald Fitzerald traveled to the Vatican, met with the Pope and discussed treatment of pedophile priests at Via Coeli, documented in the letter to Pope Paul Page 1 at right, pages 2 to 5 following (click to enlarge). A quote from Page 1 of the letter from Father Fitzgerald to Pope Paul:
“In accordance with Your Holiness’ desire I am summarizing some convictions on the problem of the problem priests."
Quote of Note from Page 2 below: “Unfortunately there is an understandable temptation to consider the brilliant student as adequate for the priesthood without a deep scrutiny of his interior spirit. 3.) There has been an alarming increase in the present era of priestly casualties. . . the present conditions could have been easily predicted and are not in themselves surprising."
Page 3 to 4
Personally I am not sanguine of the return of priests to active duty who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young. (ME: Remember this was 1963 from the head of the Parcletes to the Pope after they’d met and discussed problem priests.)
Page 4
Because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicization. I say 'total' designedly because when these men are taken before civil authority, the non-Catholic world definitely blames the discipline of celibacy for the perversion of these men. They argue - rightly or wrongly - that these men turn to boys because they are denied the right of marriage.
***************
"I Myself In Audience With Pope, Spoke Of This Matter"
*************************
September 1964, Fitzgerald was still following up on his audience with Pope Paul, here with a letter to a superior in the Paracletes in Rome, like so many letters, trying to convince that pedophiles were permanently sick, not to be returned to parishes:
QUOTES:
On Page one at right: “3. I myself in an audience I was privileged to have with His Holiness, Pope Paul, spoke of this matter which undoubtedly has been one of the deep concerns of his fatherly soule.
Page 1-2 “4. May I take this occasion to bring to your attention what is a growing concern to many of us here in the States. When I was ordained, forty-three years ago, homosexuality was a practically unknown rarity.”
(NOTE: The word "homosexual" was at that time lumped into the same category as sex with male adults, teenagers and children, as shown in other documents from this June 4 load..)
He says 3 of 10 cases in 1964 are “representing aberrations involving homosexuality, a growing problem “in the wake of World War II.”
ALSO ON PAGE 2 of the 1964 Durick letter:
“We know of several seminaries that have been deeply infected and this of course leads to a wide infection.”
******
AFFIDAVIT OF FATHER JOSEPH McNAMARA begins at Left. McNamara took over as Director when Fitzgerald was forced to step down.
“We considered men who were attracted to male children, teenagers, or adults as ‘homosexual priests.’”
“When talking among ourselves, we used the term ‘homosexual’ (to describe priests with ‘psycho-sexual difficulties.’
“Until Servants of the Paraclete adopted the graduated program of rehabilitation proposed and recommended by Dr. John Salazar, SOTP did not deal with priests who had molested children or priests who manifested any form of what we considered to be sexual aberration.
We did not think of sexual activity with a male, whether a child, a teenager, or an adult, to be the result of a biological or psychological condition.”
SHOWS THEY LUMPED HOMOSEXUALITY AND PEDOPHILIA WITH BOYS IN ONE CATEGORY:
Over and over again
Bottom of page 3 to page 4
(8) “Prior to the adoption of the graduated program of rehabilitation, If we learned that a resident who had been sent to Via Coeli Monastery for a different reason, such as alcoholism, was ‘homosexual’ - attracted to male children, teenagers, or adults, he would be told to leave immediately
“9. Father Gerald thought that such priests -- meaning priests attracted to male children, teenagers, or adults -- should be completely segregated from society, and consequently wanted a remote ‘island refuge’ far from civilization and a monastery would be established and such men could live and try to save their souls.
“Servants of the Paraclete could not keep guest priests there, as if it were a prison. Similarly, Servants of the Paraclete could not assign guests priests to duties in parishes or dioceses, either temporarily or permanently.
Whether a guest priest performed any priestly duties or activities in parishes was entirely up to others, as whether a guest priest performed any priestly duties or activities in parishes was entirely up to others, as were questions about how, when, where, and under what circuere questions about how, when, where, and under what circumstances such duties and activities would be performed.
*******************************************************
September 26, 1957, letter from Father Gerald to the Bishop of New Hampshire, below,
In context with other documents, the letter shows in 1957 Fitzgerald did not want to return these priests to active duty as "Their repentance is superficial and motivated by a desire to be again in a position where they can continue their wonted activity."
"A new diocese means only greener pastures."
"To sum up: we are willing to shelter Father but it should not be with any hope that he will be recommended to another bishop even after he has spent some months with us.
"Even though it is true that many Bishops, especially in the West, are in need of priests."
ABOVE:
In 1971 Bishop of Worcester wrote that David A. Holley's history gave "little hope for his being able to resume an effective ministry for a long time, if ever." The history was molesting boys. 1971. The bishop of Worcester wrote about it to Via Coeli below:
Here is what bishop accountability reports about Holley:
Abused in Massachusetts and sent to Paraclete center in New Mexico for treatment. Convicted 1993 of abusing 8 boys between 1972-1974 in Alamogordo, NM. 275-year sentence. Many victims in many states including 2 dioceses in Texas.
=================
Quotes from 1952 letter by Fitzgerald below:
“We find it quite common, almost universal with the handful of men we have seen in the last five years who have been under similar charges - we find it almost universal that they seem to be lacking in appreciation of the serious situation."
"As a class they expect to bound back like tennis balls on the court of priestly activity. I myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest, upon objective evidence, for tapering with the virtue of the young.”
“In practice real conversions will be rare.
Many bishops believe men are never free from the approximate danger once they have begun.”
THE ABOVE LETTER proves 2 things: Fitzgerald wrote long letters to individual bishops explaining the lack of a cure for pedophilia. Also that the topic of priest pedophiles was discussed among bishops, with Fitzgerald’s phrase: “Many bishops believe men are never free from the approximate danger.”
Apparently Edmund Boyle was at large: “If Edmund Bolye returns here or we learn of his whereabouts we will notify Your Excellency.”
=====================
PROGRESS REPORT on BERNARD BISSONETTE: Listed here as a "Code 3" resident at Vie Coeli.
Bishop Accountability Also Has A Listing For Bissonette in the database under B:
Worked in Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico. Accused of abuse of numerous youths just about everywhere he served. One alleged victim committed suicide. Another victim filed civil suit 2002 and in July 2006, Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the suit was timely filed and sent it back down to lower court to be tried. Laicization announced in 3/06
ABOVE: Progress Report and samples of 2 re Bissonette
******************************************************
********************
Fitzgerald was a promoter, and he advertised, phoned, visited bishops telling of Via Coeli treatment for pedophiles et al.
THE ISLAND LETTERS
********
By 1957 Fitzgerald did not want to treat pedophiles any more at Via Coeli but preferred to buy an island and put them as far away from civilization as possible.
Quotes: In September 18, 1957 letter below: “To Archbishop and Co-Fonder” (Possibly a letter that was reproduced and sent to many different archbishops)
“For the sake of preventing scandal, we will not offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls.”
“It is for this class of rattlesnake I have always wished the island retreat - but even an island is too good for these vipers.”
“When I see the Holy Father I am going to speak of this class to His Holiness.” Which he did, in the Pope correspondence shown in the letter at the top of this post.
To Set Up An Island:
This Class Of Rattlesnakes:
**************
IN ADDITION:
It’s like pulling teeth, but at left in a May 11, 2007, deposition McNamara does admit that there were tours of the Paracletes’ Via Coeli in the 1950s. Bishops from all over the country would come and have a seminar on priests’ sexual problems, which did include “sexual impropriety.”
Pages 90 and 91 are on the left, click to enlarge and read the deposition. It takes two pages of transcript but McNamara admits there were seminars and tours for bishops in the 1950s. McNamara worked alongside Fitzgerald and took over as Director of Via Coeli when Fitzgerald was forced to step down.
Below in Fitzgerald's Own Hand:
=================
September 26, 1957, letter from Father Gerald to the Bishop of New Hampshire, below, left and right, pages one and two (Click to enlarge).
In context with other documents, the letter shows in 1957 Fitzgerald did not want to return these priests to active duty as "Their repentance is superficial and motivated by a desire to be again in a position where they can continue their wonted activity."
"A new diocese means only greener pastures
pastures.""To sum up: we are willing to shelter Father but it should not be with any hope that he will be recommended to another bishop even after he has spent some months with us.
"Even though it is true that many Bishops, especially in the West, are in need of priests."
***************
From Christ the King Seminary in New York to Father Gerald at left, documenting a phone call, shows that bishops were communicating with Fitzgerald on a casual personal, friendly basis about their problem priests.
Bishops knew who Fitzgerald was and what he was doing at Jemez Springs with pedophile priests as far back as 1959, as we see in this phone memo.
The memo above follows up on a phone call to Jemez Springs about Robert John Smith, saying there had been “complaints by some parents” It’s dates September 11, 1959.
Robert John Smith, pedophile priest apparently came to Jemez Springs after that phone call. Here is all we have in bishop accountability (so far) about Robert Smith pedophile priest:
Seminarian. “Accused of abuse. Died 1987 Santa Fe. New Mexico. Source: Albuquerque Journal 3.20.98
===================
FATHER GERALD was ever a promoter. At left we see a letter that was apparently mimeographed (It was 1957) or typed over and over with carbon paper and sent to Archbishops and cofounders. Since everyone knows what he's talking about, he only uses code words.
In the above left letter Gerald Fizgerald writes to an anonymous Archbishop or Cofounder:
"It is for this class of rattlesnake I have always wished the island retreat."
Fitzgerald is planning to see the Pope:
"When I see the Holy Father I am going to speak of this class to His Holiness."
He did meet with Pope Pius VI in 1963, unfortunately, the Pope he's been speaking with for years, Pope John, had died one month earlier.
*************
The Salesian Connection
****************************
At left, click to enlarge)
Q: All right, as you sit here today, are you aware of any Salesian priest or brother ever being referred to the Servants of the Paraclete?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell me what decade that individual was at the Servants of the Paracletes?
A: There was one in Jemez when I was a novice in 1970 and there was one in St. Louis when I was there in the
'90s and there was one in Jemez that I -- those are the three I remember.
Q: But he predated 1970, correct?
A: Yes.
Page 83-84, the witness is quick to answer that
the priest was treated for schizophrenia, no objection from the church attorney.
However, when asked (p. 83 continued), "Do you know whether he had been accused at any time of having had sexual contact with children or teenagers?
CHURCH ATTORNEY JUMPS IN:
Objection. Lacks foundation, calls for speculation, hearsay and violation of the psychotherapy and clergy privileges and right to privacy.
Five grounds for objection.
But the church attorney had no problem with the witness saying the priest was schizophrenic. In that release of information that the priest had a major mental illness, no privacy violation in the preceding question, just the one about child molesting.
Church attorneys should be disbarred, the way they twisted law for archdioceses.
---------------
In God's Name Get This Man Laicized:
------------------------
August 1960 letter (right)
to "Very Reverend Provincial"
QUOTES:
“In God’s Name, get this man laicized as quickly as possible.”
“Men who sin repeatedly with little children certainly fall under the classification of those who ‘it were getter had they not been born.’
“As a layman, the civil authorities will make short work of his activity and place him in the protective custody that his type merit.
“As there are many little children in this Canyon, where I am the shepherd of souls, I could not in conscience consider receiving him here.”
=================
ARTICLE 1950s shows in house publications reported on the Servants. AND another common theme, the Servants DID NOT go to the laity for support. The Laity did not konw about the Servants, but the Bishops and Cardinals were Very Aware of Via Coeli and what type of priests were sent there.
*****************
There's More
***********************
As I go through more of this pile of docs, I'll put an announcement at City of Angels 4 that more are being posted. This post with all the documents will live here at the top of City of Angels 11 For a time.
More to come, literally. . .
The Catholic Church in New Mexico sent sick priests to do supply work regularly in the parishes within close driving distance of Jemez Springs.
Onward.
MORE DOCUMENTS HERE:
AND HERE
SALESIAN CONNECTION as it was cases against that religious order that produced these docs in the Los Angeles 2003 lawsuits.
.
THE L.A. Connection through St. John Seminary
MINUTES in this batch
LAST BATCH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)