Posted on 12/16/2004 11:28:31 AM PST by nickcarraway
13 BY MR. MANLY:
14 Q. Good morning, Your Eminence.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. Your Eminence, have you ever been deposed
17 before?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. On several occasions; right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you understood the oath you just took
22 compels you to tell the truth?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Eminence, are you familiar with something
25 called the "Doctrine of Mental Reservation"?
0012
1 MR. WOODS: I'm going to object to the
2 question and instruct the witness not to answer.
3 BY MR. MANLY:
4 Q. Eminence, do you promise, regardless of any
5 obligation you have as a Father of Faith, that you will
6 testify truthfully, regardless if it's good, bad, or
7 indifferent for you or the case?
8 MR. HENNIGAN: We're going to stop this
9 deposition right now if you persist in this harassment.
10 BY MR. MANLY:
11 Q. Do you promise to tell the truth,
12 Your Eminence?
13 MR. HENNIGAN: He already did. Move on.
14 BY MR. MANLY:
15 Q. Eminence?
16 A. I already swore to that.
17 Q. Your Eminence, did you tell me when a priest
18 becomes a priest what obligations he has to his Bishop?
19 MR. WOODS: Object. Instruct the witness not
20 to answer.
21 BY MR. MANLY:
22 Q. Are you going to follow that instruction, Your
23 Eminence?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you tell me if a priest takes an
0013
1 obligation of celibacy?
2 A. Correct.
3 MR. WOODS: Object. Instruct the witness not
4 to answer.
5 BY MR. MANLY:
6 Q. And what is celibacy?
7 MR. WOODS: Object. Instruct the witness not
8 to answer.
9 MR. MANLY: On what grounds?
10 MR. WOODS: It's beyond the scope of the
11 deposition, as ordered by the Court.
12 MR. MANLY: Well, let me make an offer of
13 proof, Mr. Woods. Among other things in this case is
14 that the in my case and in numerous other cases
15 priests told victims that it was not a violation of the
16 vow of celibacy to, for example, masturbate or have sex
17 with them. So I want to have a clear understanding of
18 what that means. I don't think that's irrelevant. I
19 think it's clearly within the scope. And I would like
20 the witness, for the sake of the boys and girls this
21 happened to they deserve to have an answer to that
22 question.
23 MR. HENNIGAN: Why don't we stop this right
24 now and get an instruction from the Court.
25 MR. MANLY: Fine. We'll move on, and we'll
0014
1 call the Court at lunch, and we'll get an instruction.
2 MR. WOODS: The issue is not with the
3 perpetrator here. We're dealing with supervisory
4 authority. The only issues are notice and response.
5 Okay? Under the case law and under the instruction of
******
Good night, nurse! Incredible!
William Jefferson Cardinal Clinton????
"William Jefferson Cardinal Clinton????"
LOL!!!! Actually, I look at Mahony as the Chirac of the US Catholic Church! Chriac is one of very few that beats Willie in the smarmy department. Not by much, but a little.
I'm dumbfounded. They'd rather protect their hides than make confession and restitution.
You mean the badgering by the two lawyers for the plaintiffs, correct?
No questions asked for the purpose of eliciting facts in these few excerpts we are looking at. Just a little softening up before they get down to business.
See comments #5 and #3 - they put it better than I can!
The entire deposition is over 200 pages. If the lawyers know that a witness has been dishonest/equivocated before, I think it's fair that they have some leeway for these kind of questions.
Presuming, of course, that every allegation by every plaintiff is true.
And, believe me, I am no fan of the Cardinal.
The short excerpts we are looking at seem like pretty typical cat and mouse tactics by attorneys short on facts.
Or, they might not have had any better questions. I hope they got to some substantive questions at some point. If the old boy's been deposed several times already they aren't going to shake him with feigned outrage.
If the old boy's been deposed several times already they aren't going to shake him with feigned outrage.
I think they were trying to make sure he wasn't able to use some philosophical excuse for falsehoods.
There is clear proof that what he said in earlier depositions was false- including notes he wrote himself that contradicted his testimony.
Mmmmm. Mr. Manly didn't get an answer, did he? Just looks a bit weak, that's all.
I do hope every plaintiff with a legitimate cause for action nails the Cardinal to the wall.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.