Posted on 05/26/2004 6:42:10 AM PDT by sidewalk
Ultimatum sent in bishop probe Albany -- Investigation leader rejects "town meeting" with attorney, offers last chance to meet
Mary Jo White gave John Aretakis a polite ultimatum Tuesday to basically put up or shut up by Thursday, or she will have to conclude "regretfully" that he has declined to participate in her investigation of Bishop Howard Hubbard.
White's declaration is the latest in an unusual series of public missives between the former federal prosecutor and the combative lawyer whose clients' claims of sexual misconduct prompted the probe of the longtime church leader.
Last week, White declined Aretakis' request to meet with him publicly yet did acquiesce "reluctantly" to his demand that she interview his clients, Andrew Zalay and Anthony Bonneau, with media present.
So White said in a letter to Aretakis she made public Tuesday that she's disappointed to hear he is now claiming she agreed to a "town meeting" type of public forum between them.
She also questioned his subsequent request to schedule the meeting on June 12 to accommodate his service on a Manhattan criminal grand jury panel.
Aretakis was sent a note on May 21 confirming the former agreement, White said.
A copy of it was released to reporters.
"We have made every effort to accommodate the various, and changing, conditions you have set," White said, indicating that she doesn't believe a public interview with Aretakis that doesn't include his clients does anything to further the investigation.
Further, she said: "We continue to believe it is inappropriate to publicly discuss the investigation before it is concluded."
Zalay, of California, is the brother of Thomas Zalay, an Albany man who died after setting himself ablaze in 1978 at age 25 after an alleged relationship with Hubbard.
Bonneau, 40, of Schenectady alleges the bishop paid him for sex in Washington Park when he was a teenage runaway.
Hubbard has denied ever having sex or breaking his vows of celibacy.
Repeating the offer to meet privately with Aretakis at any time, including nights, weekends, in New York City or Albany, White added, "Postponing any meeting to mid-June, as you proposed last evening, is an unnecessary delay, especially given our willingness to meet with you outside of normal business hours."
Aretakis restated his argument that White's legal duty to protect her client outweighs her claims she represents the diocese's Sexual Misconduct Review Board, not the bishop.
"He pays the bills," Aretakis said. "What it comes down to is Mary Jo White is afraid to meet with me. She should fear the questions she knows I will ask her about the ethical and legal obligations we have toward each other."
That is also why Aretakis said he can't hand over any of the original documents implicating Hubbard of wrongdoing that White wants to have tested for authenticity.
Among them is a suicide note Zalay allegedly typed that outlines his feelings about his relationship with the bishop.
"Does anyone think Mary Jo White would open her files to me?" he asked.
White continued, however, to urge Aretakis to comply with the request.
"We have yet to hear a cogent argument from you or anyone else why a determination by an independent laboratory that the original note is authentic hurts your client," she stated.
Terming White's position "a very expensive publicity stunt" in a statement he released several hours before her e-mail to the media, Aretakis said he is still willing to meet with White, "but only if it is open to everyone."
Welcome to the real world Mary Jo. I don't know why she thinks the lawyer for the alleged victims would want to meet with her, or to contribute to whatever agenda she has - whether a whitewash or even a legitimate investigation.
I would assume he is saving his arguments and evidence for court. It doesn't seem to me that he should be interested at all in bad mouthing the Bishop unless there are attourney fees involved.
Why does she fear the light?
Regardless of the motives/lack of of the players in this sordid melodrama, if Bishop Hubbard was a priest he would have been removed from his ministry immediately and left to languish until he was proven innocent. Thank God for Hubbard that the Dallas Charter exempted the hierarchy from that sort of distasteful display.
This is her best excuse? Many high profile inqueries are done in public, Warren Commission, 9/11 Commission etc.
Her statement here is evident that she is only serving the interest of her client Hubbard, who does not want open questions in public.
Whitewash's investigators also cut short the "meeting" at the VA hospital that one time when the camera was rolling. They are the ones who have something to hide.
What a farce and a shame.
He requested a meeting after White publicly stated that Aretakis was the only person in the investigation who refused to answer her initial invitation.
I would assume he is saving his arguments and evidence for court.
There's no "court." Both of Aretakis' clients made their claims after any statutes of limitations had expired.
It doesn't seem to me that he should be interested at all in bad mouthing the Bishop unless there are attourney fees involved.
Aretakis is grandstanding for possible other clients. He hasn't made a dime off suing Hubbard, and he's clearly angry about it.
Aretakis is the one who looks like an idiot. He has no court cases, his clients have no facts to support their contentions, and he wants to turn the tables on White. What she has or does not have is none of his business, unless he wants to share in her fees.
Johnny boy wants to conduct a trial in the press because he can't legally conduct one in a courtroom.
You have it backwards sinky. Aretakis could sit on those suicides notes and the typewriter till the cows come home or when the time is right. He has no use for Whitewash. She is the one desparately wanted to "clear" her client, by way of under the table "investigations".
Why would he do that?
This ambulance-chaser's reputation is in tatters.
If he had the goods on Hubbard, he would have produced them by now.
He's got nothing.
If you're talking about the suicide notes from 30 years ago, the DA has already looked at them, and said their veracity cannot be proven. And, anyway, there's no court case possible, since the statute of limitations has run out.
Aretakis got nothing ??? LOL
If that is the case, then Whitewash would not worry about it, except I bet she IS worried about it not so much because she knows by now Hubbard is lying, but it will make her look bad down the road.
As Aretakis so correctly pointed out, Whitewash's legal obligation is to serve her client who signs the check, and not to out him. Her clear conflict of interest renders her "investigation" far from impartial.
The best thing Whitewash could do to save herself is to resign.
There is no statute of limitation on Murder.
You are lost, sinky. Anything to spin to protect your AmChurch proxy Hubbard who staunchly supports a sodomite clergy. You have no shame.
The shyster has been bellyaching about Hubbard for years. Now, with the chance to tell his side of the story, he dallies, and wants to turn it into a sideshow.
You don't know what White knows, but one thing is for sure: Aretakis won't have a case to make if he refuses to talk to her.
White will issue her findings, and that will be it. Meanwhile, Aretakis is still throwing stuff against the wall, desperate to find something, anything, that will stick.
One of their family members posts here, and has never posted anything that can be verified.
Further, DA Paul Clyne is still mum on the "cause of death" of Fr Minkler. Clyne has just about as much credibility as you do, which is in the negative.
If you really want to use the term shyster, it's best to apply it to Fr. Ken Doyle, Hubbard's right hand man and Minkler's supposed "friend".
Aretakis has as much as he is willing to answer to the public in an open forum, whereas Whitewash doesn't want to deal with anything in public except spinning.
Bonneaus have no case? Only according to you and the corrupt DA Paul Clyne.
Live witnesses is direct evidence. Try spinning that.
He knows that a public forum will enable him to attempt to discredit White, which is what he wants to do.
She won't bite.
Bonneaus have no case? Only according to you and the corrupt DA Paul Clyne.
Well, if Clyne won't take the case, (and, apparently no DA has taken the case for fifty-one years!), then the Bonneaus have no case.
Do not attempt to put words into Whitewash's mouth even. She claimed she is only interested in getting to the bottom and find truth. Yet she does not want to face questions or even have some of her questions answered in public. That's double talk.
Any DA who does not want to investigate a murder case when live witnesses are available is corrupt, and so are you, to defend him.
You are shameless with your spins, sinky.
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.