Posted on 03/26/2011 12:59:03 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
At an intensely combative and vitriolic hearing Friday afternoon in a sex-abuse case that has shaken the Philadelphia Archdiocese to its core, a state court judge shocked one priest's defense attorney by disclosing that the government thinks he might be a witness as a former seminarian and could be disqualified from the case. The lawyer, who represents one of three current and former Roman Catholic priests charged with raping boys in their parish, fired back that prosecutors were being "anti-Catholic" and had uttered an "abomination."
Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes told defense attorney Richard DeSipio that she's received information that "might make you, in fact, a witness because of events that occurred while you were a seminarian."
The information "stems from the fact that you attended the seminary with a student who asserts he was abused," Hughes said, adding that DeSipio "may possess factual knowledge about abuse that occurred with that student."
She added that the substance of the claim that DiSipio witnessed something is still unclear. "I just don't know if it's true," Hughes said. "I really don't know if it's true."
Yelling and visibly upset, DeSipio demanded that the government, then and there, identify the source of the allegation. "Let them spill it out right now!" DeSipio demanded.
"How dare they send you a letter about that," DeSipio said, referring to the district attorney's office. "That's an abomination."
Prosecutors said only that part of DeSipio's seminary training overlapped with the tenure of a senior clergyman accused of endangering children by failing to protect them from priests with a known history of abuse.
Monsignor William Lynn, now pastor of St. Joseph Church in Downingtown, Pa., is reportedly the highest-ranking member of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States ever to be charged with child endangerment. Between 1984 and 1992, he served as dean of men at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Wynnewood, Pa., according to his biography on St. Joseph's website. As the secretary for clergy for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia from 1992 to 2004, Lynn acted as personnel director for priests. He is accused of ignoring reports of abuse, covering up for them and putting children in danger.
"They are anti-Catholic. I'll say it," DiSipio fumed. "[The district attorney is] attacking me as a Catholic!"
The judge rejected DiSipio's claim. "Attack you? You attacked me! You don't even know me!" Hughes said, referring to a prior argument over the necessity of a preliminary hearing, another hotly contested issue Friday afternoon.
"Mr. DeSipio, I suggest you shut up," Hughes said. "People are coming from out of the woodwork [to provide information to the commonwealth.]"
If the government can prove the allegation is credible in 30 days, DeSipio will be disqualified as the archdiocese's attorney.
"You can change lawyers now, you can change lawyers in 30," the judge warned DeSipio's client, the Rev. James Brennan. "[But] there are some conflicts that are not waivable."
DeSipio argued that the 30-day investigation was "really unfair to Father Brennan," given his mounting legal costs.
Judge Hughes was livid that DeSipio spoke up again. "If you open your mouth one more time I am going to have the sheriff take you out of here," she told DeSipio.
As DeSipio continued to argue, Hughes said she might have him "locked up and held in contempt." Instead she issued a gag order, responding to what she observed as attorneys having "gone to the airways to advocate."
"No more interviews with anyone," the judge ruled.
"Does that include the DA going on Chris Matthews' 'Hardball' and going to the New York Times," defense attorney Michael McGovern asked.
The judge responded affirmatively: "I don't want tweets. I don't want Facebook. I don't want IMs [instant messages]."
Hughes said the court will revisit the gag order on April 15, when defendants are to be arraigned. That date also marks the deadline for the DA to provide the defense with the first batch of discovery, she said.
All but one of the defense attorneys challenged the government's amendment to its case, which added a conspiracy charge that had not explicitly been requested of the grand jury.
"The issue here is that if the DA seeks to amend, it has to be subject to some sort of prima facie determination," the defense argued.
The judge found otherwise, ruling that the commonwealth established "good cause" in its pleadings and that "there is no constitutional right - federal or state - for a preliminary hearing."
It was "a technical error on the commonwealth not to charge conspiracy" originally, Hughes said. "Conspiracy is made," and the defendants will not be afforded a preliminary hearing, she ruled.
Hughes said there was abundant evidence to support the amendment.
"I'm the only person, besides the prosecutors, who has seen every stitch of evidence," she said.
Defense attorney McGovern argued that her admission was precisely the problem.
"Your Honor, this is patently unfair!" McGovern said. "You know the evidence. They know the evidence. I don't know what the evidence is! I haven't seen any!"
The attorney said proceeding to trial without a preliminary hearing was like saying, "Let's have a dart game in a dark room."
"What kind of country is this where we have this?" he shouted.
The judge yelled back, baring her teeth: "You sit down! Sit, sit, sit!"
DeSipio agreed with McGovern that their clients deserve a preliminary hearing, which could allow them to confront their accusers.
"There's no witness. I know that they [the prosecutors] don't like that he's in jail," DeSipio said. "This accuser says there was an erect penis in his buttocks."
"Was it in your buttocks, or was it in your anus," he asked rhetorically. "If that question wasn't asked [of the grand jury], and he didn't specify anus or butt cheeks, I have a right to ask that."
"What you can't do, and what I submit they're trying to do, is say just because we have a grand jury, we have good cause [to by-pass a preliminary hearing]," DeSipio said.
The judge also addressed a potential conflict of interest concerning Monsignor Lynn, who unlike the three current and former priests, faces child endangerment charges - not rape or sexual assault. Plans for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to pay Lynn's legal costs present "a whole array of conflicts that I can't even imagine at this point in time," Hughes said.
"It's real simple," the judge said to Lynn, who was donning his clerical collar, "your master is the person that's putting bread on the table."
"It may be in your best interest to put forth a defense that attacks other people [or the church]," Hughes said.
She told Lynn he was putting himself in the position of receiving "advice from people who are being paid by people whose interests don't necessarily align with yours."
The stakes of this gamble could amount to "14 years of incarceration versus probation," she said.
Lynn, in a calm voice, declined. "Well, I trust these two men." he said, adding that the church hadn't placed any conditions on the payment of his legal costs.
Hughes was incredulous. "You are making a knowing, voluntary and intelligent decision to place yourself in conflict with your attorneys?" she asked.
"I am," Lynn responded, waiving his right to any future appeal based on the argument that his attorneys had a conflict of interest.
"Then we're moving forward," the judge said.
After arraignments and release of the first batch of discovery, which will include grand jury notes and testimony, on April 15, the government will begin putting together a second batch. The government said that batch would take longer to produce, as it will include roughly 10,000 pages of documentation, much of which will need to be redacted.
Hughes said the government must give the defense a specific timeline for the production of the second batch. "There has to be some finality," she said.
In January, a grand jury returned an indictment for rape and sexual assault against one current priest, one defrocked priest and one man who taught at a Catholic school. Monsignor Lynn, the third cleric who worked for the archdiocese as secretary of clergy, is accused of giving known abusers easy access to minors.
***I’m sure that the answer would be predestined***
Do you still support child molesters?
Doc E: No, it doesn't take long at all.
Since you are so interested in my surfing habits, let's see just how long it take.
Open Firefox, which has Google News set as my home page. 2 seconds.
Type the term "Catholic Priest" 2 seconds
Hit enter. 0.5 seconds.
Wait for results. 1-2 seconds.
Wow, that took all of 5.5-6.5 seconds!
Note how dangus is resorting to the "It's the evil MSM that is casting Catholicism in a bad light" defense.
Most often we see the "consenting teenage boy defense" or the "gay priest defense*". It is good to see a Roman Catholic dust off another equally lame defense every once in a while.
*Implies that gay men dress in priestly garb and just show up in a parish; ignores the obvious fact that they were ordained by the Roman Catholic church!
| OPC/PCA preaching hatred against Pentecostals | from the OPC doctrinal website{the OPC} sharply contradicts the view popularized today by the neo-Pentecostal movement. In essence this view would have us believe that we can have the same charismatic gifts that we read about in the age of the Apostles - such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing - today. |
| OPC/PCA preaching hatred against Lutherans | "The liberal church teaching of free will has infected the Lutherans, too, in contradiction to what Martin Luther taught from Scripture" by an OPC poster: |
| OPC/PCA preaching hatred against Pentecostals and Methodists: | From the opc doctrinal website:. Are Arminian (Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptist etc) preachers heretics? yes"we see the inherent Satanism of Free-Will Arminianism" (accusing Methodists, Pentecostals, etc. who disagree with Calvin of preaching a gospel of Satan |
| OPC/PCA preaching hatred against Methodists | "John Wesley preached Universal Infant Damnation for unbaptized infants -- which is unsurprising, because Wesley preached the Gospel of Satan" by a PCA poster |
| OPC/PCA preaching hatred against Judaism | Acording to the OPC "Christians should not celebrate the Seder or other Jewish festivals. " |
| OPC/PCA preaching hatred against Pentecostals and Catholics together as targets of the OPC/PCA message of hate | The PCA view: "This goes to what the Reformers taught; that is the "enthusiasts" or what we call today Pentecostals, are really no different from the Roman Catholics." |
| OPC/PCA preaching hatred and evil against Christians martyred by Moslems in the Middle East | This man followed the wrong teachings of Rome and we know what happens to such people. Heaven is for the elect. |
| preaching hatred against the Eastern Orthodox | Insinuating that the E. Orthodox are not helping others in Japan |
| preaching hatred against Adventists | The Adventists are a cult that is as dangerous as the Jehovahs Witnesses or the Mormons |
| revealing their true beliefs that Christianity means only Calvinism and only their particular brand of Calvinism |
|
Why does your group keep doing this, Dr. E, Gamecock, Alex?
Isn't this litany of hate preached weekly at the OPC/PCA groups -- right, Alex, Game, Dr. E?
Since you repost anything any liberal media outlet says as long as it fits in with your antiCatholic agenda, you repeat liberal lies and mischaracterizations (e.g. the Second Amendment Foundation's being smeared by the Examiner newspaper) and you wave liberal claims around as truth without any data to back them up, I am not sure that you have any conservative credentials. If you don't have any conservative credentials based upon your postings, then no, we don't question something that does not exist.
More importantly, we all know who is losing...
I am more than willing to discuss factual material. I will not accept material which "overlaps" but is based upon no data and no methodology. If I came to my Vice President with figures based upon the Washington Times reference to the Pew reference to an unknown group's claims, I'd be fired on the spot. Let's have a real study with data that can be independently analyzed and in which the methodology can be evaluated for bias. Otherwise we wind up with miracle informercials and cold fusion posing as truth.
Did Algore like that big smoochy wet kiss you gave him?
If you have a scientifically accurate survey, put it forth and we can discuss it. Otherwise, they are just claims.
RCs have a lot of trouble making connections, drawing conclusions, conceptualizing ideas, etc.
Your excellent question deserves an answer. So far, nada.
_________________________________
Innuendo should be called out to honesty. The Truth can stand and defend itself.
For more than the fourth time, claims of religious affiliation without any data; and these unsubstantiated claims are repeated third hand by the Washington Time. Bring out a scientifically accurate survey and let's discuss it.
Do you still support child molesters?
Never have, never will. And I'm sure that you were predestined to ask this question.
Actually, Dr. Eckle should tell us why 75%+ of the OPC voted for Obama. Why? If she wants to bring out a scientifically accurate survey of her small (10,000 or so adults) group — it should be easy. Hark to it, Doc.
The Pew Survey in its site map has a listing for its data sets and I believe the CUNY survey does describe its methods.
I saw nothing in either about any Washington Times nor did I see any reason NOT to accept their results as anything other than what they were represented as...a survey with the stated and inherent limitations of such.
If you think both surveys are of no value, well, so be it. My reason for posting them was to give everyone interested a reference to go to and that only since I’m not in this spitting contest.
You must have a hard time understanding a rather simple concept. When someone lies, they are the one supposed to apologize, not the other way around.
Here's a link again to the original statement:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2695139/posts?page=650#650
Notice the quotation marks before "As" and after "So..." Stop claiming I never did anything to show it was Hoss's quote, when I clearly used a common quoting convention. If you had trouble with the concept of quotation marks within quotation marks, you could have easily made one click to 614, where you would have seen which ones were Hoss's words. Are you going to apologize for repeatedly making the false claim that I never did anything to show I was quoting anyone, for repeatedly quoting me out of context to make it look like I never used quotation marks, and for falsely accusing me of having some photobucket incident?
You're really silly if you think people won't notice that you're quoting me out of context, because I can easily link back to the post in question.
| 2009 membership | 2010 membership | Lost | Gained | |
| PCUSA | 2,934,952 | 2,844,952 | 90,000 | |
| PCA | 335,000 | 340,000 | 5,500 | |
| OPC | 21,123 | 21,530 | 407 | |
| Disappearing Presbyerians | 84,100 |
ok, then kindly explain why 75%+ of the OPC voted for Obama? Got any official OPC website to give an explanation?
Apparently you don't, since the reality doesn't match your memory.
What was Quix???? You were posting the photobucket pixs.
False again. I HAVE NEVER HAD A PHOTOBUCKET INCIDENT ON FREE REPUBLIC. The argument was between Quix and Titanites.
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.