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 want this to end, too. It’s not like I enjoy constantly correcting lies about me. I think that may be the plan: tire people out with having to constantly correct lies.
I saw the chart once before and I really didn’t see anything of importance to me in it. Maybe it has great significance to others but I have to say, with respect, “So what?”.
It seems that Christianity as a whole is threatened by the twin forces of Islam and humanist-secularism.
....kindly explain why 75%+ of the OPC voted for Obama? Got any official OPC website to give an explanation?
_____________________________
They did? Where does that information come from?
Yes...And? I mean that’s been going on for some time but I don’t think they will prevail.
So the chart is...is what?
Ask Dr. Eck. Do you know of any explanations given by the ruling elders or others?
The chart is showing how the pink brigade is destroying the PCUSA and how the ones leaving this sad group are leaving Christianity as a whole. This is the fate of the PCA and OPC
Surprisingly, I’ve been to those two places recently and no, that’s not quite the way. It’s already spread in the lowlands (Holland and Belgium) and the UK, Germany and Scandanavia. But it’s overplayed it’s hands in Spain — there is a strong adverse reaction building up. And even in horrible France in the south there is a reaction building up. Europe isn’t lost yet.
And what is bad is that we have a number of lefties aiming to attack Christianity one at a time. The OPC/PCA lefties are at it on FR and we see the attack on the PCUSA, ELCA, ECUSA, UM, Catholics etc.
I know. Dr. E. linked to the Washington Times article which has no methodology or data listing. In looking at the Pew information, the bias is evident to me. The CUNY is more rigourous and almost completly clear of bias. However, as an engineer, I am used to looking at data and analysing them to come up with a conclusion; I am rather against searching for unsubstantiated (as in the case of quoting from the Washington Times article which had no data attached or listed) claims which happen to fit a particular mindset or predetermined conclusion.
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.
Given the history of antiCatholic bias by the Pew group, and given that the original postings here were bereft of any data, any reasonable approach would be to ask for the data and methodology and examine their inherent biases and the effect upon the conclusions. That was not complied with; instead, there was a victory dance waving this heretofore unsubstantiated claim in the air and chortling unbecomingly.
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.
Oh no; I brought up the the CUNY poll, not as a champion of it, but rather as an example of rigourous polling procedures and accuracy in not only data acquisition, but in the final conclusions.
Let us look at the methodology between the two surveys:
CUNY: The first area of inquiry in ARIS 2001 concerns the response of American adults to the question: "What is your religion, if any?" This question generated more than a hundred different categories of response, which we classified into the sixty-five categories shown in Exhibit 1 below.
This is about as unbiased as you can get in leading off the survey. This is most likely to generate accurate data.
Pew: No question methodology listed anywhere on the Pew site that I could find. What were the questions and were they leading in any way? Don't know. From this alone, for me this invalidates the survey right off the start.
What do I mean by this? A very good British television program called Yes Minister has two government officials in conversation:
Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions
[survey one]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said, you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.
[survey two]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley: Yes. [does a double-take]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.
One of the biggest reasons that entities like Pew and Zogby are often so far off when they engage in, for example, surveys predicting elections which have a measureable outcome, is that they do not construct their surveys with an intent to report on reality; they attempt to influence reality with how they construct their surveys.
My only reason for posting on this particular thread in the first place was to question why increasingly hateful, venomous, contentious and embarrassing 'religious wars' threads are on FR at all any more. If anyone thinks they aren't divisive among freepers and getting more so, they should rethink.
I post frequently on the Lutheran threads where pertinent religious NEWS is analyzed and dissected....and the the discussions revolve around religious NEWS such as the liberal incursions into the various Lutheran synods. The threads NEVER descend into theological, internecine battles between the participants. I've NEVER seen turf wars, nastiness or ugliness on these threads even though there are a number of varieties of Lutheranism.
Since time and energy are limited, I prefer to expend these gifts in fighting the temporal enemies of the Republic on the NEWS pages of FR, not in fighting my fellow believers on the eye-glazingly-contentious religion threads.
However, it's not lost on me that the FR religious category seems to attract a core number of the good, the bad and the obsessive, so it's obviously popular in spite of (or maybe because of) the ugly infighting and attacks on each others' faiths.....and, because I'm a cupcake, I can only say to the perpetual combatants "go with God", to each his own, and enjoy whatever floats your ark.
Leni
So to me polls are what they are...If two or more come to the same conclusions...they’re either right for the same reasons or wrong for the same reasons. Whatever.
I think some heads just exploded at the whole concept of scientifically accurate. They have no frame of reference for that as it is way too close to asking for the truth.
I’m sure all those folks are well able to defend their faith and if not perhaps they should take time off FR and put their armor on and practice with their swords because the attacks here are a mere bagatelle, truly insignificant.
Or happenstance, within an estimated error.
I am partial to the CUNY study because of statements like this:
One of the distinguishing features of this survey, as of its predecessor in 1990, is that respondents were asked to describe themselves in terms of religion with an open-ended question. Interviewers did not prompt or offer a suggested list of potential answers. Moreover, the self-description of respondents was not based on whether established religious bodies, institutions, churches, mosques or synagogues considered them to be members. Quite the contrary, the survey sought to determine whether the respondents themselves regarded themselves as adherents of a religious community. Subjective rather than objective standards of religious identification were tapped by the survey.
This absolutely puts the control completely in the hands of the respondents, and leaves any outside influence or data out of the situation at all. The open ended opening question is about as unbiased as one can get in establishing the facts of those surveyed.
“Subjective rather than objective standards of religious identification were tapped by the survey.”
But here again, Is the subjective to be preferred to the objective? Is it more accurate somehow? It may be be one of a choice, perhaps a more objectively directed poll would yield different results to a degree.
Obviously self identification has its own bias built in.
I want it to end also - it’s a new day. But show me where you distinguished the words of others when you copied their words onto your post. No one would know they weren’t your words. And that’s the point of all of this. Being more careful could have prevented all of this. Thanks.
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.