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.
That and the rest of your post is your opinion.
What FACTS stated in those studies are you questioning specifically?
None, apparently, since I've asked you for them a half dozen times and you haven't been able to offer anything.
Do you doubt that the U.S. is over 50% Protestant and 24% Roman Catholic?
Because that was the statistic I cited in each of those studies you're questioning.
Individual FReepers.
On this we can agree.
Since there aren't any scientifically proven facts, for the reasons given several times over, I am questioning the entire study.
None, apparently, since I've asked you for them a half dozen times and you haven't been able to offer anything.
And I've supplied the reasons to you and to the RF as many times. Come up with a scientifically accurate survey, or use the one I suggested if you'd rather. I don't really care. Facts are facts. Your opinion, or those of yet another liberal website, are not facts. Bring some facts, if you can. Anything else is simply your opinion, regardless of grand mal seizures waving Pentecostal prayer hankies and declaring victory.
I wasn’t aware of the rule change when I posted that.
I’m going to have to go back and examine the change.
No one said the rules have changed.
They might be being clarified.
What you posted is correct, with the addition of the word “FReepers.”
I’m going to have to go back and examine the change.
I think I'll repeat this, just so none of us is confused -- the rules have not changed.
Do you agree or disagree that the United States is 50% Protestant and 24% Roman Catholics?
I guess I’ll have to check back on the other thread then.
Just pointing out another absurdity of a Calvinist POV: God’s not satisfied with damning a person before the beginning of creation, but after the person is dead, he’d have to resurrect him and tell him, “I’m going to punish you in hell forever because you perfectly—though you had no choice—followed the plan I set out for you since before the beginning of the world, all for my good pleasure and greater glory.” That’s just perverse piling on. And again we have to ask, “Glory before whom?” If all is created by God and determined by God, then there is no other “who” before whom glory, to whatever degree, is to be manifest and no context within which glory would even have any meaning. The whole thing is nothing more than an audience of one, the sound of that one’s hands clapping. Even Zen makes more sense than that.
Just pointing out another absurdity of a Calvinist POV: God’s not satisfied with damning a person before the beginning of creation, but after the person is dead, he’d have to resurrect him and tell him, “I’m going to punish you in hell forever because you perfectly—though you had no choice—followed the plan I set out for you since before the beginning of the world, all for my good pleasure and greater glory.” That’s just perverse piling on. And again we have to ask, “Glory before whom?” If all is created by God and determined by God, then there is no other “who” before whom glory, to whatever degree, is to be manifest and no context within which glory would even have any meaning. The whole thing is nothing more than an audience of one, the sound of that one’s hands clapping. Even Zen makes more sense than that.
Agree or disagree with whom? You? Or your ONE study that you have linked to from several different sites that gives no substantiation of its data? Bring me a scientifically accurate study or use the one I suggested and we can discuss facts, not your whims or wishful thinking.
Can we just get a simple, straight answer from you or is that impossible?
Do you agree with those statistics or don't you? If you disagree with them, please provide supporting data.
You've only posted links to a single study. Are you unable to find another one?
Dozens of studies and encyclopedias and almanacs and websites and government agencies show that the United States is 50% Protestant and 24% Roman Catholics?" If you are a veteran writer for a newspaper, tell me what the question mark and open quotation marks mean. Is this a statement, a quotation, or a question?
Can we just get a simple, straight answer from you or is that impossible?
You haven't asked me a simple straight question thus far.
Do you agree with those statistics or don't you? If you disagree with them, please provide supporting data.
These are not statistics. They are figures that you claim without substantiation - all from a single source that has no substantiation. Dispense with your dozens of sources until you actually state what they are. Otherwise, you are pulling your figures from the same orifice that you pull your theology.
Bring me a scientifically accurate study, or use the one that I mentioned, I don't care which. Until you do, your figures are not to be considered statistics, nor are they data. They are simply unproven, unsubstantiated, and to all intents and purposes, fictitious. I don't have to disagree with them. You presented them, you prove them. Don't look at me to do your homework for you.
If I propose something, I have to prove it. Same goes for you, regardless of whatever your age or the state of your faculties. Do you wish to provide proof for your claims or do you wish to continue claiming unsubstantiated statements as facts?
Interesting. And, of course, the self-proclaimed, self-saved individuals who demand that God honour their self-salvation find nothing wrong with this scenario - as long as they can self-determine that they are all saved and everyone else can just go to hell.
And again we have to ask, “Glory before whom?” If all is created by God and determined by God, then there is no other “who” before whom glory, to whatever degree, is to be manifest and no context within which glory would even have any meaning. The whole thing is nothing more than an audience of one, the sound of that one’s hands clapping. Even Zen makes more sense than that.
Applause. I had not heard it put quite this way before. From the times that I had strapped on my figurative gas mask, my metaphoric environment suit, and connected up my spiritual breathing supply and waded through the Reformed swamp, in my pursuit of learning about the nonChristians in the world, I must admit that this is a rather good, concise and meaningful description of Reformed theology.
Nah, I was gone for a week. Went to Dollywood on vacation.
I lean more toward Glennfiddich or Jameson :>)
Welcome back. Hope Dollywood was lots of fun.
Not much of a fan of country music. The kids liked it, and the grandson loved the rides.
I posted several links and several studies and several sources, all in agreement with the statistics I posted.
They all confirmed that 50% of the U.S. is Protestant and 24% of the U.S. is Roman Catholic.
If you’re unfamiliar with this fact, even after being shown this valid statistic dozens of times now on the forum, none of us can do much more to aid your comprehension.
You posted several links to the same flawed study. Of course they all agreed.
If you have no scientifically accurate study or are unable to find one, I would be pleased to suggest the CUNY study, or if you don't like that, then what remains is your opinion of a single flawed study whose figures are unsubstantiated. You keep posting about all these dozens of studies, but you don't actually post what they are. It's like your thousands of supposed Catholic links that publish all kinds of unChristian stuff, but in the end, all you have is a Jewish mystic web site that doesn't even pretend to be Catholic. It's a lot of fun here, good Doctor. It's not even that difficult to debunk all the antiCatholic and antiChristian lies, and it is soooo easy to pull all the pagan beliefs off the OPC website, like I did today to prove that the OPC does not believe in the Nicene Creed in toto, only little snippets, much like their belief in the Bible and sufficiency of Scripture - only little snippets forced together in a blender and strung together in very very unChristian fashion.
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.