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 would allow one person to control the thread just by being aggressive and rude and obnoxious, no matter who it is. That's not a good idea. It gives too much control and power to any one person.
I’m not so sure about Calvinists and members of assorted pseudoChristian religions, though.
Is that Calvinist bias? Or Protestant bias?
There is no anti-Catholic bias on the Religion Forum. If there were, there would not be more pro-Catholic RF articles than pro-any other belief.
Posters who are uncomfortable when their beliefs, deities or religious authorities are condemned or ridiculed should clearly IGNORE "open" RF threads and instead post to threads labeled "caucus" "ecumenical" "prayer" or "devotional."
That seems to be a good description of the current state of the religion forum.
Is that Calvinist bias? Or Protestant bias?
Both.
Debatable to say the least.
If there were, there would not be more pro-Catholic RF articles than pro-any other belief.
That's just explained by the fact that there are more Catholics than anyone else, and the fact that the bias is tolerated.
Posters who are uncomfortable when their beliefs, deities or religious authorities are condemned or ridiculed should clearly IGNORE "open" RF threads and instead post to threads labeled "caucus" "ecumenical" "prayer" or "devotional."
People would have no problem with that advice if the open threads were truly unbiased.
Appearances come from what you post, not just my particular point of view. I read no minds, only what you wrote, so kindly tell the witch hunt to stand down.
As for spell check: May God forgive us our transpositions as we forgive those who transposition against us.
What happened to personal responsibility?
She thinks she is a European judge.
These people love fighting battles for the left.
They’ll do anything to defame the Catholic Church.
It’s funny how they’d never trust newspapers like the New York Times, except when it comes to news about the Catholic Church.
If anything it is what also afflicts so many Protestant clergyman, and not just the TV evangelists.
Old Habits are hard to break.
I would like to add that I am not a mod either. I was kicked out of Mod School for sleeping in class, sort of “Mo Nods Means No Mods.”
Law should not be a cardinal. He should spend what remains of his useless life in prison. This fate is reasonable for anyone who did what he did.
There have been such evil behaviours far and wide, and even amongst the clergy--not limited to Catholics by any measure.
That does not make the actions of those individuals--especially as a breach of the faith they individually profess and the position they abuse--justifiable in any sense, nor does it mean that the entire body of the Catholic Church, throughout its history should be condemned by the actions of a few who abused their positions and the trust inherent in those.
There is no call for anyone to paint with a broad brush all adherents to the Catholic faith as if they were the ones who committed the acts in question, nor is such any more justifiable than the acts they decry. We all view those acts as abominable.
I think the conflict stems from blaming Catholicism and the Catholic Church for the actions of a few people, actions which are actually contrary to Catholic doctrine.
Until our Saviour returns, there will be evil afoot on this planet. It is up to us to individually choose whom we will serve.
I guess when one stands back it is easier to see that the usual suspects (in the media) are attacking, through their weapon of molding perception and fomenting emotion, the last formidable impediment to their agenda of homosexual normalization and beyond.
The Catholic Church has stood steadfast against homosexuality, homosexual "marriage", and other perversions, (which makes it a target), against abortion (still a target), and against sin in general.
The perception the Media give is that the Church sanctioned the activities of a few, and that those activities are widespread and extensive, without the perspective of comparison to other entities out there. This plays upon the emotions of those who justly attack the evil acts with vigor, but who are convinced by the bias of media coverage to attack the institution as well, even though the acts are grossly in violation of Church doctrine.
Of course those who desire to pervert humanity will do their best to not only destroy the Church in the media, but to sway as many against it by reporting the actions of a few (who have abandoned their faith while claiming to serve it) as if they were the norm, rather than an aberration.
The results of the perversion of the news are sad to behold.
Sure there is...And there's an anti muzlim bias...And there's an anti Jehovah Witness bias as well...
And there's an anti Arian bias...And an anti Albigensian bias...And there's an AnnaBaptist bias...And there's an anti Nestorian bias...And there's an anti Calvin bias...And we get anti Jewish bias too...
How many of those camps do you fit into???
Quit whining and try to act as an adult...
The perception the Media give is that the Church sanctioned the activities of a few, and that those activities are widespread and extensive, without the perspective of comparison to other entities out there. This plays upon the emotions of those who justly attack the evil acts with vigor, but who are convinced by the bias of media coverage to attack the institution as well, even though the acts are grossly in violation of Church doctrine.
The rest of the non Catholic world doesn't believe you...
When your popes, cardinals, bishops and priests start aiding law inforcement agencies to prosecute these criminals instead of hiding and shuffling them around to commit more heinous crimes, we then may take what you say seriously...
The rest of the non Catholic world doesn't believe you...
That would tend to support the above statement.
Thanks for this post and for #352 also.
You said it well.
Your words make common sense and a true sense of justice for all concerned—the need for right and just punishment for the guilty and also justice for all who are innocent, including priests who have remained faithful to their calling.
It’s over-the-top to paint all priests as homosexuals, as men who are not “normal”. That approach does take on the attributes of the kind of media smearing that is thrown at political conservatives. And it also “brands” all Catholic priests as predators, and all Catholics in the pews as defenders of predators. That is an injustice and a mirror of liberal tactics-—the smearing and the targeting of a particular people.
Yup.
The bias has been from FR’s beginning. And it’s above the RM’s paygrade.
It used to be EVEN MORE in favor of RC’s. They even looked like they were going to whine and it seemed like the whole of FR bowed and scraped before them.
EVEN NOW, STILL:
RC’s have several Proddy sites 100% banned.
Proddys have NO RC sites banned.
RC’s fairly easily have threads locked, and even pulled MERELY BECAUSE THEY JANGLE RC SENSIBILITIES.
PRODDYS DON’T.
RC’s relentlessly whine, wail, throw dust in the air in a relentless demonstration of thin-skinned outrageousnesses over very petty and within-the-rule stuff. And the exceedingly patient RM typically tolerates such wayyyy past sensibility, imho.
Proddys don’t engage in such. Our skins seem to be genetically thicker for one. And it’s not our style for the other.
RC’s have a seemingly organized knack, strategy for catching the RM off duty and leaning on evidently RC fill-in mods to delete posts, lock threads, threaten Proddys etc.
Proddys wouldn’t think of such skull duggary.
Soooooooooooo, what’s that again about
POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRR RC’s suffering unduly at the hand of Proddys or the RM on FR?
What a brazenly outrageous falsehood claiming the opposite of reality!
What duplicitous hypocritical wimps.
Maybe they are running out of those bulbs of sugar tied into a white hankies as comfort blinkies.
Or maybe their latest personal shipments of Linus white hankies purportedly from heaven are late and they are suffering withdrawals.
Or maybe they just feel like their usual contrarian selves !!!!DEMANDING!!!! that FR’s Rel Forum become a Vatican office managed directly from Rome.
What a sweet pack of outrageously hypocritical rabid RELIGIONISTS.
I’m curious . . .
At what point in the parochial school process do the students become willfully and utterly blind?
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.