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.
Actually that is what Michael Servetus overheard Calvin saying, and what he really was burned at the stake for.
Do you think they will try the insanity defense and say they are demon possessed. So they can avoid jail time with the other perverts, do you think they will say one good exorcism and they will be fine and ready to assume their assigned duties?
I doubt it; they are not leftist like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is, as evidenced by its chief proselytizer on this thread.
But what would the RCC official say? Hmmmm The demons in the possessed priests made him do it; otherwise. they would attack him, also? Or they don't remember? Or the victims are lying? Gee, so many options. The truth isn't an option because then they would have to pay the consequences of their crimes - and then all that work keeping it hidden is lost. Does the Vatican ever open their own jail for these failed catholics and criminals to society?
Nope, we just watch as they construct their Crystal Cathedrals, and Bob Jones Universities, and sell hankies and prayer wheel monologues in tents. Over the last 2000 years, we've seen 'em come and seen 'em go. The only question is when will they actually go, and how much destruction will actually occur during their demise.
Are these crimes and sins worthy of excommunication? Of is that only for law abiding members for not obeying heresy teaching?
Matthew 9: 9 5 6 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the customs post. He said to him, "Follow me." And he got up and followed him. 10 While he was at table in his house, 7 many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples. 11 The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher 8 eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 12 He heard this and said, "Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. 9 13 Go and learn the meaning of the words, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' 10 I did not come to call the righteous but sinners."
My own personal desire is that all the self-proclaimed Bible Believers (tm) actually pick up their Bibles, drop the blinders from their eyes and receive the Grace of God and understanding of His Word, and also His word. I have seen many of your posts and I do not believe, just as in this example, that the word of God seems to mean anything more than a cudgel to you, that you may bash others.
Luke 7: 36 10 11 A Pharisee invited him to dine with him, and he entered the Pharisee's house and reclined at table. 37 Now there was a sinful woman in the city who learned that he was at table in the house of the Pharisee. Bringing an alabaster flask of ointment, 38 she stood behind him at his feet weeping and began to bathe his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the ointment. 39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner." 40 Jesus said to him in reply, "Simon, I have something to say to you." "Tell me, teacher," he said. 41 "Two people were in debt to a certain creditor; one owed five hundred days' wages 12 and the other owed fifty. 42 Since they were unable to repay the debt, he forgave it for both. Which of them will love him more?" 43 Simon said in reply, "The one, I suppose, whose larger debt was forgiven." He said to him, "You have judged rightly." 44 Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? When I entered your house, you did not give me water for my feet, but she has bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You did not give me a kiss, but she has not ceased kissing my feet since the time I entered. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with ointment. 47 So I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; hence, she has shown great love. 13 But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little." 48 He said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." 49 The others at table said to themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" 50 But he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
I will ask this generally; do you have saving faith? How many of you reading this thread have faith anywhere near as great as this woman? How do you show it?
RCs have a lot of trouble making connections, drawing conclusions, conceptualizing ideas, etc.
Your excellent question deserves an answer. So far, nada.
Yeah, I do. It’s a perfect example of the Holy Spirit working through sinful humans, just how He does with the Catholic Church.
Easy there, your hatred is seeping through.
Probably not.
RCs have a lot of trouble making connections, drawing conclusions, conceptualizing ideas, etc.
Your excellent question deserves an answer. So far, nada.
Ding, ding, ding. You have won the jackpot of the troika of idiocy. First, you champion a false survey, then you claim that the Second Amendment Foundation used the term "Inconvenient Truth" and now you can't even tell the difference between a statement and a question!!! Please, please, Dr. E., tell me why you are getting everything you touch so bone achingly wrong time after time after time. If it is indeed old age, please let us know and we'll make allowances for age-onset dementia.
1. beliefs - as stated in the Nicene creed.
2. by your love or lack of, for God and neighbor.
3. by your forgiveness of others that wrong you.
4. by performing good works not done to make yourself look good.
5. by belief in Christ.
6. And "All of these and more is required of Christians who would be saved by Jesus to eternal salvation."
I assume by more you mean belief in all Roman Catholic doctrine (Marian, Papal, purgatory, forgiveness at confession, etc..).
That's a pretty tall order with requirements that make the pharisees look like libertarians.
I’m not judging - get to know the Truth. The catholics IGNORANCE to the obvious goes along with the heresy teachings they are fed. I’ve seen plenty of your posts with judging to the endth degree and their ‘crime’ was - they weren’t catholic. Seems crimes against society and covering them up aren’t bad enough to reach your ‘judging’ stage but it sure does when it comes to NOT being a catholic.
Grow up and stop protecting and ignoring the evilness that is within the RCC. And being concerned for ALL the victims seems too hard for catholics to even focus on - they’re probably seen as the enemy and only looking for a payday.
Of course he doesn't. That's why He doesn't speak through the OPC or whatever church you belong to, whether it be a church with multiple people or the First Church of Presently No Screen Name. But, let's not try to limit the ways in which He works.
There is a good reason the Vatican doesn't want their subjects to speak to non-Catholics
Subjects? Huh?
That's why the RCC is a dead church and why so much evil permeates within it.
Is "the RCC" the church you belong to?
It's not rocket science to understand that.
To you, understanding the Catholic Church must be like rocket science.
I assume by more you mean belief in all Roman Catholic doctrine (Marian, Papal, purgatory, forgiveness at confession, etc..).
That's a pretty tall order with requirements that make the pharisees look like libertarians.
Let's just stick with the words of Jesus for now (and the occasional helpful verse from the Epistles and Revelation). I presented an incomplete list of instructions from Jesus to Christians. Are there any commands on that list that you deem to be extraneous?
Is truth hatred to you? You posted the picture, hat and all.
You're most welcome.
The funniest thing about this thread is that in the article the doofus defense attorney crabbed about the same thing -- "anti-Catholic."
You guys need a new drug. Everyone's out of step but Rome.
No, but you seem to have some aversion to it.
You posted the picture, hat and all.
Never denied that.
This identification was primarily to allow the "proper" Chaplain to serve the GI if circumstances allowed. In extreme circumstances any Chaplain, any faith, would assist the wounded.
The P Chaplain did not ask a wounded serviceman if he was Baptist, Methodist, or whatever. He was simply a P, a C, or something else.
Great recollection, Old Reggie.
IMO this preoccupation with "denomination" is a red herring. There are more than twice as many P's in the United States than C's.
AMEN! By the grace of God alone.
I am saved by the blood of the Lamb, Christ the propitiation for my sin.. Justified me before the Father ...not by my works but by faith through grace.. Christ my redeemer , I am bought with a price He paid..
I understand that you do not understand that Mark.. I know it seems like pride to you... but infact the real pride is found in those that think they can earn heaven, like a wage due.. Those that think they can in anyway please God or make penance for their offenses to the holiness of God..
I know that there is not one thing I can do to save myself.. I do not deserve the grace and mercy of God.. it is a gift.. One has nothing to brag about when they get a gift.. the gratitude and the praise is to the giver....
I could not earn it, I do not deserve it.. but I have it
I really hope you do someday to
There may be some truth to that statement.
Corapi didn’t accuse the woman of assault. The woman accused Corapi of assault.
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.