BishopAccountability.org
	Did Brown Really Want to Clear Name? Bishop's Contempt Hearing Is Off By Frank Mickadeit Orange County Register November 29, 2007 http://www.ocregister.com/column/contempt-court-andler-1931347-hearing-callahan When Bishop Tod Brown appeared in court on Oct. 9, his lawyer, Peter Callahan, insisted Brown wanted to stand before Judge Gail Andler and clear himself of contempt-of-court charges. Well, that's not going to happen. Andler canceled the Dec. 3 hearing after the monetary part of the molestation lawsuit was settled. Just why and how that came to pass is the subject of debate. Clearly, it was Andler's final decision to make – but would she have done so if Callahan had been as insistent before the court last week as he was on Oct. 9? Let's review. Victims' attorney John Manly had filed the contempt motion, alleging Brown violated a court order by sending Monsignor John Urell to Canada last summer to keep him from having to testify in the molestation case then pending. So on Oct. 9, the day the $6.7 million settlement was verbally agreed to in court, the contempt issue was also addressed. "He's here to answer the claims of contempt against him," Callahan told Andler as the bishop stood at his side. "… We are here today for a decision by you." To what must have been Callahan's and Brown's shock, Andler said that, procedurally, she couldn't rule on the contempt allegation then. Instead, she set the Dec. 3 hearing. As I wrote at the time, that would allow Manly to essentially put on a mini-trial of the bishop's behavior with none of the risk a real trial would have for his clients. In fact, the $6.7 million was to be paid the victims by Nov. 20. But collecting wasn't easy. According to Manly, in the weeks after the Oct. 9 hearing, the diocese refused to pay because Manly insisted on including language in the final settlement document asking Andler to hold the contempt hearing Dec. 3 anyway. Callahan told me yesterday that even though the bishop still wanted to have the hearing, the official court form allows for no such addendums. Manly, of course, disagrees and says the bishop had simply realized the Oct. 9 pronouncement about clearing his name "was a P.R. stunt gone wrong" and was looking for a way out. He says his office tried to get Andler to take up the issue separately but she wouldn't hear it. So late in the day on Nov. 20, with no time left, Manly said he reluctantly signed a standard form that called for a total dismissal of the case. A court spokesperson confirmed this is what Andler saw. "It was up to the judge to decide whether to proceed (with the contempt hearing anyway)," Callahan said. "If she wanted to we were ready to. … It sounds to me like the judge thinks there is no merit in this." And that could well be, because even though the two lawyers didn't address the contempt issue in the dismissal form, it's not like Andler would have forgotten it. Or maybe she just didn't want to be put in the position of holding one of the county's religious leaders in contempt. We'll never know. What we do know is that while the bishop no longer faces the possible jail time that would come with a conviction, neither will he ever be able to clear his name in a court of law or the court of public opinion. Callahan chewed on me a little yesterday. "You're going to spin this (story) the way you want anyway," he said. I've tried to present both sides, but I can't deny I'm skeptical about the bishop's supposed desire to face a contempt hearing. See, when I'd asked Callahan about whether he could amend the official court dismissal form to include a request for a contempt hearing, he had said in a patronizing tone, "You mean is there a place where you can put a little asterisk?" He chuckled, as if talking to an imbecile. "You can't do that. The request-for dismissal form cannot be modified." So I downloaded the very form he cited: CIV 110. (Look it up at www.accesslaw.com.) One part says, "To the Clerk: Please dismiss this action as follows:" It then asks the attorneys to check a series of boxes as to whether they want to dismiss the whole lawsuit or just parts of it. And the last box, No. 6, is a beautiful little thing, a box marked "Other (specify)." And right next to that is an asterisk, a beautiful little thing in its own right, and then next to that, boy howdy, some white space to accommodate at least a sentence or two. Seems it might be a place that a learned attorney could write a plea to a judge about an innocent man's continued desire to clear his name. Almost like it was put there for that very purpose. Contact the writer: Mickadeit writes Mon.-Fri. Contact him at 714-796-4994 or fmickadeit@ocregister.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.