BishopAccountability.org
	Right to Sodomize Children in Private Not Guaranteed by First Amendment No Matter What Salesian Society Lawyers Try to Say By Kay Ebeling City of Angels May 1, 2008 http://cityofangels4.blogspot.com/2008/05/right-to-sodomize-children-in-private.html The Salesians write: The Society objects to the term sexual misconduct on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and on this point I agree with the defendants in the upcoming jury trial in LA. In fact all the terms used so far about crimes committed by pedophiles in the guise of Catholic priests have been too vague and ambiguous. It was sodomy on 6 year olds, drugging 8 year olds so that a few priests could rape them on film, using the once blessed sacraments and other elements of the Catholic Church as trappings to snare children and betray their families. Sexual misconduct implies pinching in the lunch line. Just as "Total Outrage" is what I felt when I read this by the defendants, "#14 FIRST AMENDMENT: The Society objects to each request to the extent that it infringes the free exercise of religion in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution and Article 1 Section 4 of the California Constitution." HOW DARE THEY equate protecting information in the personnel files of pedophile priests with the basic American right of worshiping God in the way you believe. Theres a hearing Monday afternoon on the motion that produced the 14-plus objections, Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel further responses and production of documents. Plaintiffs also request documents of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles in the motion that will be heard May 5 at 2:00 pm in Superior Court Department 308. I'm beginning to think the Salesian defense team is really an enemy cell planted here disguised as defense attorneys, their mission: to file motions and affect law and slowly destroy the very laws and freedoms which hold the United States of America together. Did any of these guys ever take a Civics Course, US Government 101? SAY IT LIKE IT IS: There were pedophiles among the priests and brothers, openly pursuing and ruining the lives of children, without interference, over a lot of years and the other priests and brothers knew about it and did nothing about it. Plaintiffs write they seek Evidence of other Salesian priests and brothers molesting minors, and evidence of the Salesians having notice of those priests and brothers molesting. ---------- In other words there were a lot of them doing it and a lot of them knew about it. =============== Plaintiffs continued: The perpetrators have no right to sexual privacy in illegal sexual conduct. The perpetrators cannot reasonably expect their privacy rights in personnel records to overcome the compelling interest in disclosing allegations of childhood sexual abuse. The First Amendment DOES NOT prohibit the production of these documents. Plaintiff Motion to Compel Continued: In the archbishops own 2004 Report To The People Of God the archbishop admitted that victims made accusations against at least 8 Salesian priests and brothers working in the Los Angeles area. BR. MARK EPPERSON BR. ANTHONY JUAREZ FR. LARRY LORENZONI BR. ERNEST MARTINEZ FR. TITIAN JIM MIANI BR. RALPH MURGUIA BR. JUAN SANCHEZ BR. JOHN VERHART On December 19, 2007, plaintiffs served on the Salesians a request for production Set No. Five requesting the production of personnel and confidential files on these eight priests. January 24 2008, plaintiffs served on Salesians a request for production of business records on the archbishop for files on three of these priests Lorenzoni Miani Juan Sanchez February 21, 2008, Salesians served objection to the deposition subpoena on Fathers Lorenzoni, Miani, and Sanchez. February 4, 2008, Lorenzonis attorney PAUL GASPARI served objection to Lorenzoni deposition subpoena ---------- ME: Consider the environment the Salesians created at its schools. With all the pedophilia rampant there, if Salesian managers didn't know they are just as guilty as if they did know. It's inexplainable negligence either way. HOW COULD THEY NOT KNOW IT WAS GOING ON!!!!????? =============== There was a brotherhood of pedophiles operating out in the open and everyone knew about it and now they are trying to squelch it The Salesians Society, a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church is audacious enough to do do this tap dance in a public courtroom IN FRONT OF JUDGE EMILIE ELIAS Who Got To Meet Tom Cruise!!!! Found this about the judge in the upcoming Salesian trials: Shes a USC Law School Grad class of 1970, so either shes even older than I am or she was a child prodigy who went to college at 12. I thought she was younger than me. My lifestyle really played out on my face. December 2001: Hollywood film star Tom Cruise dropped a $100m lawsuit against publisher Michael Davis after a retraction, which was approved by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias. Cruise said he was "pleased" after a publisher retracted his claim to possess a video tape showing him engaged in homosexual acts. Hmm, the decision in the Tom Cruise case was made in chambers, not in open court, by Judge Emilie Elias. Uh-oh, Im in trouble. Judge Emilie Elias also ruled in favor of a SLAPP motion: ruling that two bloggers posting lies on a website were Cyber terrorists -- causing financial harm to a corporate entity even though they did not stand to benefit financially. ----------- Am I causing financial harm to the LA Archdiocese with my blog? Am I a cyber terrorist in this judge's eyes????!!!! ================ "BULLETIN: Los Angeles Superior Court, June 18, 2003: The alleged cyber terrorists Ian Leicht and Sayyed Bashir were handed a resounding defeat from Judge Emilie Elias this morning as she ruled against Leichts SLAPP motion to quash the lawsuit against them by Wellington Burke." I am not a cyber terrorist. But I'm not going back to jury selection. . . Except maybe Friday afternoon to get blasted and roll around the aisle in my blue chair. All I write is what they say in open court. I cant help it if it makes them look like fools. Onward. . .
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.