BishopAccountability.org
	Plea from a Reader: What Are Real Names of Nuns Who Molested Me at New York Orphanage in 1960s? City of Angels August 3, 2009 http://cityofangels5.blogspot.com/2009/08/blog-post.html (Ken in San Diego was molested by 4 Catholic nuns in an orphanage in 1960s upstate New York, he writes in a letter featured today at City of Angels. Ken needs the female sex offenders' real names. Nuns change their names when they become nuns, so Ken is unable to pursue justice, because he has to know the birth names of the nuns, and the Church is not ... forthcoming. Even with editing, Ken's letters to City of Angels and others are shockingly angry, but we've learned that a lot of survivors of sex crimes in the Catholic Church end up walking through life in a state of justifiable rage. Here is Ken's plea for help from City of Angels to find the real names of the nuns who he says raped him:) I was molested in 1963-67 by Four Dirty, Filthy, Cruel, Wicked, Freaky . . . Sex Starved Catholic Nuns at Saint Josephs School / Church (585)343 6154 from 1963-67 at 2 Summit Street in Batavia, New York 14020. Now, I need the Nuns' real names so I can file an insurance claim. The Nuns' Fake Catholic Names are: Sister Mary Karen Not her birth name; Sister Mary Fitzgerald - Not her birth name; Sister Mary Evangelist - Not her birth name; Sister Mary Jacqueline - Not her birth name. Bishop Ed Kmiec and Cardinal Edward Egan of the Buffalo, New York, Roman Catholic Diocese, that refuses to give me these names and sisters' orders so I may file an insurance claim, are also Freaky and Sex Starved. What a Dirty, Filthy, Cruel, Wicked, Freaky, Creepy Catholic Religion that would allow this treatment. Men and Women Clergy that are not allowed to have Sex per some stupid man made rule took there sexual frustrations out on defenseless Minors. Ken Kosoirek, San Diego, CA Email: kenweld@san.rr.com ************** Ken says the church will not cooperate with him and tell him the name of the nuns and the religious order that served at the orphanage/ school where Ken grew up. Maybe a reader here knows something. ********************** SEE also our post last night: Monday, August 3, 2009 Vatican appeals John V. Doe vs. Holy See March decision, still Anderson prepares for discovery * Even though the Catholic Church appealed the Ninth Circuit Court decision from March 2009, which allowed a lawsuit against the Vatican filed by Jeff Anderson, Minnesota attorney, on behalf of a Portland Oregon plaintiff to go forward, Jeff Anderson said recently, "We are now amending the complaint and hope to start discovery soon. They did appeal what happened in the 9th Circuit last March." As the 90 day deadline for appeal approached, Law Office of Jeffrey S. Lena, filed Defendant Holy See’s opening brief, saying: “Corporations in the United States such as a diocese or religious order are not a 'foreign state' or an 'official or employee' of a foreign state.” The Vatican brief is quoted in depth in this post. You can easily imagine Vatican attorneys Jeff Lena of Berkeley CA and Thomas Christ (honest) of Portland OR, in litigation. Every few seconds they must hold up their hands and make fake quotation marks with their fingers.The Vatican brief continues: “The Complaint alleges an 'employment' relationship between the Holy See and (Fr. Andrew) Ronan only through the Corporations.“The exception requires a tortious act or omission by the 'foreign state' or an 'official or employee' of the foreign state. Corporations in the United States - such as a diocese or religious order - are not a 'foreign state' or an 'official or employee' of a foreign state. “Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot rely on the acts of the Corporations to confer jurisdiction over the Holy See.” Accordingly this lawuit is going to go on a lot longer: ********************* Vatican re Ninth Circuit DecisionQuoted here: ****************************** C. The Holy See is Immune from SuitBecause the Holy See is presumptively immune from suit, 28 U.S.C. § 1604, subject matter jurisdiction only lies if an exception to immunity applies. 28 U.S.C.§ 1330(a).Because exceptions to sovereign immunity are in derogation of the common law and sovereignty, they should be strictly construed.FSIA exceptions must be "narrowly construed" because they are "in derogation of the common law");The district court held that Plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction under the tort exception.The FSIA's tort exception states:(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case not otherwise encompassed in paragraph (2) above, in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury . . . occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission ofthat foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while actingwithin the scope of his office or employment-Except this paragraph shall not apply to (A) any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function regardless of whether the discretion be abused, or (B) any claim arising out of. . .misrepresentation [or] deceit.Because the tort exception was "designed primarily to remove immunity for cases arising from traffic accidents[,]" it "should be narrowly construed so as not to encompass the farthest reaches of common law."1. The Acts of the Corporations Do Not Support Jurisdiction Over the Holy See Under the Tort ExceptionAll of Plaintiff's claims against the Holy See rely upon an alleged agency relationship between the Holy See and the Corporations. Plaintiff asserts that theHoly See is vicariously liable for the conduct of the Corporations. The Complaint alleges an "employment" relationship between the Holy See and Ronan only through the Corporations.Ronan was "placed" in Portland through the acts of the Corporations. See supra at 15-16. Finally, the Holy See had "knowledge" of Ronan's "propensities" only "by and through" its agents.The exception requires a tortious act or omission by the "foreign state" or an "official or employee" of the foreign state.Corporations in the United States - such as a diocese or religious order - are not a "foreign state" or an "official or employee" of a foreign state.(9th Cir. 2005) (holding that the term "employee" under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") did not apply tocorporations). Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot rely on the acts of the Corporations to confer jurisdiction over the Holy See.9Accepted principles of statutory construction confirm this result.First, Congress declined to use the general term "agent" in section 1605(a)(5), opting instead for two specific subcategories within agency law - an "official" and an "employee." The omission of "agent" in the tort exception contrasts with the FSIA's later-adopted terrorism exception, which permits jurisdiction based upon conduct "by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agencylT 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7).Given that Congress did not use the terms "agent" and "agency" in section 1605(a)(5), but didso in section 1605(a)(7), the tort exception should be construed to exclude. . . Read the entire Vatican brief HERE These are the conclusions:(b) The District Court's Corporate LawAnalysis was Flawed for Five Separate ReasonsThe district court held, incorrectly, that the separate status of the Corporations should be disregarded for five reasons. The District Court Erred in Concluding that the Presumption of Separateness Did Not Shield theHoly See.In the district court's view, the presumption of separate status protects corporations created by a sovereign from being held responsible for sovereign acts, but does not protect sovereigns from liability for the acts of separate corporations.Viewing the Archdiocese and Order as separate instrumentalities of the Holy See would shield them from the wrongs IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITJOHN V. DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee & Cross-Appellant, HOLY SEE, et al, Defendant-Appellant & Cross-Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Case No. CV-02-00430-MO Honorable Michael W. Mosman, United States District Judge Jeffrey S. Lena, CSBN 189900 Law Office of Jeffrey S. Lena 1152 Keith AvenueBerkeley, CA 94708-1607 Telephone: (510) 665-1713 Facsimile: (510) 588-5555 Thomas M. Christ, OSBN 83406 Christine Coers-Mitchell, OSBN 92260 Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP 805 S.W. Broadway, 8th Floor Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 323-9000 Facsimile: (503) 323-9019 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant andCross-Appellee Holy See ***************** The story goes onward. . .
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.