By Kay Ebeling
City of Angels
September 29, 2010
http://cityofangels8.blogspot.com/2010/09/mahony-dodging-deposition-re-current.html
"Mr. Woods informed Mr. Manly that he had strict marching orders, and that he was unable to agree to allow any deposition of Cardinal Mahony to proceed."
 |
Quote above is from a public document obtained by City of Angels Blog this afternoon, filed September 29, 2010, by plaintiff attorneys Manly & Stewart of Newport Beach (who did not send the document to CofA, page 1 scanned at left).
The "Joint Status Conference Statement" reveals some of the obstruction Catholic Church attorneys carry out fighting plaintiffs behind the scenes, while bishops and reverends assure parishioners and the media that the church is cooperating and operating in a new transparency, re the crimes of pedophile priests.
We are letting the document speak for itself, here are direct quotes, from the PDF document received just hours ago, copy typed by Kay Ebeling, who was once employed at a transcription company called "Raging Fingers."
Plaintiffs subpoenaed Cardinal Roger Mahony for deposition.
“We have been informed by counsel for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and Cardinal Mahony, Don Woods, Esq., that they will be filing a motion to quash the subpoenas and objecting to the notices.”
Plaintiffs and Defense attorneys met and conferred by phone with Woods, “Seeking to reach a resolution of the Cardinal Mahony deposition issue, to the benefit of all parties involved.”
Manly's office writes: “Mr. Woods informed Mr. Manly that he had strict marching orders, and that he was unable to agree to allow any deposition of Cardinal Mahony to proceed.”
See Exhibit C here:
 |
“The deposition of Cardinal Mahony is crucial in the above noted cases, and because of his impending retirement, must be scheduled some time between now and early 2011."
On February 27, 2011, upon the Cardinal’s 75th birthday, Archbishop Jose Gomez is scheduled to succeed Mahony.
”As such it is imperative that Plaintiffs have the ability to depose Cardinal Mahony in their actions.”
John VG Doe was sexually abused by Father Fernando Lopez-Lopez, a Colombian priest working in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles by way of the Archdiocese of Rome, from 2003-2004. Cardinal Mahony was the archbishop of Los Angeles at the time, and thus directly responsible for reviewing priest Lopez-Lopez’ past and credentials, allowing his visit to the archdiocese to serve, and supervising his conduct.
Cardinal Mahony is also a party to the action.
Father Lopez-Lopez was charged with multiple criminal offenses for his sexual abuse of Plaintiff and another boy, and convicted in 2005. He has subsequently been deported from the country.
John MG Doe was sexually abused by Father Michael Baker of Los Angeles 1994-1997. Cardinal Mahony was archbishop of Los Angeles at the time.
John TH Doe was sexually abused by Father Michael Harris of the Diocese of Orange. Prior to being a priest of Orange, Father Harris was a priest of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. He received treatment while he was a priest of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. As such Plaintiff John TH Doe has the right to depose Cardinal Roger Mahony.
John D-C Doe was sexually abused by Monsignor Simon Falvey of the Diocese of Orange from 1985 to 1992. Prior to being a priest in Orange, Falvey was a priest of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
(Manly has two other cases. John TZ Doe, and John JS Doe, TZ happened in the Diocese of Stockton where Mahony was Bishop at the time. John J-S in Turlock and Lodi, both within the Diocese of Stockton. )
“These plaintiffs have the right to depose Cardinal Mahony regarding relevant matters and those reasonably calculated to lead to discovery.”
Re: John TH Doe: This matter has been proceeding for two years and eight months. Suggest a trial date of July 2011.
Re: John DC Doe: This matter has been proceeding for one year and four months. The matter has been released from temporary stay. Defendants have filed demurrers and motions to strike, and plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint to remedy some of the defects noted by Defendants. Suggesting a trial date for Summer 2011.
The Case Re: John VG Doe has been released from temporary stay and “is past demurrer and motion to strike stage, now in discovery stage”. Requesting “the heretofore agreed to date of March 7, 2011.” This matter has been proceeding for one year and six months.
John MG Doe case has been proceeding for four months.
In all three cases, “Without a trial date set, Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to set a time line for discovery.”
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.