TRANSCRIPT: Tuesday hearing for upcoming Salesians jury trial, Motions in Limine, with editing by City of Angels Wings It Transcription

*****
JUDGE ELIAS: Re number four, reference to the Catholic Church. I had no idea there were different orders that report to Rome. If I have that misconception, jurors will have that misconception too. What are you defining the Catholic Church to be? Who do you put under the umbrella? Maybe the term used should be “Catholic religion” with everybody under the Pope.

MASON: It’s not the Salesians society. It’s the Vatican, the archdiocese. Just because some Salesians go to Rome periodically for meetings. it’s a major jump to say they have all the knowledge of the Catholic Church.

BOUCHER: The Cardinal has to approve brothers who come in and say Mass and serve in the archdiocese.

JUDGE: This issue may be resolved by just calling it the Catholic Religion and the Pope is over the entire religion. If you can’t define it, I can’t define it. [LAUGHTER] But I think motion denied because it’s too broad. If they're saying Mahony knew it, so therefore the Salesians knew it, I'm not going to let them make that leap.

DEMARCO: Look at all their papers. They're part of the Catholic Church.

*****
ZUKIN: In this issue we have the T Family where all the children were abused by Miani, and the subsequent impact of learning that the others in the family were too is relevant to the impact-

DELANEY: There’s no proof the siblings knew about it. They assume the brother knew but point is nobody saw the abuse.

JUDGE: I'm going to grant it now. If somebody is going to testify let me know. Number 7, that's a grant. Number 8. At first I was going to do a 402, but Sipe goes with the other gentlemen, the priest, what's his name, Father Doyle, and then the FBI agent. Don’t these guys all go together?

MCFEELY: (UP ON HIS FEET) Absolutely not. I'm here to argue Doyle.

MASON: Plaintiffs desire through Doyle and Sipe to go back to the time of Mussolini. We have to have some limitations.

JUDGE: You want to wait and do Sipe and Doyle all together? Okay moving on.

MCFEELY: Our Le-gis-la-tu-r-r-r-e, in 2002 in its wisdom allowed people to sue about things that happened 10, 40, 50, and 60 years ago and what that allows -- it causes a lot of problems. We think it causes massive due process problems for the defendants.

We will make that case on the evidence piece by piece throughout this trial. All this evidence that the plaintiffs want to throw in, this 1962 thing from the Vatican that they never saw. Sixty years of evidence, oh they must have known everything.

I think this court needs to consider the passage of time and fundamental due process and fairness.

JUDGE: Okay. The law is what the law is, so therefore these cases are going to be tried in 2008 instead of 1968. It’s my mandate. I'm going to try them

------
“The Salesians did not know there was a problem of sex abuse in the church until 2002”
======

ZUKIN: The Salesian hierarchy say they did not know there was an issue of sexual abuse in their order. The current provincial says he didn't find out until 2002.

BOUCHER: If Mr. McFeely is going to stipulate that the problem of priests abusing children wasn’t known until 2002 and it was a new phenomenon, wait a minute. We have a catholic order established to treat sex abuse by priests in 1943. Servants of the Paracletes distributed information to orders around archdioceses around the world.

J: Okay this motion is granted. Next one. Now we get to the Italian. I think he gets to do this (EXPLAIN TRANSLATION) and let me explain why. Let’s assume we're talking about Shakespeare. We’d need an expert to explain the words of Shakespeare. Or a Chaucer expert could get on stand to explain because words are different. So I don't see why a person has to be alive at the time to testify about what was meant at another time. Words from 1947 are not used the same, so you have to go back and say how it was used at the time and it’s done all the time, so this doesn't bother me.

MASON: I think this makes the point moot. I believe Fromholz addressed this. I did go back and look at the order re numerous attempts on plaintiffs’ part to have this entered.

JUDGE: First of all, that's totally a misreading of his ruling. He does find it is notice.

MASON: I'm quoting from July 18, 2007.

J: It was a denial of a summary judgment. He found a triable issue of fact.

MASON: But it was not 1947.

J: First of all he found a triable issue of fact on notice based on other things. Therefore it’s dicta

(ME: Huh?)

*****
BOUCHER: Their provincials have testified that it would have been a red flag. Fromholz never ruled the evidence could not be entered.

NOURAMI: (UP ON HER FEET) I'm here to argue against Lorenzi, and it’s up to the jury to decide what that document means. The defendant doesn't have anybody alive who knows, everybody’s dead because it’s so old. The plaintiffs have one expert who translated the words literally and that's what it’s appropriate to do, to enter it as evidence and let jury decide.

MASON: There’s no evidence of what these words meant back then.

J: That's what I want to find. And I don't see where Judge Fromholz made a ruling that the Italian document cannot come in. Moving onto number 11:

------
Miani denies all allegations.
======

JUDGE: Miani denies all allegations.

MASON: Mr. H says he reported to higher ups that Miani was disturbing boys. A generic reference of disturbing boys could mean anything. The environment of St. Mary’s was troubled boys taken from homes. It’s not unusual for these kids to be troubled. The phrase disturbing boys, what does that mean.

BOUCHER: He can testify about what he said and what stopped him from continuing to talk. If this provincial stopped him from talking about it, they sure as heck had notice. He will come here to testify about what he--

MASON: He never talked about molestation. He said “disturbing boys,” that's it. he was deposed in this case, that he was disturbing boys.

J: What I'm hearing is that before he had a chance to say anything else he was stopped?

MCFEELY: Which deposition, your honor? He’s been depo’d twice with two different stories. Now he wants to testify that he told a Provincial, he never testified before that he told a Provincial. If he’s going to be here live, maybe we don’t need any further discussion about his deposition.

ME: AS ONE OF THE CRIME VICTIMS, I CAN UNDERSTAND SOMEONE COMING FORWARD WITH PART OF THE STORY AND THEN COMING FORWARD WITH MORE OF THE STORY LATER.

YOU CAN HAVE PARTS OF YOUR STORY COME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH OVER SEVERAL MONTHS, EVEN YEARS

IT’S TAKEN ME 14 YEARS, 1994-2008, AND THERE ARE STILL MEMORIES COMING OUT, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT MY DAUGHTER HAS GROWN UP AND MOVED OUT. . .

JUDGE: Okay then we'll wait until we see whether he comes. Now Mr. A, he didn't tell anybody. He’s out.

DEMARCO: Your honor, we're trying to show the environment at the religious order. We've got all these persons making complaints. We're trying to point out that several complaints were made. One person was abused in an open and obvious manner, in an infirmary with the door open. That goes with the evidence of the environment. He talks about he was in bed for the entire next day. It communicates that there were things going on and persons in charge should have noticed.

J: Ah, but we can’t go there, to ‘things going on.’ The boy who watches something going on, he can testify. But we can’t have an ‘if there’s smoke there’s fire argument.’

DEM: It goes towards reprehensibility if someone walked in and saw it, combined with the other incidents, this victim--

J: We'll have to talk about reprehensibility over the lunch period.

*****

BOUCHER: We have convicted felons that are still in San Francisco standing next to the provincial, still part of the order. So there’s two different things going on.

(The Judge allows another witness for the plaintiffs.)

MASON: But this is somebody who goes to a protestant and tells them. That's not evidence of notice.

J: He testified he saw the police come and the rector made a phone call--

MCFEELY: The police came to what amounts to a reform school. I’d say if we went back we’d find out the police were there often. Talk about speculation, your honor.

J: That's funny because now you're arguing against what Fromholz said.

MCFEELY: I don't think so--

J: What about this witness for the plaintiff, who we can’t use the name. But this person is irrelevant anyhow. He didn't tell anybody.

DEMARCO: He’s relevant to a variety of issues. Not just whether he told them. Not just reprehensibility.

BOUCHER: (UP ON HIS FEET) Miani has denied that he ever molested a child. The defendants are calling our clients alleged victims.

J: Is Miani coming to testify? [DISCUSSION ] Okay the answer is, we don’t know.

DEM: Another ground for witness C: he was seen spending nights with Miani, regularly, and going on car rides. Coupled with complaints we've already received, that violated the Salesians’ own rules that were designed to protect children. They failed to recognize and failed to take reasonable acts. Later they see Miani taking this guy into his room, it shows they took no action.

MCFEELY: And there’s a lot to question. There’s no evidence anyone saw anything that Miani did with Mr. C. Where do we get that?

ME: IF NOBODY NOTICED IT, THAT'S NEGLECT AND MISMANAGEMENT ITSELF.

DEM: It was after complaints from Canada, after Italy. He’s in Bellflower and he’s still taking kids on overnights and still taking them in his office?

DELANEY: This is why we have to deal with these individually. He characterized it as a secret relationship.

J: I’m taking it as rebuttal.

More Motion in Limine hearings Tomorrow

Onward. . .