Catholic Church Puts Legal Pressure on Survivors' Network

[MarcoPolo]

the Roman Catholic Church and priests accused of sexual abuse in two Missouri cases have gone to court to compel the group to disclose more than two decades of e-mails that could include correspondence with victims, lawyers, whistle-blowers, witnesses, the police, prosecutors and journalists. … The subpoena asked that Mr. Clohessy turn over all documents in the last 23 years that mention repressed memory, any current or former priest in Kansas City, the diocese, Father Tierney, John Doe or Rebecca Randles, the attorney for the plaintiffs. … In the Kansas City case, SNAP refused to turn over all the subpoenaed documents or answer all the questions in the deposition. So attorneys for the church and the priests have filed a motion to compel SNAP to comply.Full story at NY Times.

.

 

[MarcoPolo]

We know people opposed to the Church or some people not happy with the bishops on the sex abuse case will point to this as bad PR or insensitivity to victims or some such…

But does anyone else see the irony that an organization loudly accusing the Church of hiding information and conducting secrecy is doing exactly that???

.

 

[Franna]

Anyone who molests a child should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,and that includes clergymen.

 

[losh14]

Sigh The headline is a bit misleading here - “legal pressure”, to me at least, means a cease-and-desist or threat to sue. Something to stop someone. The action in question is actually discovery for a legal case, the Church subpoenaing records from SNAP.

In this case, yes SNAP is being asked to do something quite tasking, namely to turn over 20+ years of records. But the case being brought is also seeking something quite tasking - bringing charges for crimes that were alleged to have occurred more than 20 years ago, in fact outside the statute of limitations in the State.

We also have to remember that men may go to jail if found guilty in these cases, and so I’m not surprised to see a vigorous legal defense being mounted. It’s unfortunate that SNAP has to bear costs without having much funding, but if they have information pertaining to the case that could help either the plaintiffs or the defendants, justice demands that they turn it over.

SNAP also needs to organize better within its mission. It’s a risk to provide legal aid and get involved as they have been. For the director to basically admit to libel:

In a damaging admission, Mr. Clohessy answered, “Sure,” when asked whether his group had ever issued a press release that contained false information. In an interview on Monday, he said his response had been an acknowledgment that there must have been some errors in the thousands of news releases and alerts that the group had sent out over the years, “but never intentionally, and never mistakes of substance.”

Attorneys would have handled that differently - this can be presented in court (it was part of a deposition, which is entered into evidence) and if a jury hears “yeah, we released false information” your credibility goes out the window despite backpedaling.

 

[losh14]

Anyone who molests a child should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,and that includes clergymen.

Agreed, and everyone who is accused retains their rights to a vigorous defense. I’d hate to defend someone who is a monster, but it’d be my duty as their attorney.

 

[losh14]

But does anyone else see the irony that an organization loudly accusing the Church of hiding information and conducting secrecy is doing exactly that???

I don’t think it’s necessarily secrecy as much as inability to produce the documents combined with years of tension and mutual loathing. SNAP is heavily involved in these cases and really needed to have had a good legal staff, even if they worked pro bono. Maybe this article will help rally sympathetic attorneys to assist.

 

[Bix]

Yes, but accused does not mean one is guilty. . .

Yes, some were guilty, but I suspect others were not. I hope and pray the innocent priests falsely accused at least have the support and belief of their attorneys.

 

[MarcoPolo]

inability to produce the documents

Maybe I don’t understand the legal process all that much. What is difficult and costly about producing emails and documentation of already collected materials?

 

[Dawnia]

I don’t think it’s necessarily secrecy as much as inability to produce the documents combined with years of tension and mutual loathing. SNAP is heavily involved in these cases and really needed to have had a good legal staff, even if they worked pro bono. Maybe this article will help rally sympathetic attorneys to assist.

It’s not inability to produce the documents. SNAP is claiming that they aren’t legally bound to produce the documents because they are a Rape Crisis Center under Missouri law. It’s the same reasoning they used for not answering many of the questions. How he answered some of the depo questions could prove very unfortunate for SNAP’s theory that they are a Rape Crisis Center.

 

[Corki]

In this case, yes SNAP is being asked to do something quite tasking, namely to turn over 20+ years of records. But the case being brought is also seeking something quite tasking - bringing charges for crimes that were alleged to have occurred more than 20 years ago, in fact outside the statute of limitations in the State.

Sorry if I can’t wrangle any sympathy for this dauting task considering that SNAP has pressed cases against priests who are dead and unable to defend themselves.

 

[jilly4ski]

Maybe I don’t understand the legal process all that much. What is difficult and costly about producing emails and documentation of already collected materials?

It actually can be. Yes you have all the docs already, but the hard copied have to be scanned, and then you have to run them through a discovery system to find all the docs that might be even remotely relevant. Then you have to pay attorneys to read all these doc and find out which ones are relevant (responsive) and which ones are privileged (along with the work to figure out what exactly that entails and managing these reviewing attorneys). That can get spendy real quick. (I am not quite sure why it has to be attorneys, but so far it is good for me, because that is exactly my job right now.

However, I do not feel any sympathy for SNAP. They have placed themselves at the forefront of many of these legal cases and knew or should have known the dangers of getting involved in the legal aspect, including the costs and risks of liability. They should have stuck to helping the victims get back on their feet, and get the help and therapy they need.

 

[richard_wang]

So SNAP got served with an order to compel production of certain documents and a demand that its officers are being deposed.

Boooo Hooooooo

It’s called pre-trial discovery and it happens everyday in every law suit.

St. Louis SNAP objected to the subpoena and deposition.

The St. Louis judge found the requested information highly relevant…“Objection denied. Produce the evidence or face contempt sanctions.”

Now Kansas City SNAP has been served and it’s objecting. Hearing on April 20th is scheduled.

No big whoop de do.

SNAP will probably loose this one also.

What is absurd is the Time’s reporter makes it sound like there’s some sort of big conspiracy going on between the dioceses’ attorneys.

Please.

Any attorney worth his bar license would firing off all sorts of pretrial demands in a case like this.

No doubt the attorneys of the Jane Does have already served subpoenas on the dioceses and third parties.

Well what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.

 

[puppypatrol]

According to our court system, everyone is doing what they are supposed to do. SNAP needs to wake up in the real world for a change. Especially since it has been long proven that repressed memories are, more times than not, unreliable at best no matter who the accused is. Personally, I think it is about time someone finally said “prove it”.

 

[PaulinVA]

I think there is more behind this.

A few years ago in Los Angeles a lawyer filed a brief in one of the abuse cases that basically said SNAP was making available all of the sordid details of all of the abuse cases to people, and this was causing a second wave of copy-cat “repressed memory” cases. The implication was that, knowing all of the details alledged previously, a person situated in the right parish at the right time in the past, could allege abuse in the same manner and style as others before him had alleged, and create a slam dunk case.

The diocese is looking for communications that would bear out the information-sharing aspect of the SNAP work.

 

[Santi2]

I think there is more behind this.

A few years ago in Los Angeles a lawyer filed a brief in one of the abuse cases that basically said SNAP was making available all of the sordid details of all of the abuse cases to people, and this was causing a second wave of copy-cat “repressed memory” cases. The implication was that, knowing all of the details alledged previously, a person situated in the right parish at the right time in the past, could allege abuse in the same manner and style as others before him had alleged, and create a slam dunk case.

The diocese is looking for communications that would bear out the information-sharing aspect of the SNAP work.

I read about that! Many thanks for refreshing my memory.

 

[7_Sorrows]

i haven’t really been following this too closely, but i feel that SNAP must follow legal procedure and provide documents requested especially if they are the ones making the accusations. i believe that their organization has done some good for many victims, but i feel when it is time to go to court, they need to follow legal procedure and be able to provide whatever documents are available and required to be presented in court. the priest has every right to defend himself and present his case and it is only fair that the e-mails and records that SNAP have be made available to those defending the priest.

 

[OriginalJS]

What is the citation to the case? Who are the parties? What are the claims? Who are the lawyers involved? When is the motion set for hearing? What judge will decide? This sounds like a huge fishing expedition.

 

[pepipop]

I know there have been threads regarding Fr Gordon McCrae, who has been jailed for 17 yrs to date, however I can only assume requesting the information from SNAP may stop similar miscarriages of justice.

themediareport.com/2012/02/20/new-evidence-may-exonerate-priest-gordon-j-macrae

1. The motion contains an astonishing 2008 signed statement from the former stepson of accuser Grover, who was in the company of Grover for a period of years before, during, and after Fr. MacRae’s 1994 criminal trial:
   
   "[O]ver a number of months and years, Thomas Grover discussed the sex abuse allegations of [Father] Gordon MacRae with me. Grover often stated to me that he was going to set MacRae and the church up to gain money for sexual abuse. Grover would laugh and joke about this scheme …
   
   "On several occasions Grover told me that he had never been molested by MacRae.
   
   “Grover, on several occasions, called his civil case attorneys for money or cash advances on his expected cash award and Grover told me that his attorneys directed him to go for psychiatric and drug therapy to gain jury appeal in his court case.”

 

[Dawnia]

What is the citation to the case? Who are the parties? What are the claims? Who are the lawyers involved? When is the motion set for hearing? What judge will decide? This sounds like a huge fishing expedition.

John Doe B.P. v. The Rev. Michael Tierney
Jackson County, MO
Case No. 1016-CV-29995
Judge Ann Mesle
Motion date will be heard April 20th

See the depo for all of the lawyers involved. themediareport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CLOHESSY-DEPOSITION-010212.pdf

Basically 4 people have come forward claiming they were abused 40+ years ago and just recently remembered.

Here is a Motion to Quash that lists the documents the defendants were seeking from SNAP in regards to the case. d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/snap/pages/1114/attachments/original/11-14_Mot_to_Quash_and_for_Protective_Order.pdf?1325707649

Some of the court docs are available online and some aren’t. (or rather I couldn’t find them)

 

[OriginalJS]

Dawnia, Thanks. I’ll check this one out. Sounds like a big fishing expedition, but I don’t know enough details. This can be more complicated than it appears. E.g. Unless there is some kind of protective order in place, a lot of people mentioned in all those documents might get some unfortunate publicity. I have done about 30 years of litigation and my experience is that judges hate discovery disputes and their initial knee jerk reaction is usually to order interrogatories answered, documents produced, or inspection permitted. Gets the motion off their desk. Unfortunately, discovery can be, and is, often used as a very effective weapon to beat down the other side with unrecoverable expense. I’ve been on both sides of that war. This is a dark side of lawsuits not shown on tv programs.