That’s a very good question, isn’t it?
How many times during the course of various sex abuse news cycles have we read about lawyers using various legal maneuvers to try to keep official, confidential documents pertaining to priestly sex abuses cases out of the hands of courts?
These instances only reveal what scoundrels both the lawyers are—*and* their clients. I mean, the *only* reason to try to keep a document out of the court’s hands is if you have something to hide, and that shows that you are acting in bad faith, trying to stop justice from being done.
Consider this story on the web site of the National Catholic Reporter (*not* Register):
SNAP director may be forced to testify in abuse case
KANSAS CITY, Mo.—The leading advocacy group for child victims of clergy sex abuse may be compelled to turn over 23 years of internal documents, correspondence and email to the attorneys of an accused priest unless Missouri state courts act to quash a court-ordered deposition.
David Clohessy, head of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, known as SNAP, has been ordered to appear for deposition in a county court case involving allegations of sexual misconduct against Kansas City diocesan priest Fr. Michael Tierney.
Victims’ advocates say if Clohessy is compelled to appear, it could have wide-ranging impact on the ability of victims of clergy sex abuse to identify their accusers and tell their stories without revealing their names in public.
A law professor noted for her decades of work with clergy sex abuse victims said the “end result” of Clohessy’s deposition would be “a huge chilling effect on helping child sex abuse victims at every stage.”
Also at stake is the confidentiality of emails between reporters and victims’ advocates that may reveal sensitive information and names of sources. In a court filing, the Missouri Press Association said Clohessy’s deposition would “eviscerate the free-press guarantee” of journalists.
Clohessy has been ordered to turn over all documents and correspondence, including emails, from SNAP’s files referring to Tierney or the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese. He is also ordered to submit all documents containing references to either Tierney or the diocese from:
Press releases or press release drafts;
* Correspondence with members of the press;
* Correspondence with the lawyer representing the alleged abuse victim;
* Correspondence with members of the public.
* Clohessy has also been ordered to submit:
* Any documents or correspondence that “mention or refer to any priest currently or formerly” associated with the diocese;
* Any correspondence with the victim named in the lawsuit;
* Any correspondence from members of the public “that discuss or relates to repressed memory.”
According to court filings, defense lawyers for priests and former priests named in six other sex abuse lawsuits have requested to “cross-notice” Clohessy’s deposition in order to have access to his testimony.
Court records indicate that Clohessy and his group first attempted to quash the deposition by filing motions with Jackson County, Mo., Circuit Court Judge Ann Mesle, citing concerns of confidentiality for sex abuse victims and the rights of freedom of speech and assembly.
The records indicate Mesle overruled those concerns yesterday (Dec. 28), ordering Clohessy to submit himself for deposition Monday (Jan. 2).
Clohessy and his group appealed yesterday (Dec. 28) to Missouri’s Court of Appeals for the state’s Western District to try to quash the order. That appeal, court records indicate, was denied today (Dec. 29).
Following the denial by the appeals court, Clohessy’s lawyer said he and his client are “going to take every legal option we can” to prevent the deposition and are investigating filing for review with the Missouri Supreme Court.
Tierney’s lawyers first made the request for a deposition in November. They subpoenaed Clohessy, requesting him to testify regarding his knowledge of a lawsuit filed against Tierney on behalf of an abuse victim in September 2010.
Court filings indicate that the subpoena came after defense lawyers were concerned that a party in the suit may have violated an August 2011 gag order from Mesle by revealing some information to SNAP that was included in one of the group’s press releases.
Let me begin by making three observations:
1) Priestly sex abuse is an abomination against God and man, there are no excuses for it, and the most vigorous legal and ecclesiastical means must be used to root it out and purify both the Church and broader society (where it is as just as big a problem).
2) I have no idea what the legal merits of the motion of SNAP’s lawyers are. They may be right on the money, legally speaking—or not.
3) Regardless of the legal merits, I have no idea whether the deposition and document disclosure would be a good thing. It might be—or not.
Prescinding from those points, allow me to focus on what I consider to be a broader lesson that can be learned from this story.
Basically, regardless of the legal or practical merits of SNAP’s attempt to quash the handover of the documents, my reaction is not sympathetic.
Judging by the way it conducts itself in public, SNAP appears to be a venomous group that approaches the sex abuse scandal in an unconstructive way. They are consistently shrill, sensationalist, dogmatic, and one-sided in their approach. They fail to approach the issue with the seriousness it deserves—a seriousness that involves more than displaying righteous indignation at every opportunity. Obtaining justice means more than taking a purely one-sided view of things. If one is to avoid a destructive and unjust witch hunt, one has to be prepared to acknowledge and take seriously the fact that there is more than one side to every dispute. SNAP doesn’t convey the impression that it “gets” that fact. It neither displays proper sensitivity to the fact that not all allegations of misdoing are true nor does it properly credit steps the Catholic Church has taken to address the scandal (including, especially, steps taken by Pope Benedict, both before and after his election to the papacy).
At least not in my experience.
It would seem, from this latest incident, that I may have to add a new element to my appraisal of how SNAP behaves in public: It may also be hypocritical.
Haven’t these very same people been decrying with righteous indignation attempts by Church authorities to withhold certain records from the legal process? Haven’t we been told that these efforts displayed the Church’s bad faith, and the only reason they might have to withhold them was to cover up patterns of systematic scandalous and criminal behavior?
Matters seem different when the shoe is on the other foot, however, don’t they?
Suddenly it seems that there can be all kinds of good reasons not to have your personal files gone through by attorneys acting in an adversarial capacity (which is the way our justice system works in this country).
I’m quite sure that victims of sexual abuse whose names appear in SNAP documents might not want them revealed. But you know what? I bet abuse victims whose names appear in diocesan documents also might not want their names revealed. If protecting victim confidentiality is a reason to limit the ability of courts to probe SNAP’s documents, it’s equally a reason to protecting the confidentiality of victims who contacted dioceses.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
That’s justice.
And that’s just to name one legitimate reason to potentially withhold or censor documents.
So the broader lesson I want to point to is that we shouldn’t take any attempt to withhold documents as automatically an indication of bad faith or a “coverup”—either on SNAP’s part or on the part of a particular diocese or, for that matter, the Vatican.
Maybe SNAP will remember that the next time those they criticize make precisely the same kind of motions they themselves are making at this moment—and maybe they’ll show a little more understanding in their public statements.
Or maybe they won’t.
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
I don’t think the court of public opinion, which seems to be a priority for SNAP
lawyers and clients, has the patience for deliberative process. I’m pretty sure SNAP
is going to just pretend there is no such thing as hypocrisy except for the hierarchy of
the Catholic Church. That’s their modus operandi as you’ve outlined. I wonder if there will be anyone
defending SNAP and acknowledging your good points, Jimmy in the comments to follow.
From the NCR article:
‘Asked whether Mesle’s allowing of certain SNAP documents to be read in private would protect victims, Hamilton said those revelations would still “send a really serious and sad message to victims that when they come forward…a judge may well read about the details of their abuse.”’
At the risk of sounding extremely naive, doesn’t the accused need to know who is doing the accusing and the details of the alleged abuse in order to mount some sort of defense? And shouldn’t this come before a judge anyway?
What’s stopping SNAP from combing through their files and deleting ones that make them look bad? Just curious.
Is there a legitimate Catholic group (either lay or religious) that handles abuse victims like SNAP, but in a constructive manner?
I agree with you 100% Jimmy. It’s about tie the shoe was on the other foot and SNAP is forced to comply with the restrictions they want to place on others. Maybe they will learn something by it.
I love it.
Go here for more about the haters and professional victims at SNAP.
http://www.themediareport.com/topic-SNAP/index.htm
No, all the information should be out in the open, except maybe the names of the victims. There is a lot of misinformation out there, a lot of biased opinion that only adds fuel to the fire.
In most of the cases that are appearing in courts these days the abuse took place from 20 to as many as 50 years ago. In some of the cases, the perpetrator is no longer alive or may be in a nursing home. The charge is based only on the testimony of the alleged victim.
I’m thinking that if the alleged victim is an adult and expects to be compensated after so many years, then he or she should expect that their name would be released to the public. The public is a check on the activities of the police and courts.
I won’t even mention the cases of fraudulent therapists who have been guilty of creating “repressed memories” in patients to justify additional therapy (and income).
Thank-you for bringing this to our attention.
Jimmy - You are 100% correct.
SNAP has repeatedly denounced “secrecy” by the Church in the past number of years, and now they are deliberately being secret themselves.
Btw, the case in question involves an individual who has invoked “repressed memory.” He claims he was fondled in 1971 but didn’t remember it until 2008.
Meanwhile, all major memory experts assert that “repressed memory” is completely bogus.
http://www.themediareport.com/sep2010/repressed-memories.htm
DPierre
TheMediaReport.com
Ray, Your last statement is the rare exception. I am a therapist with over 30 years experience and you have no idea about the weight of pain we carry with us in this profession and the responsibilty of trust placed with us by those who are in pain. This profession is a vocation given to us by God to help in the healing of this world. Victims of abuse need an environment of safety to build trust first and then go on from there to resolve the devastating effects of abuse. Justice demands the protection of the innocents. Do not blame the messengers. Another thing, abuse by a priest has a more devastating effect on the victim spiritually and on the entire Church due to the power of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. This is the reason why there is such a passionate response to abuse within the Church. It is the natural consequence of the power of the sin of abuse by a priest, it resonates throughout the Body of Christ and the world. It is critical to understand this point.
“What’s stopping SNAP from combing through their files and deleting ones that make them look bad? Just curious.”
I’m not a lawyer, but I think any attempt to destroy these files would be illegal once they have been subpoenaed. With email, there’s always another person who could provide them, and paper trails don’t disappear so easily.
SNAP has accused diocesan officials for years of hiding or destroying personnel records and doing whatever else they could to avoid taking responsibility for their alleged negligence and indifference. Now they are doing the same thing.
Speaking of hypocrisy, about 15 years ago, when David Clohessy’s brother, then a priest, was about to be publicly identified as an alleged abuser, Clohessy notified his brother so he would not be surprised to see his name on the news the next day. David Clohessy had known about the credible accusation for some time but had not gone public, unlike what he has done in nearly every other case, sometimes on the flimsiest evidence. Read that story at www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2002_05_12_Bruni_AmI_John_Whiteley_3.htm.
Well, while we’re making the “fair is fair” argument. What would the apologists for the Church say to eliminating the privilege of priests to refuse to disclose statements made in the confessional? If Dave Clohessy has to divulge what an abuse victim told him in confidence then priests should have to divulge the crimes an abusive priest admitted to in the confessional.
There sure are alot of Jerry Sandusky supporters responding
And Jerry Sandusky has exactly what to do with this case?
If Mr. Akin were advising SNAP leaders in trying to work successfully with bishops, I would like to know what steps would he tell them to take, to make progress and to work together, in unison, for the glory of God and ultimately, for the benefit of our Church, in general, making us a role model for society.
In his article, he described what SNAP should NOT do, and bad intentions were attributed to what has already been done by SNAP. So I would like to know what he would tell them TO do.
Does anyone else have constructive steps to suggest to SNAP? Perhaps there can be a clean slate, with a New Year upon us- with hands reached across a great divide, bringing health to our church. Any good problem solvers & solution oriented people reading this blog? Let’s speak up.
Secondly, in the Body of Christ, do we want to see justice or do we want to see mercy shown to fragile people?
From the article, it seems as if Mr. Akin is saying there are NO real victims of clergy abuse at all, and that charges made by everyone, across the board, victims and their representatives, are just false. Perhaps I misread the article. Correct me, if I’m wrong.
It is pointed out that sexual abuse & the secrecy that surrounds it, is rampant in greater society. But it sounded as if he thought it’s limited and contained only there, and not in the church.
Terabyte, you misread the article. See Jimmy’s observtions labeled 1), 2), and 3) in the article. I’m sure there are indeed legitimate cases brought forty by SNAP, but the manner they do it—witch hunt, not justice—ultimately does a disservice to legitimate victims, not to mention priests who have been wrongly accused.
“From the article, it seems as if Mr. Akin is saying there are NO real victims of clergy abuse at all, and that charges made by everyone, across the board, victims and their representatives, are just false. Perhaps I misread the article. Correct me, if I’m wrong.”
Gladly. Also from the article:
“Priestly sex abuse is an abomination against God and man, there are no excuses for it, and the most vigorous legal and ecclesiastical means must be used to root it out and purify both the Church and broader society (where it is as just as big a problem).”
So how would SNAP, & any real survivors of clergy abuse that you mention, approach bishops? What would be the ideal scenario for them to work together? What are reasonable expectations for each to bring to the table and what would be specific examples of the vigourous legal and eccleiastical means you wrote about, to address the issue so our church will have an impact on our broader society?
I’m going away for New Years, and while I will not be able to contribute to this topic until next week, I’ll think about it for the next few days, remaining appreciative of others also pondering constructive answers regarding this. So in advance, thank you & a safe & blessed 2012 to all.
It doesn’t seem like a very good subject for Jimmy to be writing on, because, as he states, he doesn’t understand the legal side of it. Lawyers will often go for so much information they know it will be an expensive and time-consuming and burdensome endeavor that will hinder a parties ability to pursue a case. The requests here are so broad that they could conceivably be asking for most of SNAPS files. The victims of rapes are protected in some states from having to produce certain records, I would hope that would be the case here to prevent fishing expeditions. Whether or not SNAP is acting in true Christian righteousness or just plain vindictiveness isn’t Jimmy’s call. SomeOne else has that covered. The lawyers defending clergy that are hired by the Church should not be playing sleazeball lawyer games. They represent the Church and should be setting a standard. Whether or not others do the right thing, Christ does the right thing.
That list of documents for production cannot be the subpoena request; it is clearly overbroad. No standard subpoena document and no subpoena written by a lawyer would be so obviously overbroad.
I am a third year law student. Pam, I take it you know something about the legal system; especially from your use of the phrase “fishing expedition”. I think Mr. Akin should rain in his commentary a bit. God will judge priest-traitors as well as those who unjustly hate and persecute His church; may they repent and make reparations for what they have done. God punishes the guilty. Our legal system, on the other hand, has the task of ensuring that those we are confident are guilty of evil conduct, are controlled and changed so that they do not harm others. I think human courts are not here to give people what they ultimately deserve. Vengeance belongs to God. Human courts only have authority to give people what they deserve in accordance with our legitimate goals of protection and repentance. Furthermore, I disagree with Mr. Akin; I believe there are reasons to fight disclosure of evidence, particularly because the rules of evidence we have set up to ensure confidence in verdicts protect those accused of crimes. The legal merits of arguments addressing this subject, then, have *something* to do with justice and should not be summarily dismissed.
Eric,
When lawyers frame disclosure requests they always ask for rather more than they need: it gives tem a negotiating position with the other party. In this case, it seems, that SNAP has played hardball and not acceded to the more reasonable requests for disclosure (e.g. copies of press releases, copies of correspondence that is germaine to the case and to the specific issue of the release of embargoed material) and has been punished by the courts for doing so: it’s clear that the courts feel that at least some of the items on the disclosure list should be produced.
My sense is that SNAP spends a lot of time getting as much prejudicial material as it can into the air when these trials are underway and that if it wants to become a party to the judicial process it has to be willing to play by the rules imposed by the law.
Finally, the purpose of Mr Akin’s article is clear: to point out the discrepancy between SNAP’s public position, that the Church should disclose *everything* and is suspect for not doing so, and its own position, that it should be exempt from disclosure.
Eric, if you are indeed a third-year law student, then you must know something about the “discovery” phase of any civil lawsuit. This is when both sides are allowed to depose potential witnesses and subpoena records that will help them build the cases. And both sides are given broad latitude. If either side, particularly the defense, were denied permission to depose witnesses and examine records, it would be easy grounds for later appeal.
Plaintiff’s attorneys have been given broad authority to delve into diocesan personnel records of accused priests, hoping to establish a “pattern and practice” of abuse and cover-up over years. And those records have included the names of people who have filed abuse claims with the diocese, but not with the courts. You are free to call that a “fishing expedition” as well.
Jimmy Akin’s column, as I read it, is not so much about the legal merits of this particular order to depose Clohessy and review SNAP’s records as much as it is about Clohessy’s and SNAP’s hypocrisy in claiming that the privacy of people who have come to SNAP with abuse claims is somehow more important than the privacy of people who have come to a diocese with abuse claims.
It seems that the lawyers for SNAP fear that their income stream may dry up.
SNAP has every reason to resist disclosure on standard legal grounds.
What SNAP may not have is standing to resist disclosure…. SNAP is an advocacy group. It does not have lawyer-client privilege, and SNAP isn’t a journalist organization. So I just don’t see where it has the ammunition to defend itself against this deposition. It’s only argument is to spare the victim, and that can be brushed aside by the court in the name of Justice…let’s see the evidence. Besides, the accused is normally allowed to face the accuser. So, that’s the way it’s going to go, in my opinion. HOWEVER, there is such a persecution going on against the Church (and SNAP is surfing on the crest of that wave) - that courts these days can act with impunity toward the Church….and might in this case too. The higher up it goes, the more it favors prejudicial decisions against the Church. So, SNAP should resist as far as possible.
mortimerzilch, one would also presume that the plaintiff’s attorneys would also be interested in SNAP’s records concerning Father Tierney to see if there are more alleged “victims” out there who talked to Clohessy or someone else connected with SNAP but decided not to file a lawsuit.
Isn’t that what they are after when they subpoena diocesan records?
SNAP has something to hide or they wouldn’t be fighting this tooth and nail. Isn’t that always what they claim when any other institution uses these legal tactics? The chickens have come home to roost and SNAP and its leaders are nervous. As well they should be.
Eric, after more than 20 years of practicing law (as opposed to 2 1/2 studying esoteric law concepts) I have found that broad requests are permissible when in fact the issue is raised by the other party. In this instance the party alleges that the abuse took place in 1971 and he regained his repressed memories in 2008 with the help of SNAP. This calls into question the tactics of SNAP. SNAP or Clohessy are not protected by any of the traditional or statutory privileges (attorney-client, etc.). Their ability to fight off subpoena requests is rather limited.
It is easy to forget what started this little mess (within the larger lawsuit). SNAP/Clohessy issued a press release which contained confidential information. This confidential information is alleged to have come from the Plaintiff’s lawyer in VIOLATION of a court imposed gag order. In this instance, it appears that SNAP/Clohessy knowingly participated in contempt of court by the plaintiff’s attorney.
What ever happened to the saying “tell the truth and shame the devil?” Clean up your own house!
“1) Priestly sex abuse is an abomination against God and man, there are no excuses for it, and the most vigorous legal and ecclesiastical means must be used to root it out and purify both the Church and broader society (where it is as just as big a problem).”
## STM that answers the question: “Should Catholic Sex Abuse Documents Be Withheld from Courts?”
Since I’m not a lawyer, I cannot comment on whether it is legal or illegal to turn over the documents. What I do want to comment on is the way this organization operates. They continue to encourage victims to get revenge on the accused and everyone supervising him…even if there is no proof of the crime. The other aspect that disappoints me is that they keep the name of priests on their offender list, even when they are proven innocent. They are not in the business of providing peace to their victims or serving justice.
The reason why victim’s lawyers pursued access to allegedly confidential records from the church was very clear: Catholic Bishops had displayed a very consistent pattern of lying to victim’s parents when they asked if their son was the only victim. Catholic Bishops had also displayed a very consistent pattern of lying to parents about the priest “getting help,” while transferring the priest to another parish. Bishops also lied to destination parishes by NOT telling them the poison that they were “gifting” them with. In other words, when it comes to perverts in collars, you can tell when a Bishop is lying by the fact that his lips are moving. They Reaped What They Sowed.
Now, Mr. Akin, can you tell me why SNAP should be regarded with the same suspicion and outright distrust and contempt that the Bishops have so rightfully earned? Why shouldn’t they protect their records? Victims are guaranteed privacy in contacting them. We know what a lie that was from Bishops (but not the church, oh no precious!) in the US, the Netherlands, Ireland, and…well, who’s next do you think?
SNAP do seem to have a vendetta against the Church. It seems they are more worried about the victims of real crimes than about the priests who are falsely accused. I wonder if that’s also true of Broken Rites (the Australian equivalent.)
I’m with Jimmy - SNAP has been consistent in its desire to extort the maximum amount of cash for the attorneys. Who settlements. Unless the bishops are minting money, who is really paying them? Aren’t the faithful who contribute to the support of the Church the ones who’re being penalized? Any evidence that the average Catholic in the pews approved of any of this? No!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.