The following comes from an August 21 posting on Capitol Alert.
Cal Catholic ran an item on August 16, which seemed to show support for the Church in the Assembly.
The Assembly Appropriations Committee resurrected a bill extending the statute of limitations for some sex abuse victims after it failed last week amid fierce lobbying.
Senate Bill 131 by Jim Beall, D-San Jose, would open a one-year window for victims who were excluded from a 2003 law that extended the time during which sexual abuse victims can file a civil lawsuit.
Opponents have argued that the bill unfairly excludes public agencies, such as school districts, and instead only revives abuse claims against private institutions, such as the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts.
An umbrella organization of groups like the California Catholic Conference and California Association of Private School Organizations spent $250,000 in the fist six months of this year to fight the bill.
SB 131 fell three votes short in the Assembly Appropriations Committee last week after six of Beall’s fellow Democrats did not vote. Beall asked for reconsideration and, despite no recent amendments, it passed on Wednesday 11-3 with three members not voting. SB 131 is now headed to the full Assembly for a floor vote.
Read more here.
Another indication of the impotence of the California Catholic Conference. The Dems in the State Assembly couldn’t care less what the Catholic Church, its leaders or its members believe or feel. The exclusion of public institutions from the proposed further scrutiny, is an intended in-your-face insult to the Catholic Church, which is probably what Assemblyman Jim Beall intended. And yet how many good Catholics in San Jose will march to the polls in 2014 and vote for Jim Beall because he is a DEMOCRAT, and aren’t they always for the little guy?
The most fearful are the Catholic bishops, who are spending thousands, if not millions, in every state, in an attempt to stave off reform. What do the bishops fear most? In a word: truth. The nightmares of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are filled, no doubt, with visions of every single state in the Union repeating the California scenario, where a window led to thousands of pages from their files revealing the basic truth that Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles operated with ice-cold logic as he manipulated victims and families in order to protect pedophile priests from the law.
In fact, the leading opponent to child sex abuse legislation in most states has been the Catholic Conference, which is the state lobbying arm for the bishops. In New York, they have joined arms with Agudath Israel, working assiduously to keep the lid on the depraved child-sex-abuse situation in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, where victims and families who report abuse are subjected to shunning and cruelty from their own communities.
This injustice aganist the Catholic Church will come to bite someone some day. Precedence is a nasty little thing
Let’s be clear here: The Church and private schools have spent ANOTHER quarter million dollars to keep sex abuse perpetrators from facing justice. And you call this bill anti-Catholic? This bill is trying to PROTECT Catholics, the part of the Catholic Church that was so disgracefully victimized by Priests of the Church, the kids and their families.
Since they like the Democratic party so much it’s only fair that they should be affected by laws that are promulgated by the Democratic party. They haven’t learned anything from the Obama Care contraception mandate.
This is a horrible bill.
If you ARE going to extend that statute of limitations for Catholic schools, why not for public schools also?
It’s the whole Nativist Nonsense once again, raising its ugly head, seeing the Catholic Church as the enemy.
Anyone who reads the blog AbuseTracker will clearly see that child abuse is a phenomenon that touches every part of the world, every religion, and every possible aspect of society (e.g., coaches, teachers, therapist, rabbis, priests, imams, scout leaders, etc.). To single out our Church for more attacks is just plain wrong.
Since this so called Bill, illegally excludes “Public” schools, it is clearly unconstitutional, but what Demoncrat gives a damn about a Constitution!
Viva Cristo Rey!
May God have mercy on America,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Not unconstitutional, Kenneth, and sorry, We Democrats care deeply about it.
YFC– explain why the bill is consitutional, as Kenneth M. Fisher has given a reason why it isn’t. Explain clearly, and thanks in advance.
Laws are assumed to be Constitutional unless and until a reason is articulated that they are not, followed by a judicial decision about the constitutionality of the law. There hasn’t even been an article of the Constitution which has been said to be violated. If you want to posit an Article that has been violated and why, then I can answer more specifically, but just saying a law that you don’t like is unconstitutional doesn’t make it so.
Clearly the State has the authority to establish or eliminate statutes of limitation for various crimes, and that is what it has done here. For the record, I don’t agree with the portion of this bill that excludes public agencies, but it is not uncommon to set one set of rules for government and another for non-governmental operators. I don’t like it, but that’s the way it is and it is constitutional.
KM Fisher, Public institutions and private institutions need to be held accountable, but the issues are distinct and should be dealt with in separate bills. Unlike private institutions, public institutions must be addressed in legislation which waives their sovereign immunity in order to consent to suit. Also, as to sovereign immunity, there is generally a damages cap issue which would need to be addressed in all cases of sovereign immunity waiver in the state of California.
Re: 131
The LARRY BRINKIN Posse in the Demicrat Legislature may have taken down their group hug photos with Larry, but they haven’t abandoned him or his cause.
By constantly Attacking the Church they Re-Focus media attention Away from their own Behaviors – and those of their admired icons, like Larry.
They help Impoverish a Church already doing more to end such Evil, than all their public zooz & commissions combined.
The head of the ‘in-Human Rights’ commission where Larry Brinkin was a leader – is ‘Sparky the Drag Queen’ (former porn shop owner turned activist) – who Publicly Voiced “!00% Support” for Larry – while also being sued for Discrimination too:
Brinkin is also mentioned in the suit by employee Thomas Willis against said Commission, under Sparky –
(SEE – CV#12-0231 Willis V SF; N.D. CA)
– which may have gone on simultaneous with the Racist Toddler Boy Rape Ring apparently run out of the same.
https://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2012/06/27/no-shame/
Michael Brown writes on Townhall:
” who was Larry Brinkin? He was “a central figure in the gay rights movement,” a man who was so influential that, “The San Francisco board of supervisors actually gave a ‘Larry Brinkin Week’ in February 2010 upon his retirement.”
Brinkin who first used the term “domestic partnerships”…
yet news of his alleged crimes against infants and children, not to mention his alleged White Supremacist leanings, has received very little media attention.
Is there a double standard here? Imagine what the media would be doing if Brinkin had been a conservative Christian leader?”
Whoever “Your Fellow Catholic” is gets it completely wrong again on this unconstitutional bill. When the US Constitution was drafted, we prohibited a “bill of attainder” which this law is as close to as being: a bill of attainder was a law passed specifically and only against one particular individual or group. This law for all intents and purposes is aimed at the Catholic Church, Your Fellow Uninformed One, and is essentially a bill of attainder. Let’s just disregard that fact; then consider the 14th amendment guarantees (or used to guarantee) equal protection under the law. This SB 131 will exempt governmental organizations (such as the public school system, which according to a 2002 Hofstra Univ study far exceed (by 100 times) the number of abuse cases as those in the Catholic Church. Your Fellow Uninformed Catholic also probably doesnt know that this bill will exempt the perpetrators from civil liability (??), but it will be a gold mine for the liability attorney lobby because they know they can simply get easy settlement $$$ from the Catholic dioceses (just as was done with the LA Archdiocese 2007 settlement of claims. Attorneys were estimated to have made off with well over 50% of the $660 million paid out. Oh, yes, Your Uninformed Catholic, this is just, this is constitutional, this is fair. I think Lenin used the phrase “useful idiot”.
How many tens of millions of dollars has the Church spent to cover up these crimes against Catholic children?
The power of the new California law, critics and supporters pointed out, is that it allows for the refiling of cases that were previously dismissed because the statute of limitations had run out. It also places greater responsibility on institutions that employ alleged abusers, where the original law had no such provision.
Manly said he plans to file 35 new civil lawsuits against the church and estimated that the number of new cases could total well into the hundreds. ”I think there is going to be 500 to 1,000 cases statewide when it is all said and done,” he said.
Anderson said his legal team has filed more than 50 lawsuits in California since the law was passed in order to minimize the time the church had ”to protect predators and themselves.” He and his team have already uncovered information that has led to criminal investigations, charges, and the removal of more than 20 priests in California.
This law is clearly not a bill of attainder. A Bill of attainder is a legislative act which strips individuals or groups of their civil right to a trial, declaring them guilty by legislative fiat. This bill clearly deprives no one of a trial, and therefore is not a bill of attiander.
There may be some traction on 14th amendment grounds. Under equal protection, individuals in different groups should not be treated differently for arbitrary reasons.
The Phoenix conveniently forgets that I ALSO disagree with a bill that makes the distinctions among the public and private groups as this one does, regardless of whether it rises tot he level of unconstitutionality. He also conveniently ignores the fact that the Catholic Church spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting this bill because they are STILL trying to cover up the child sex abuse committed by Priests. This scandal continues and will continue until the Church comes completely clean and doesn’t hide behind statutes of limitation and other divices to obfuscate the truth.
Ah yes, Your Fellow Uniformed Catholic has been nettled into grudgingly admitting that SB 131 is actually unconstitutional on 14th amendment grounds (no matter to him/her) (selective due process of law) and in fact, when he learns how to spell it, he will admit eventually that SB131 is effectively such a bill of attainder. At least he did some research to look it up, even tho’ he chose to narrowly define it (based on the law source he looked up) to try to support his argument. This SB 131 is a bill of attainder because it for all intents and purposes identifies the Catholic Church only (and the Boy Scouts) as its focus, immunizes the perpetrators and the public school system, and seeks to destroy these selected private entities. However, no matter to the Uninformed Catholic, who “conveniently ignores” the Hofstra U study, in his goal of becoming the Inspector Javert of the modern era, aiming endlessly to punish others than the guilty and especially the Church he avers he is part of. What a contradiction you are, Mr Uninformed. And yet you try to wrap yourself in your more pure, more dedicated, more honorable loyalty to the truth. What a crock.
Every Californian needs to understand there are few who are opposed to granting sex abuse survivors access to justice. Sadly, the Catholic Bishops are sinking millions of their parishioners’ donations into lobbying tactics designed to keep victims out of court. Some members of this legislature have apparently accepted verbatim the substance of the Catholic Bishops’ playbook designed to shield them from liability, and have even repeated these stock arguments on the record as their own. In truth, there are no legal or constitutional impediments to victims’ access to civil justice. On this issue, the Catholic bishops and their lobbyists have earned no deference.
Steve P, statue of limitations reform has very few detractors other than the Catholic bishops, who have misleadingly argued that window legislation is unconstitutional on the theory that it “targets” the Church. Window legislation does not target any particular perpetrator or organization. Indeed, many of these victims are victims of incest, and others are victims who were subjected to abuse at universities, in day care centers, and anywhere a child can be found. A federal trial court in the Ninth Circuit persuasively upheld the first California window against such an argument. See Melanie H. v. Defendant Doe, No. 04-1596-WQH-(WMc), slip op. (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2005).
Yes it will continue until sodomites are purged from every level of the Church hierarchy
Just discovered Robert Sungenis over the weekend…love his Catholic apologetic’s…he very adroitly refutes “sola scriptura”, by defeating the likes of James White, Matt Slick, and David Hester…Patrick Madrid is excellent also.
By the way, “Your Uninformed Catholic Fellow” I realized must have looked up his law definition of a bill of attainder on Wikipedia: his definition exactly matches that fine scholarly source. SB 131 is a prohibited bill of attainder, which is defined by the Supreme Court “as a legislative act which inflicts punishment on named individuals or members of an easily ascertainable group without a judicial trial.” (US v Lovett, 1946). An “easily ascertainable group” is exactly the Catholic Church in the gunsights of SB 131, and this bill is designed as payback for the Catholic Church’s support of Prop 8 in California. Jim Beall, who was raised a Catholic, but who has no legal background should know better. He, and Your Uninformed Catholic, are putzes of the lawyer lobby.
Dear Phoenix: thanks for quoting the Supreme Court, which exactly matches what I wrote about the definition of a bill of attainder. This legislation does NOT inflict punishment upon indiviudals or groups without the benefit of a judicial proceeding, and therefore cannot be a bill of attainder. I dare you to bring such a Constitutional challenge. Please let me know when the Motion for Summary Judgment is heard, so that I can watch the court throw your case out with a flair.
Facts are useless as usual with Our Uninformed One(s): this law was crafted against “an easily ascertainable group” (Supreme Court’s terminology), which doesnt have to be named and doesnt require a hearing. You have moreover missed the whole point: if you cared about protectingchildren and the potential for abuse, the public school system has abusers in the millions, and they are exempt. You are pursuing a punitive vengeance-driven agenda against the Catholic Church that you purport to love: SB 131 will punish innocent Catholic organizations as well as their supportiveindividuals (an easily ascertainable class, my Uninformed Friend) and will be a big gold strike for the lawyer lobby. You don’t care: because you don’t care about justice.
Phoenix. For the sake of argument I will grant you that:
1) I am, as you say, Uninformed.
2) SB 131 is unconstitutional by whatever grounds you wish.
3) That I do not personally care about justice.
The question for you, Phoenix, is do YOU care about justice for the victims of child abuse and their families? If you do, then what mechanism do YOU propose to see that justice is done?
Uninformed (if you are not also Joan, altho’ I dont think so), at last the TRUTH from you! A rare moment: You are UNINFORMED, SB 131 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL., and (this I would be most concerned about, if you believe in the soul, your soul, and a last judgment, which I guess I know the answer to that already) you “do not care about justice.” Thank you for being truthful about your War on the Catholic Church.
Apparently, you have difficulty comprehending the written word. Not only do you misunderstand what the Supreme Court wrote about bills of attainder, you don’t apparently understand what is meant by “for the sake of argument”. And insofar as you refuse the point of my post, which was to ask you whether you believe priest sex abusers ought to be held accountable for their crimes, you take a pass at a direct answer, choosing instead to insult me. Therefore, you are admitting that you do not believe that priest sex abusers ought to be held accountable. I think it is you who may be at war with the Catholic Church.
Oh, poor UNINFORMED Catholic, who feels personally insulted when I martial facts and he cannot answer them, and then he feels it is personal. I knew eventually he would come forward to directly claim, somehow, that anyone who argues against SB 131 MUST BE in favor of letting “priest sex abusers” run free. What I find interesting is: Mr Uninformed already said that Uninformed Catholic doesnt care about constitutionality of law, nor being informed, nor THE TRUTH. So nothing really matters does it? He impeached himself with that slip of honesty (forget the fig leaf of “for the sake of argument”). Also, I notice Mr Uninformed that you are focused on “priest sex abusers”—that’s an interesting phrase—interesting how you have limited your focus. Mr Uninformed’s showing that other sex abusers (such as in the public schools which abuse rates are hundreds of times that of the CC) are of no consequence. You once again, like Joan, betray your war and hatred of the Cath Church. What is it that the CC has done to you, Mr Uninformed? Something is the source of your bitter animus against her.
Steve P., you need to get a real life. What is wrong with your mined? Pay back for prop 8? The Catholic clergy abused Catholic Boys and GIRLS or have you not heard about this? The Church covered it up and placed the clergy that abused the children in new parish’s so they could abuse more Catholic children and did not notify anyone of what they had done. The only reason the Church is in this situation is because the victims of these crimes started coming forward to finally stop this madness. FYI: Here is the ultimate goal and please take note. The great State of Illinois has lifted the civil statute of limitations for lawsuits alleging child sex abuse! This is a huge step forward and will help to protect countless thousands of kids into the future. “Kids are safest when predators are jailed. But that can’t always happen. So the next best option is to expose predators. Civil lawsuits are a powerful tool toward that end.Civil lawsuits are also a tool that can often bring to light the extensive cover-ups that we see so frequently in religious institutions. When allegations are made as part of a civil lawsuit filed at a public courthouse, the media can readily report on them. When the media reports on them, people learn about them. When people learn about them, other victims often come forward, other people may be prompted to tell what they know, and others who colluded in concealing the crimes can be exposed.
I wrote this. I thought it was not accepted due to being to long. Thanks you for putting it in…. joan
I also forgot to put my name on it. Thanks again
Yes, I actually knew that Anonymous and Joan (or UNINFORMED Catholic) were one and the same. Same sentence structure, same vapid arguments devoid of fact, which is why I grouped “all of you” together. It is a common ploy when someone comes forward with facts and analysis for the mysterious Left to pretend that they are several people and gang up on them. I expect that. I also know that no one of those suppporting SB 131 have READ THE BILL. It would get in the way of their war on the Catholic Church.
Steve – You may be ‘debating’ with a committee, meaning a group of Gaystapo Activists who take turns impersonating a ‘screen persona’, which is an Alinskyite / ‘After the Ball’ tactic for derailing discussion in to flame wars.
I suggest we review the potential for Hurt Feelings based on choice of language, and instead take our Tone from the ‘Commander in Chief’ of the “Corpse-Men” — Barry (Soetoro / Marshall Davis / ObamAcorn… Whoever the guy really is);
Barry must have really had to wriggle his head around to make enough room, before putting this one in his “Man Country” (Chicago Bath House where he was a Stall Stallion) back door entrance.
No Biggie Though – and even though the Missiles are ready to fly as soon as Barry says Boo = I’m sure that Vladdie Putin gets the joke, although it is actually being played on the Amerikans.
Regardless, I am equally sure that Down Low Soetoro looks forward to even more “very productive” exchanges with the Leader of Russia, as do we all… Ahem.
“I know the press likes to focus on body language, and he’s got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom. But the truth is that when we’re in conversations together, oftentimes it’s very productive,” Obama said.
wrong again. That is a real good name for you mr. p.
Great comment, Mr McDermott.
The great State of Illinois has lifted the civil statute of limitations for lawsuits alleging child sex abuse!
This is a huge step forward and will help to protect countless thousands of kids into the future.
“Kids are safest when predators are jailed. But that can’t always happen. So the next best option is to expose predators,”. Civil lawsuits are a powerful tool toward that end.
Civil lawsuits are also a tool that can often bring to light the extensive cover-ups that we see so frequently in religious institutions.
When allegations are made as part of a civil lawsuit filed at a public courthouse, the media can readily report on them. When the media reports on them, people learn about them. When people learn about them, other victims often come forward, other people may be prompted to tell what they know, and others who colluded in concealing the crimes can be exposed. Most importantly, with the exposure that civil lawsuits bring, people can at least have the opportunity to be warned about credibly-accused predators, and parents can then make their own decisions about who they’re willing to trust their kids with.
Oh, Joan, dear, the state of CA ALREADY lifted the statute of limitations in 2003: assurances were made then by legistlators to insurance companies and the Catholic Church that they would be able to once and for all settle all claims in this regard. Properties were sold, insurance policies turned in, $1.2 billion was paid out. Now SB 131 is a duplicitous effort to break faith in the promise and re-inaugurate the unremitting war on the Catholic Church. So, not that you would admit this, Joan, twin soul of Uninformed Catholic, when is enough enough? Or let’s just admit this is an unremitting war of vengeance against the Catholic Church and you are Inspector Javert, blind to justice, mercy or humanity.
Steve P, It’s not a one time deal. It’s only in your mind that it is. The window is not for cases filed in 2003.
No, Joan, I didnt say the last exemption or lifting of the statutes (SB 1779 2002) was only for cases filed in 2003: the abuse claims numbered from the 1950’s up to the then-present. I really wonder if you have read this bill and the legislative analyses. (No, I know the answer.) SB 131 will allow the bringing forth of claims of individuals not just up to age 26, but at the time that the “repressed memory” occurs to them, as corrobated by a licensed psych professional. Persons will be able AGAIN to bring forth claims from 30, 40, 50 years ago—and have. There is no way to find the truth to these claims. Again, Stephen Bainbridge at UCLA calls this a rank injustice to a defendant and impossible to verify. But you havent read the bill and dont care to understand it.
Factless, feckless, The Uninformed Catholic, Anonymous (because he needs to hide from the truth), Joan and fellow Catholic Church-hating soul-mates launch their sanctimonious attack on the Catholic Church in California. When SB 1779 was passed in 2002, it promised the then-lifting of the statute of limits would be once and for all. Now reinstating a new suspension of statutory limits is (according to CA Council of Nonprofit Orgs) clearly double jeopardy, and yes, Uninformed Catholic, that’s unconstitutional also (5th amendment to save you time). Distinguished professor @ UCLA Law, Stephen Bainbridge, calls SB 131 “”seriously flawed, unfair, and probably unconstitutional.” Joan apparently refers to attorney Jeff Anderson as some great crusader against clergy abuse, when in actual fact Mr Anderson has made hundreds of millions on the 2003 round of legal larceny, none of which money went to compensate victims (if you all really cared: you don’t) Joan sees nothing wrong with exempting public schools and targeting Catholic diocese and their schools:bring them all into this law, Joanie. The Catholic bishops of CA have asked the Legislature to estimate the cost to the state if hundreds more private schools are forced to close, but it has refused (that’s its and Joan’s goal). And none of you I have mentioned have actually read SB 131.
Also this IS payback for the Cath Church’s support of Prop 8: Nancy Skinner, co-author to the bill, was endorsed by the major LGBT CA organization and Ricardo Lara and Jim Beall are emphatic opponents of Prop 8 and are all supported by Planned Parenthood.
Good point about the ‘legal profession’ feasting off of the Church. In many such cases the attorney take is 30-40 %, After deducting expenses of course.
WE – Should have set up a system to Care for and Compensate the Children (Mostly Boys Targeted by Homosex Ephebophile Pederasts – who were allowed in often because of the Vengeful Hatred of the Church by too many of our alleged ‘gatekeepers’, who shared such Misandry) – and both Church & Victims would have fared better than this ugly farce.
In ‘Mass Tort’ cases it is often only the Initial Attorney who proves the case, and once a settlement is reached they recruit new ‘Clients’ – who get paid for without any of the original work being needed.
In other words – New Clients are a Work Free Bonus in many mass tort cases (anyone seen the Mesothelioma / Asbestos Ads on TV – That litigation is over, but the big bucks keep rolling in for attorneys who file new claims, and get the Same Cut).
The SHAME of this Homosex Evil permitted to infect the Church has at least woken up many of us to the need to ‘Guard the Guards’, and that the Church does not operate on ‘Automatic’, even if it seems so sometimes.
The choice is plain: protect children, or protect predators and the institutions that gave them access to children. The victims of child sex abuse who are suffering right now need state legislators to do the right thing, for the right reasons, and to send packing the bishops who have lost their way on the issue of justice.
The pending California SOL reform bill, SB131, and the SOL window within it, is about access to justice for child-sex-abuse victims, and offers the only means to justice for thousands of survivors of sexual abuse that California law has currently barred from the system. Every parishioner needs to understand what is really at stake: justice for those who allowed children to be terribly abused.
You havent read the bill, Joan, have you? SB 131 exempts the actual predators and selectively targets the Catholic Church and certain private organizations—for the lawsuit payoff! None of the hundreds of millions of dollars that Jeff Anderson ripped out of the LA Archdiocese has gone for social programs, food for the poor, child protection programs, elder care, and private schools, and most of all, none of it went to the plaintiffs for compensatory and remediation services and care. You are showing your bitter negative animus for the Catholic Church and cloaking it in a false tunic of care for the victims — but not the victims 100-time as many according to Hofstra U’s study, that are in the public schools. Persons will be able to bring a lawsuit regardless of how many years ago the alleged abuse occurred based on when the “repressed memory” came up in therapy, vouched for by their psychologist (yes, that’s in the bill too: but you dont care to read it). It is unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional (words of distinguished UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge). But you dont care about justice or protecting children at all.
Steve p WRONG AGAIN, The argument the bishops typically try to float against victims’ access to justice is the weak argument that windows are unconstitutional. Cardinal Gomez did not mention it in his short missive to parishioners, but his lobbyists are pushing it in the halls of the legislature in Sacramento. Surprisingly, Professor Stephen Bainbridge posted a blog with a weak constitutional argument against it. He does not take into account any of the actual cases or arguments that are relevant, and appears not to fully grasp all of the work that has already been done on the issue. If I were Professor Bainbridge, I would have declined the “opportunity” to defend the indefensible. S.B. 131 contains three key elements: (1) it would prospectively eliminate the SOL for civil actions brought by victims of childhood sexual abuse; (2) extend for 30 years some previously lapsed claims; and (3) retroactively revive for a period of one 1 year all other actions for which the statute of limitations (“SOL”) had previously lapsed. Without the relentless efforts of lawyers like Jeff Anderson the hired guns of the LA Archdiocese would have silenced the victims of priest child abuse forever. Alas, that will never happen. Not in this country at least.
Ah, yes: Joan is a greater constitutional thinker than Stephen Bainbridge [who only holds the William D. Warren (endowed) Distinguished Professor of Law Chair at UCLA] (Joan calls his argument “weak” :) ???) Have you read the bill finally Joan? In 2002 SB 1779 lifted the statute of limits with the law stipullating at the time this was once and for all to grant justice to plaintiffs. Insurance policies were surrendered, properties were sold, the Cath Church paid out an estimated $1.2 BILLION in claims. Not enough for Joanie. Again you ignore that the largest concentration of abusers is in the public school system, which is exempted by SB 131, so you really do not care about protection of children. New plaintiffs according to SB 131 can bring claims at any time —from 30, 40, 50 yrs ago or more—as long as their “repressed memory” is documented to a licensed professional. As for Jeff Anderson, the legalized larceny lawyer from Minnesota, were the hundreds of millions that he ripped out of the LA Archdiocese—were these millions spent by him for food programs for the poor, elderly assistance, elementary education,
substance abuse program support, or the myriad programs of social good that this diocese and other Catholic dioceses use this $$ for? NO. The money didnt even go to the plaintiffs for compensatory and remedial assistance. Jeff Anderson scored probably upwards of $350 MILLION of the $660 million paid by LA Archdiocese and it went into his pockets alone.
Oh, Joan dear: IF SB 131 is enacted, as unconstitutional and ex post facto and bill-of-attainder-like that it is (nothing gets in the way of the agenda of the State of California, Planned Parenthood, Anti-Prop 8 orgs and the rest in their war/your war on the Catholic Church, are you actually GUARANTEEING no more “statute-of-limits-lifting” again? Hmm? I dont think you are: I don’t think you will be ever done until the Cath Church is destroyed (even tho’ it cannot be ever destroyed). What is your answer? Be careful, Joan: either answer will trap you.
WRONG AGAIN, SB 131 will be signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown. It all comes down to you being just a pathetic little bully. Keep on writing your clueless nonsense. I know too many Catholics that are on the right side of this issue. You are in a massive minority, which means the Catholic victims of child abuse are getting some justice for what the Church has done to them. They are going to do everything they can to prevent the Church from ever doing this again to other children. Their hope is for the Church to reform itself and protect the children that is put in their charge. I hope that happens some day. What do you Hope for? I hope the answer for you is not WRONG AGAIN.