Okay, Bishop Pedophelia Protector, NOW who would protect you?????????

The BBQ Pit
1

Please read this Associated Press articlefrom the Boston Herald.com site, written by Robert O’Neill, AP writer. Scroll down to " Judge: Cardinal Must Answer Questions". Boston’s Cardinal Law ( and, I use that name hesitantly-see below) has already met with the Pope, but

NOW, it seems that this Mr. Law ( I absolutely refuse to refer to him as Bishop Law, he does not in any way warrant the respect that that title confers) is indeed going BACK to the Vatican City next week, as a part of a 13-member United States contingent of Cardinals attending a meeting with the Pope.

He wishes to CLEAN UP THE SEXUAL ABUSE SCANDAL???. Oh, nice. Read the article linked above. This human ( can’t really refer to him as a man in good conscience, because, he sure isn’t like any MAN I’ve ever met, or ever wish to meet ) spent years protecting child rapsts. This sanctimonious piece of shit now wants to go back and “CLEAN UP”. What’s up, Bernie??? Crisis of conscience?? :rolleyes:

If there is any justice on this earth, this human in a white gown will go to the Vatican City swaggering about under the title of Bishop, and will summarily be stripped of his title, and will return to Boston a normal lay person. Upon which time ( again, IMHO if there is ANY Justice ), this civillian will be met at Logan Airport, foot shackled and handcuffed and immediately charged with conspiracy to suppress evidence in a Federal Probe, not to mention his direct involvement in protecting a sex offender.

They love baby rapists in prison. He apparently thinks there is nothing wrong with what he has done, over and over and over and over and over and over again. Good and fine for him, then he’ll have a remarkably clean conscience as he spends the remaining years of his life in solitary.

Unless of course, he wants a taste of the general prison population.

:mad:

If this human didn’t have the powerful connections he has, he’d already be in jail.

So far, IMHO, there IS NO JUSTICE. Let’s see how far Mr. I Love To Protect Baby Rapists gets when he steps foot back in the United States of America as a civillian. There is apparently ( according to the article cited above) plenty of written proof that he’s been covering for pedophiles.

He did the crime. Let’s see him do the time. Just like anyone else.

People place their trust in leaders in public office, and in religious organizations. In a pattern that is sickeningly well documented, this person decided to betray that trust at every turn.

This entire thing is so sickening, it’s beyond the pale and the longer this hoodlum in a robe drags it all out, the worse it gets. The few Catholic people I have spoken to about this just go ballistic.

:frowning:

Cartooniverse

2

“Human?”

Too good. “Pig” is too good. “Monster” insults good under-bed-dwelling nasties everywhere.

3

Cardinal Law should be defrocked, rebuked and thrown to the civil authorities so that they can do their worst. He, and bishops like him, and the pedophile priests, area cancer on the Church, and should be treated as such. We cannot stand by and think that men like Law are acting in good faith. Not anymore.

Kirk

4

Q:

why is a Cardinal “above the law” in Boston?

Has the First Amendment gotten to Massachusetts yet?

5

It is possible that the district attorney or attorney general in Massachusetts is holding off for political reasons.

It is, of course, also possible that whoever needs to bring the charges is simply being very careful.
Nothing like calling a grand jury and getting a really big indictment, only to have the defense attorney quash it at the arraignment with the statute of limitations or to get to trial simply to discover that there is not a very clear paper trail that will guarantee a conviction. (Remember, the standards of evidence in a court of law are much higher than in the press.) To get a conviction, they have to prove not that “he shoulda knowed” there was a problem, but that he was in violation of a specific statute at the time he committed (or omitted) a specific act according to the language of the law.

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**It is possible that the district attorney or attorney general in Massachusetts is holding off for political reasons.

It is, of course, also possible that whoever needs to bring the charges is simply being very careful.
Nothing like calling a grand jury and getting a really big indictment, only to have the defense attorney quash it at the arraignment with the statute of limitations or to get to trial simply to discover that there is not a very clear paper trail that will guarantee a conviction. (Remember, the standards of evidence in a court of law are much higher than in the press.) To get a conviction, they have to prove not that “he shoulda knowed” there was a problem, but that he was in violation of a specific statute at the time he committed (or omitted) a specific act according to the language of the law. **[/QUOTE
Excellent points, Tom. You do have to admit that it’s pretty damning when the A.G. and others trying to even gain access to DOCUMENTS are stonewalled.

That was some of the point of my rant- that he’s hiding behind his political clout. Just LET him step off that plane as a defrocked Bishop, unable to use his considerable powers of political favors to hide behind.

Happyheathen, I did not mean to besmirch the Commonwealth of Massachusettes. Yes, the Constitution is alive and well up there, no doubt. However, there is the spirit of law, and the rigid enforcement thereof. Tom is right, one should wait, and let the Media froth about, until a lock-solid case is built. They cannot BUILD a case if Obstruction of Justice is flaunted before their faces, however.

In truth, the obstruction of justice is pretty commonplace amongst those who hold themselves to be above the law. ( IMHO, and no I won’t provice a cite, just watch CNN for 24 hours…). It is his acts…what this man did, instead of tending his responsibilities, that appalls me so terribly.

**HOW THE HELL DOES HE SLEEP AT NIGHT??? **

7

So, uh, does my last post have ANY credibility to it since I didn’t Preview? I would blame the laptop keyboard, but I just didn’t Preview, sorry.

8

What law, specifically, do you contend “Mr.” Law should be charged with violating, Cartooniverse?

You mention

I don’t think there is any credible evidence that he took actions to “suppress evidence” during a “Federal Probe.” Nor is “protecting a sex offender” an actual crime.

In this thread, paperbackwriter suggests “obstruction of justice” or “harboring a fugitive” charges against Law; SuaSponte and I both comment on the inapplicability of such charges to Law’s conduct.

So, vitriol aside, what SPECIFIC violations of law do you want to present to the grand jury?

  • Rick
9

Bricker, you’re entitled to your opinion ( which seems to give a pass on Bernie), and I’m entitled to mine. The statements made in that article make it clear that the attorneys for the State feel that Bernie is suppressing documents and obstructing justice.

I don’t know if you are an attorney, or if you are, if you are a criminal attorney. Guess what? I don’t give a fuck either. This man has done EVERYTHING in his considerable power to shield a pedophile from prosecution. Unless your knowledge of Massachusettes criminal law is unspeakably daunting, I respectfully suggest you shut the fuck up and allow those of us who DO INDEED find his behavior to be reprehensible to say as much. That is what THIS thread is about.

And, if you work for the Commonwealth then by all means, Fight Ignorance and cite case law proving that every single thing that Bernie has done in the past ten years that directly involves the shifting of Priests to avoid having them be prosecuted is ABSOLUTELY LEGAL. Of course, if you are successful in those cites, there are some lawyers up north who might like a moment of your time ( at $ 400.00 an hour, it’ll at least pay for lunch ).

You’re entitled to your opinion, I’m entitled to mine. Mine is that he’s a dangerous sick person, and should be prosecuted vigorously and WITHOUT EXCEPTION given to his job. He should suffer the same fate as any other pedophile in this country who has done what he has done- enable others to sexually molest children. I’m curious, which part of " I violently disapprove of covering for baby rapists" don’t you understand?

This is the BBQ Pit, NOT G.D. You want to get into a case law cite battle that is filled with perfect hyperlinks to the Massachusettes Criminal Code, go for it. Open a thread there and just have a jim dandy time.

I’m dismayed at the treatment this creature is afforded because of his job, and I said as much. Don’t try to turn this into some straw man fucking argument of yours, where you win because I dont’ cite case law. Go to G.D. and get your rocks off there. I made the tone of this, and the reason for the rant, extremely clear in the O.P.

If you are indeed an attorney, you sure as fuck don’t know how to read English.

10

It’s been about 90 minutes, and I’m STILL steamed at how obnoxious his hijack attempt was.

11

Ah, yes… the old “This is The Pit, so logic is optional.”

As it happens, I am an attorney, although not a Massachusetts attorney. In fact, I’m a former public defender.

You’re perfectly entitled to rage and rant. But when you ask me to

I have to gently point out that that isn’t quite how the criminal justice system works. The way it does work is that the Commonwealth points to a specific act or acts, and alleges that they violated a specific law. The acccused is thus put on notice as to what he’s accused of, and may develop whatever defenses he feels are appropriate.

I’m not even trotting out the business about “innocent until proven guilty.” I’d just like to know what crime you believe he should be charged with. That’s all.

Now, if the “tone” of your rant was supposed to put me on notice that you really didn’t care whether or not there was a specific crime to charge him with – sort of a, “This guy is a sick fuck, and what he did should be illegal; I don’t care if it’s not!” then that’s certainly a valid Pit sentiment.

Unfortunately, it won’t ever translate into an actual criminal conviction.

I don’t question, or misunderstand, your violent disapproval. But, again, violent disapproval does not equate to criminal charges.

I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not trying to stop you from saying how reprehensible you find his actions to be. But you did more than that – you suggested he should be held criminally liable. In order for that to happen, he had to break actual criminal laws, which, so far as I can discern, he has not. I welcome evidence to the contrary, of course.

Now, should his actions be vigorously investigated, without regard to his position, in the manner of a thorough criminal investigation? Of course - terrible things happened. Any kid-glove treatment given to Cardinal Law by virtue of his position is absolutely wrong. And if it develops that Cardinal Law, during the pendency of an on-going criminal investigation, actively thwarted the efforts of the investigators, then I fully support charges of obstruction of justice.

But if the “obstruction” refers only to the earlier efforts in reassigning priests and not revealing their pasts, then, while reprehensible indeed, the conduct is NOT obstruction of justice – indeed, not criminal at all.

  • Rick
12

Cartooninverse, you made quite a few unsupported assertions in your OP. I don’t think Bricker is being unreasonable in asking you to back them up, Pit or not. For instance, both:

and

are assertions without support in your OP or linked article.

That may be what you intended for this thread, but I don’t think it matches what you wrote in your OP. Furthermore, your response to Bricker’s attempt to deal with the facts of the case by asking him for cites was ludicrious. Asking you to support what you wrote in your own OP is not, in any way, a hijack.

Yes, you’re entitled to your opinion as much as anyone is. But saying “If this human didn’t have the powerful connections he has, he’d already be in jail” is not simply an opinion. It is an assertion and a conclusion. Persumably you have reached this conclusion based upon some knowledge of what you believe to be the facts of the case, and asking you to state what your understanding of the facts are is not unreasonable.

It is my opinion, which apparently I’m entitled to, that your response to Bricker was completely off the wall and over the line. Beyond the pale, even.

13

The title of your thread along with the OP seemed to be heavily weighed towards the punishment aspect (“NOW who would protect you” appearing to mean who would protect Law when he is defrocked, arrested, and thrown in jail.) A couple of other people made comments about the possibility of prosecution before Bricker. Why aren’t you steamed at those hijacks?

I don’t doubt your anger over Law’s actions. But you only seemed to object to the hijack when a person disagreed with you. I also thought it was unfair to imply that Bricker doesn’t find Law’s behavior reprehensible.

14

How droll. This is the Pit. I wholeheartedly welcome you to take that entire frame of mind right on down the block, to the Great Debates board. I can make any assertion I wish to, and I can come to any conclusion I wish to.

Perhaps you’re forgetting that there’s a difference between being a jerk and standing up for what you believe in. This is the Pit ( there, for the slow-witted, I’ve said it twice ). Members of this message board communite are permitted to post in here, and speak FROM THEIR HEARTS, without the demands and restrictions of citing.

I am extremely sorry that this bothers you. As I said above, you might find some time in the Great Debates board to be gratifying, if you engage in a debate on the topic I’ve raised.

I owe you no apology. However, if my wording made it sound as though I was saying that Bricker in some way condoned what this speck of dirt has done, I DO INDEED apologize here and now. Sorry, Bricker. I don’t agree with your need for cites, you don’t agree with my visceral attitude about this person. I can appreciate that, even if I don’t agree with it. I didn’t mean to imply that you supported this person’s activities.

15

Boston Area Priests Wish Law To Resign

In this CNN/Law article, ( written by Reuters ), the following quote appears

.

He did nothing. He allowed it to continue for years. He promoted Shanley. You asked for proofs that this man KNEW OF AND ENABLED PEDOPHELIA TO CONTINUE. Here it is. Somehow, though, I know it won’t be enough.

Is this a new problem in the Catholic Church? No, it is not.

It takes a LOT for Bernie Law to get rid of one of his boys.

And, for those who want to know how the lawyers are lookin’ in all of this action, well here is this little gem- Bernie Law’s lawyer tries like heck to shut up that pesky rape victim- and loses to a Judge.

I’ve left messages with two attorneys I know who live in Mass. I’m going to ask them both to find me ( as best as they can ) case law cites that I can link to, that show that there are indeed laws against protecting a sex offender.

Apparently this is no longer the BBQ Pit, and is now a coarse version of Great Debates. Fine. I’ll post in as much citeable data as I can find, since apparently one’s feelings on such topics as pedophelia and protecting sex offenders just isn’t fit discussion matter here, unless rigorously backed up with Internet Links.

Well boy, live and learn. It’s a whole new kinda Straight Dope. :rolleyes:

16

It may be that, Cartooniverse, that you’re confusing the civil process described in your last link with the criminal process.

I absolutely believe Cardinal Law may be civilly liable, under any number of theories. What I’m balking at is the suggestion he may be criminally liable.

No matter the forum, the entire Straight Dope website exists to correct misinformation and provide accurate information. While the purpose of the Pit is obviously to permit steam to be blown off, and ought not to be held to the rigorous standards of GD, I think permitting blatant misstatements to pass unchallenged is contrary to the spirit of the Straight Dope.

If my interpretation is incorrect, I’m sure a mod will amble along and scold me.

  • Rick
17

You’re asking a Mod to come along and rubber-stamp your insistence that I provide Case Law Cites to back up my desire to see a pedophile prosecuted? Or… or what? Your last sentence is basically a challenge to a Moderator of this Board to either come along and chastise YOU, or come along and chastise ME.

Show me where my cites, as provided so far, show blatant misinformation. I think that before you do so, you need to think really hard about accusing a reporter of blatant misinformation, and of publishing lies. This Law guy, he tried to have the rape victim gagged, by using his lawyer. ( Obviously, this cite really burned you up, since it showed the entire Straight Dope community that attorneys have actively tried to shut up rape victims in this case. Sorry, it’s the truth.). The other cites I have provided to back up my statements are equally truthful. Of course, you are free to say that every single one of those reporters has lied 100% in their articles, and therefore my use of them is 100% false and not legitimate.

Is that indeed what you have said, by saying that I am making blatant misstatements? Interesting.

Think hard, HARD, lawyer. Because, those articles I used to provide proof of what that man has done, are NOT my words.

YOUR WORDS:

.

You’re accusing a lot of professional reporters of slander. Go for it, but before you do, think very hard about dragging the Chicago Reader down with your arrogance.

I posted this Pit Thread because I find the actions of one man to be despicable. You’ve just accused quite a few profesisonal reporters- whose works I have cited above- of using misstatements.

Careful, lawyer…careful. I too yearn to correct misinformation. I’ve used articles written by people MUCH more familiar this case than I.

I have not altered a SINGLE WORD of any of those articles, I linked them * in toto* to this thread. If you accuse me of misinforming, then you have just accused all of those writers of same.

Careful…

18

Toonie, I hope you’ll read this and calm down. I too am very upset with whatizname Law, and wouldn’t mind seeing him in the criminal courts. But I think you may be overpersonalizing the responses here. If I were to give professional advice here (which I try to avoid), I’d say chill and save your ire for more appropriate targets. Legal minds in Massachusetts are trying to find out if Law can be prosecuted there, and from what I read, they ain’t having much luck.

Just my 2 cents.

19

As for what Bricker said about civil v.s. criminal, that’s a good question. I’m still waiting to find out if Priests are Mandated Reporters in the Commonwealth.

If they are, then well, here IS the state lawthat discusses those responsibilities.

I’m at least as familiar with State Mandated Reporters as you are, Bricker. Attorneys are not mandated. I am, in TWO DIFFERENT PROFESSIONS. ( Somehow, I get the feeling he’s gonna say I’m misinforming on this count too. I am a NY State Certified EMT, and a Substitute Teacher, bound by the laws governing all Teachers in this state. zBOTH jobs are State Mandated Reporters.).

If Bernie is indeed a Mandated Reporter, at least that’s a place to start. It’s not civil court, either. Violating that mandate is a criminal offense, as near as I can see. ( I’m still researching the case law though ).

This Definiton Site shows how a State Mandated Reporter is viewed in the Commonwealth. I see ANY Priest as a Family Counsellor/Therapist, but this definition may indeed be the cornerstone of any defense by Bernie. Time will tell. However, if any Priest is viewed as a Mandated Reporter, this man is sunk.

20

Why would he be a Mandated Reporter Cartooniverse, because of his vocation as a priest? If anything, I’d wager that priests have special dispensations, due to the confessional silence. (In otherwords, if the pedoshit told him in confession, I’m not sure what Laws choices would be.) That said, I do agree he should be removed from his position, and he should be open to suit from the victims (Not sure about the CA ones, but the Mass ones definitely). And I do hope that there is a law that deals with Law, but without the need for an emotional reinterpretation of said law.