Cartooniverse:
The “blatant misstatement” I referred to came not from the articles you cited, but from this sentence in the OP:
This suggests either that the police would jail someone with no powerful connections without an actual criminal act, or that his high position has protected him from the penal consequences of a criminal
… er… hit Submit accidentally and too soon.
…from the penal consequences of a criminal act.
So there has to be a criminal act by Cardinal Law, or a willingness to disregard the requirements of the law (small l) by the authorities.
Neither is the case.
Can anyone tell me why Cartooniverse is so pissed off at Bricker? Damned if I can see anything to justify his anger.
I’m with you Gary Kumquat. I’m still wondering why devoting a chunk of the OP to discussing criminal penalites is OK, tomndebb’s fairly detailed discussion of possible criminal prosecution is OK, Cartooniverse’s response to tomndebb is OK, but Bricker’s discussion of the difficulties of prosecution is not OK and deserving of such venemous responses.
I wasn’t asking for caselaw, I was asking why all discussion of prosecution was OK until Bricker posted.
I’m wondering if you carefully and completely read the articles I linked in. In the article I used in the O.P. (which is, incredibly, NOT linking any more, my apologies ), an attorney for the State made it clear that documents existed, and that Bernie was witholding them. These documents outline how this Priest was moved around from parish to parish.
IANAL, and YANAL in Mass, so we’re on a level playing field. My rant in my O.P. still holds water. I guess in a week or so, we will find out what happens when he returns to Boston. If there is any justice, he’ll be Defrocked in Rome, and will return a civillian. Neither you nor I can predict how the Prosecution will proceed.
Zoff? To answer your question directly, it was because Bricker accused me of wholesale misstatements and misinformation. He did just explain what he meant by that accusation.
He took a purely emotional comment, and demanded case law cite. I apologize, but the world doesn’t operate purely by case law cite- especially on this particular BBQ Pit board. Perhaps Bricker might do well to go and read the exact purpose and use of this Board before further accusing me of misinformation.
I voiced a heartfelt opinion. Unless those are suddenly outlawed around here, he owes me an apology. If, OTOH, I missated or misinformed as to a hard fact or detail of the situations I’ve linked in so far, by all means please demand that I show proofs. I’d expect no less of anyone else, Pit or not.
I said that I felt he was being treated with extreme deference because of his position. I stand by that statement, and feel that it will likely not stop after next week, my heartfelt wishes or not.
It hardly takes a degree in law from St. John’s to understand how the world operates IRL.
Cartooniverse
One other thing. I don’t know Bricker. If someone else had come in and accused me to misinforming the SDMB as to the facts of this case, I would have responded in a similar way.
It’s not personal, it’s business.
Cartooniverse:
The fact that documents exist and Cardinal Law refuses to supply them still does not create a criminal act.
When an investigation seeks documents, there are a number of vehicles available to it. They may request the documents voluntarily be given to them. Failure to do this does not equal obstruction of justice.
They may subpoena them, through a process known as subpoena duces tecum, if a grand jury is investigasting the incident. Or the prosecutor’s office may have some statutory right to issues subpoenas in Massachusetts. Finally, the documents may be discovered as part of the civil litigation process, and the contents shared with prosecutors by the plaintiffs.
In each case, there are certain privileged grounds for withholding certain documents. A classic case is work product - in general, documents created by an attorney, in-house counsel or otherwise, for the purposes of developing legal strategy, are privileged. Written communications between lawyer and client are similarly privileged and protected from disclosure.
If the Archodiocese believes any of their files fit into one of those exceptions, they may move to quash the subpoena as it relates to the privileged documents. A judge will decide the merits of their claim and rule. They may have the right to an immediate appeal of that judge’s ruling. Eventually, a final order will be reached. At that point, failure to turn over documents responsive to the order would be a criminal act. Not before.
Of course, destruction of documents in the interim would constitute obstruction of justice.
But again, the mere failure to voluntarily disclose documents, without more, is not a criminal act. Perhaps it should be. Perhaps priests should be mandated reporters. They are not.
With all that in mind,
is an inaccurate statement. It is untrue. The same law that protects the powerful Cardinal Law would protect a lowly soup kitchen worker in similar straits. He, too, would be morally, and perhaps civilly, liable, but not violative of any criminal law.
Sorry, but read his original post and tell me where he accuses you of anything?
In fact he doesn’t say anything about misinformation until you accuse him of trying “to turn this into some straw man fucking argument of yours”, declare that “If you are indeed an attorney, you sure as fuck don’t know how to read English”, tell him to “shut the fuck up”, and generally abuse the fuck out of him…
…all because he asked “What law, specifically, do you contend “Mr.” Law should be charged with violating”
Oh yeah, that’s reasonable.
Cartooniverse, what the fuck is your damage? You make a statement, and Bricker points out that your statement is inaccurate, and you throw a hissy fit.
Thanks for explaining the rules - one is not allowed to contradict Cartooniverse. :rolleyes:
Listen, I know you are a nice guy, and I know this issue has you (rightfully) riled up - I’m majorly pissed off, too. But that does not excuse your abuse of Bricker.
Sua
Cartooniverse, I think you’re mistaking X for Y here. I have not seen Bricker’s stance as in any way accusing you of anything (except misinterpreting what he had to say). He’s doing a lawyer’s job – pointing out to an irate “client” what the law requires in order to proceed with a case. In the case of criminal law (or criminal Law!;)), one is obliged to charge with a specific crime or crimes – and Bricker is simply saying that, no matter how heinous Law’s actions are, they do not constitute a crime per se based on the evidence available to date.
However, Bricker, I’d be curious as to whether Massachusetts has the provision that becoming aware of the commission of a felony in one’s official capacity, whether or not a “mandated reporter” and taking actions calculated to cover up the existence of said felony makes one an accessory after the fact, perhaps AKA criminal facilitation. Also, being aware of the commission of a crime and using one’s authority as supervisor of a person who committed a crime to place him in a position where he could repeat the crime with reasonable grounds to suppose that he would so repeat if he could, sounds like a form of defined criminal conduct to me – though I have no idea what the Massachusetts Criminal Code says about it.
Presuming yourself to be in the role of Special Prosecutor for the Commonwealth, Bricker, and assuming only the knowledge available at present, would you consider looking into what Law might be legitimately charged with?
No, for two (or perhaps 1.5 reasons). The first reasons is that the Massachusetts General Law s. 268.36 - Compounding or Concealing a Felony - requires, as an element of the crime, that the party concealing the felony take money in return for concealing the crime.
The second reason is that Mr. Law probably didn’t conceal the felonies, at least in a legal sense. Moving the priests would not be considered “concealing” the crime, because there is no real reason to believe that the felonies would have been uncovered had the priests remained where they were. The parents knew of the crime, and they could have informed the police regardless of where the priest was. (I call this a half-reason because I don’t know what all has been learned about the specifics of the moves. Moving a priest out of state might qualify.
This I don’t know about, but I doubt it. Say you find out your employee is embezzling from your company. Instead of firing the guy or reporting it, you admonish him and take the money he stole out of his pay package. The guy then embezzles again. You are an idiot, but you aren’t a criminal.
Sua
What Sua said. 
We hashed this issue out a bit in another thread (I linked to it above in my post of 4-18 at 9:19 AM.) Basically, the bottom line is there’s no particular criminal penalty involved in failing to report a crime. As Sua cogently points out, if there were, theoretically the parents of the minor child would be just as guilty as Cardinal Law. Even moving a priest out of state, as long as it wasn’t in response to an active criminal investigation, probably would not qualify as concealing the crime.
As a special prosecutor, I’d use the subpoena power of the grand jury to its full limits – which are quite extensive. (As the saying goes, most grand juries would be willing to indict a ham sandwich for the murder of Abraham Lincoln, if the prosecutor so urges). I’d especially look for evidence that obstructive actions were taken, documents moved or destroyed, etc., since the criminal investigation began. I’d also look for any indication that any official of the Archdiocese encouraged perjurious testimony in any setting, even if the perjury never actually happened - that’s a crime.
There is a law that requires any person who “…knows that another person is a victim of aggravated rape, rape, murder, manslaughter or armed robbery” to report that crime, but only if the person is “…at the scene of said crime.” So that doesn’t fly, unless we make several inferential leaps unsupported by any of the current evidence. And in any case, violation of that reporting law is punishable only by a fine, not imprisonment.
So far as I can see, the best weapon to discover any possible crime committed by Cardinal Law would be a vigorous investigation, which I fully support.
However, from everything we know now, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, he’s not criminally liable.
Interesting. I didn’t state a fact, this isn’t G.Q. OR G.D. I stated how I felt. I actually said in the O.P. " If there is any Justice".
I can understand of course, your doidies are in a twist because I dared to go after another attorney >>yawn<<. Bottom line here is not that you cant’ disagree with me, so fuck you very much. Bottom line here is that he twisted my OPINION around to be read as FACT. And, that is why he pissed me off.
The facts I’ve delievered so far seem rather untouchable, I wonder why he’s not attacking them. Hmmm…could it be that I’ve shown irrefutably that each statement I’ve made is true? That his attorney DID indeed attempt to gag the rape victim as cited? That he DID indeed fight bitterly before finally defrocking another pedophile priest? That this is indeed a HIGHLY documented problem in the Roman Catholic Church system ? ( no offense to any individual Catholic Dopers in any way, this is a systemic issue ).
Bricker called my statements from the heart as “misinformation”. Sorry, but statements from the heart don’t NEED case law cites. The cites I’ve provided are bulletproof.
Polycarp, what I objected to was the statement made up there which read, Originally Posted by Bricker
He attempts to disprove a statement of emotion, by saying that I’ve lied to the SDMB and the stated that
.
Apples and Oranges, man. I misstate fact, fine- rip me a new one. I state a HEARTFELT FEELING AND DESIRE AND WISH, and you want me to cite case law like this is the fucking Paper Chase? Sorry.
The spirit of the SDMB is that we respect other’s feelings and opinions. You don’t like what I called Bernie? You don’t like how I’ve called his actions reprehensible? That’s okay, you don’t have to. But, to say as you have in the quote above that I am violating the spirit of the SDMB by making blatant misstatements?
We’ll either have to agree to disagree, or you will have to wait and see what happens to Bernie this time next week. I’m kind of interested to see what you will have to say when he steps foot on American soil again as a defrocked Bishop, and is immediately charged. All I can do is hope.
One wonders what you will have to say if that day ever passes.
Polycarp, apparently my cites on Mass. Laws concerning Mandated Reporters were useless to Bricker until you brought up the topic. Figures. I’m also interested to know if he is indeed liable, even if a Priest is not specifically NAMED as a person who should be a mandated reporter.
Justice moves slowly. I also dearly hope that every state in the Union changes it’s Mandatory Reporting laws to require all clergy people to be included- WITH the legal ramifications in place if they demur, and refuse to follow through on their legally binding responsibility.
As others have said, it sounds like you DID state a “fact” when you posted:
That part of your post seems to be the sticking point. If there is nothing to charge Mr Law with…then it doesn’t hold water. I don’t know for a fact if there is something to charge him with, I’m not a lawyer or a citizen of the Commonwealth …of course I (nor Bricker or Sua or others) didn’t claim that he WOULD be charged with a crime if he wasn’t a Cardinal. Asking about a specific criminal charge, (when that is one of the premises of the OP) seems like a legitimate question, even in the pit.
I’ve heard some specific charges tossed around, ‘Reckless endangerment of a child’ being an example. Current feeling is it wouldn’t stick because in the reassignment of a priest, no child is required to have personal relationships with that priest, and/or because we’d have to prove that Cardinal Law’s actions caused or intended a particular child to be molested or harmed. It’s accepted here that Law never intended these things to happen, and that limits his criminal responsibility.
I have no cites to offer either. Sorry.
::sigh:: Cartooniverse, you did make an assertion of fact, and a pretty charged one - that Law was being coddled because of his “powerful connections.” You basically accused the Boston D.A. of corruption - when he/she hasn’t done anything wrong.
That is not a “statement of emotion.” It may have been inspired because of your emotions, but it’s an assertion of fact. And it’s wrong. Telling you that you are wrong is not the same thing as accusing you of lying.
BTW, you dolt, I’m a litigator. Rather than protecting other attorneys, it’s my job (and actually, the most enjoyable part of my job) to prove to a judge that the attorneys for the other side are morons who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, much less understand the law.
I don’t defend other attorneys; I attack them. 
Sua
Intent is only a requirement for some crimes. Constructive negligence is acceptable. To say, “but I didn’t intend to put my 20-ton 18-wheeler into a skid on the curve at the bottom of the icy hill I came down at 75 MPH” is insufficient; a reasonable man driving a big rig is presumed to know that it will go into a skid under those conditions, and not being diligent to avoid them is, or can be, criminal negligence. Is there any way in which it might be established that Law knew or should have known about the strong potential for molestation and failed to act when he should have? If not, then one must apparently prove that he acted to obstruct justice or some of the other points made above.
And, Cartooniverse, you are (obviously) welcome to rant in the Pit. We’ve all had situations where our emotions, notably anger, overcame thoughtfulness, and I think we all can sympathize. (Ask Manny on this exact same issue.)
However, this being the SD, you can be expected to substantiate any statement of alleged fact or of opinion based on alleged fact that you make. That’s all anybody was doing here – along with the I-think-useful sidetrack of attempting to find out just how, under the law, one can bring him to the bar of justice with a hope of making something stick.
I agree with tomndebb that most likely state Atty Gen’l Tom Reilly is simply being very careful to get a politically-explosive case right. Simple monetary corruption seems unlikely because the Catholic Church is so heavily woven into the threads of Massachusetts political culture - most elected officials here are Catholics, and a disproportionate share of people in the state government at high levels went to Boston College or BC Law School, both run by the archdiocese whose head is in question.
At any rate, don’t look for anything to be done before Law’s resignation, however that happens. Filing charges against a private citizen, or ordinary priest, would be much easier and more publicly acceptable than if against a Cardinal of the Church.
Oh, and reckless endangerment (of children in the parishes the pedophiles were shuffled off to), or conspiracy to obstruct justice (by failing to report a crime and harboring a criminal), seem to me like they’d get the job done, chargewise. IANAL of course.
Since you ask, my local parish (I’m not Catholic, but my wife is) is one of the places John Geoghan passed through. There are a number of grown men in this town who have not yet healed, decades later, and are still coming forward.
Sua I think a more accurate analogy might be: employee embezzles from customer , employer does not fire or report employee theft, fearing bad publicity for employer/loss of customer. There is the crime.
Also, have Law or others in the Archdiocese used their authority to stop victims/families from coming forward?
I wonder if it has ever crossed Law’s mind that he should be more concerned with his appointment with St Peter at the Pearly Gates, rather than law enforcement officers in Massachusetts.
Not only are you not a lawyer, but you’ve evidently not read the discussions above, in which is explained that “failing to report a crime” is not a crime in Massachusetts.
“Harboring a criminal” does not fit the facts. Nor does obstruction of justice, absent an active criminal investigation.
If anyone can name the specific criminal law to charge Law with violating, please do. Thank you.