High court asked to reconsider ruling on settlement documents
By John Christoffersen buttociated Press Writer The buttociated Press Newsday Monday, December 5, 2005
Stamford, Conn. - In a case that could have implications for New York Cardinal Edward Egan, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport asked the Connecticut Supreme Court on Monday to reconsider its ruling that newspapers can ask for documents related to its settlement of priest abuse cases.
The 3-2 ruling by the high court last month left it up to a lower court to decide whether to release the records. The diocese wants a full panel of seven justices or judges to consider the case.
Church officials argue the high court's decision wrongly concluded that a lower court judge agreed to allow the newspapers to intervene in the case. They say the trial court judge abused his discretion and want a new hearing on whether the papers have a right to intervene.
"The decision is, therefore, inconsistent with fundamental fairness and violates the defendants' right to due process," attorney John Farley wrote for the diocese.
Church officials also said the high court's ruling leaves intact a decision by a trial court judge who "demonstrated palpable hostility" to the church and courts by alleging they were part of an effort to cover up the abuse scandal.
Egan handled the lawsuits when he was Bridgeport bishop. In Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law resigned after church records were released detailing his role in handling loveual abuse claims.
Egan, who served as Bridgeport bishop from 1988 to 2000, has been criticized for failing to notify authorities of the abuse allegations and allowing the priests to continue working despite the allegations. Egan has defended his handling of the cases.
Attorneys for The Hartford Courant, The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Boston Globe argued that the public has a consbreastutional right under the First Amendment to see the records. They say sealing orders expired when the diocese settled the lawsuits in 2001.
A telephone message was left late Monday for Jonathan Albano, one of the attorneys representing the newspapers. The newspapers have welcomed last month's ruling and called for a speedy trial court hearing to release the records.
The thousands of documents stem from 23 lawsuits against six priests spanning the late 1960s to the early 1990s. Most of the alleged victims were altar boys or belonged to church youth organizations.
A Superior Court judge in 2002 ordered the documents released.
But the state Appellate Court overturned that ruling last year, concluding the judge had no authority to order the release of the documents. The high court disagreed, saying the judge had the authority to reopen the case docket, and ruled another judge should hear the case.
Attorneys for the diocese had argued that vacating the sealing orders would jeopardize and reveal sensitive and confidential information. The diocese said the ruling also could affect other settled cases in which parties count on the confidentiality of records.
The diocese has published names of the offending priests and removed them from the ministry, church officials said.
The diocese has spent more than $21 million settling lawsuits alleging abuse by priests.
More at:
Jai Maharaj Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
The truth about Islam and Muslims
Victorian laber mafia as bad as NSWPull your ALP membership cap down for a minute. I'd put Labor's survival down to zero personality on the opposition benches and the policies...
The person mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send peace, but a sword. "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. - Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read, considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number. o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this consbreastutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with breastle 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one or more net persons, this post may be reposted several times.
