PDA

View Full Version : mexican priest molests mexican kid in mexico judge allows kid to sue U.S. church



chad
28th February 2011, 03:54 PM
you guessed it, california.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/judge-mexican-man-can-856061.html

LOS ANGELES — A Mexico City man can proceed with a clergy abuse lawsuit filed in U.S. court against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, even though the alleged abuse occurred in Mexico and the priest and plaintiff are Mexican citizens, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton Tucker on Friday denied a motion from church attorneys who had sought dismissal of the case by arguing U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction.

Michael Hennigan, an attorney for the archdiocese, said the case has no merit and would ultimately be dismissed.

The unusual lawsuit was filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 and alleges that recently retired Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony and his counterpart in the Mexican Diocese of Tehuacan conspired to protect the priest and help him avoid authorities on both sides of the border.

Jeff Anderson, the plaintiff's attorney, said Monday that the priest abused as many as 60 children in Mexico, including the plaintiff, after fleeing U.S. authorities who wanted to arrest him in 1988 for suspected molestations in Los Angeles.

The head of the Mexican diocese, then-Bishop Norberto Rivera, has since been elevated to cardinal for the Archdiocese of Mexico City.

The complaint lists 10 causes of action, including rape and crimes against humanity under the 222-year-old law. The Tehuacan diocese, Mahony and the Mexican cardinal are also listed as defendants.

The case involves the Rev. Nicholas Aguilar Rivera, who was sent from Mexico to Los Angeles for a temporary assignment in 1987. Less than a year after his arrival, two altar boys accused Aguilar Rivera of molestation, but the priest fled to Mexico just days before U.S. authorities charged him.

The lawsuit states that in 1987 the Mexican bishop contacted Mahony and asked him to take Aguilar Rivera in for a year due to family and health reasons.

The bishop later introduced the priest to Mahony with a letter that mentioned Aguilar Rivera had been brutally attacked in his Mexican parish, possibly because of problems of homosexuality that had not been proven, according to the lawsuit.

Mahony has said he never received letters from the Mexican bishop explaining the priest's history.

Aguilar Rivera was defrocked in 2009 and remains at large in Mexico, where he was believed to be living out of his car in Puebla, in central Mexico. He has been wanted by U.S. authorities on 19 felony counts of lewd conduct since he returned to Mexico.

The ruling in Los Angeles could allow more of Mexican plaintiffs who allege abuse by Aguilar Rivera to file lawsuits in U.S. courts, Anderson said.

"This does open a door that has never been opened before," he said.

The judge was not required to consider the facts of the case when making her ruling about jurisdiction and limited her analysis to a narrow range of legal issues, Hennigan said. Church attorneys will file new court papers seeking dismissal on other legal grounds, he said.

Mahony was not aware the priest had a history of sexual abuse when he accepted him in Los Angeles and he asked the Mexican bishop for help in finding the priest once he was a fugitive, the attorney said.

"We think the court is suggesting — and we agree — that this needs to be addressed on the merits of the case and we will attempt to do that," Hennigan said.

A spokesman for Cardinal Norberto Rivera, who is no relation to the priest, said the Mexican archbishop had done nothing wrong.

Judges have thrown out two previous lawsuits filed against him in the U.S., saying a Mexican citizen cannot sue another Mexican citizen in U.S. court. Mahony settled his portion of an earlier lawsuit in 2007.

"We have responded to U.S. courts. We did it once, we did it twice (and) we do not intend to continue doing so," said Rev. Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Mexico. "Cardinal Rivera has already said he did not cover up for this priest."

____

Cebu_4_2
28th February 2011, 04:03 PM
You can't even make stuff like this up.

mick silver
28th February 2011, 04:08 PM
it just keeps getting better every day ... sue the usa church ours are broke . it looks like the usa churchs are easer to sue

Twisted Titan
28th February 2011, 04:08 PM
My head is still spinning

How the eff is this even valid???


T

solid
28th February 2011, 04:14 PM
How the eff is this even valid???


T[/b][/i]


This story just proves without a doubt, that the US is the most sue happy, sue crazy, country in the entire world. It's going to be our demise. Reading this article my first thoughts are as a nation, we've completely lost it and it's all going down the toilet from here on out.

solid
28th February 2011, 04:25 PM
I would think Mexico would have objection to a foreign country taking jurisdiction over a crime that happened totally outside of the present boundaries. Expansion of U.S. jurisdiction into Mexico should not be viewed lightly by the Mexican government.


Could it have something to do with separation of church and state? Since it's a criminal act yet a civil suit, against a church, perhaps the Mexican Government is overlooking jurisdiction. This whole story is beyond crazy, imo.

Spectrism
28th February 2011, 04:27 PM
I will take the contrarian position. Think about this.

The roman catholic "church" is by its own definition "universal'. The meaning of the word "catholic" IS universal. They have no boundaries. All roads lead to Rome and Rome controls all underlings.

The roman church is at fault for letting this creep molest countless youngsters for MANY years. It matters not where they file suit, as far as I am concerned, since that pedophile took refuge in LA. In this case, I would have to agree with the judge. Any "church" that claims to be the dispenser of absolution and grace, and enforced tight controls on its members as well as its asministrators, is liable for the permission of crimes under its watch by its leaders.

MNeagle
28th February 2011, 04:29 PM
Then they should be suing the Vatican.

Spectrism
28th February 2011, 04:31 PM
Then they should be suing the Vatican.


Yes. And they are when they sue locally.

solid
28th February 2011, 04:32 PM
Then they should be suing the Vatican.


Yes. And they are when they sue locally.


Shouldn't local be in Mexico though? The fact that it's in the US, it's where the easy money is, best chance of winning here.

Spectrism
28th February 2011, 04:40 PM
Then they should be suing the Vatican.


Yes. And they are when they sue locally.


Shouldn't local be in Mexico though? The fact that it's in the US, it's where the easy money is, best chance of winning here.


Yes. I think they are suing in Mexico too. But wherever that guy was safe-harbored should be a target.

If this were some other company, group, or individual, I would say that the law suit must be in the proper venue only. It turns out that the criminal was protected in the US albeit unknown (apparently) by the local guy. How they work their funding should they lose the lawsuit is their problem. They can stop funding the asshat in Mexico and use that to pay for the LA branch.

The priest was acting under the authority of roman church. It was their responsibility to see that the authoerity was not abused. If this happened once or twice, then individual responsibility would be prudent. But this happened over many years and with the knowledge of fellow church managers. Now corporate responsibility is viable.

ShortJohnSilver
28th February 2011, 04:52 PM
I will take the contrarian position. Think about this.

The roman catholic "church" is by its own definition "universal'. The meaning of the word "catholic" IS universal. They have no boundaries. All roads lead to Rome and Rome controls all underlings.



Bet you didn't know that each diocese is a separate "corporation sole" then. Wait until some form of RICO shows up, allowing all dioceses to be dragged into a class action lawsuit... it will be an epic battle.

Note the lack of lawsuits against pedophile rabbis ... where you going to find a lawyer to sue a rabbi?