Investigative reporting got a boost in 1976, after the movie All the President’s Men showed what a small team (two men) could do if an editor and owner like Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham at The Washington Post let them keep digging for a long time. Another such coup was brought off by The Boston Globe in 2002, when its own investigative team of four people, called “Spotlight,” broke the story of Cardinal Law’s protection of priests who sexually preyed on children. In this case, Spotlight, which normally chose its own subjects, had not followed up on leads fed to the paper. It took an outsider, Martin Baron (played by Liev Schreiber), who had become editor of the paper in 2001, to jog the team into action. Baron was sent by the Globe’s new owner, The New York Times, to trim costs, yet he spent heavily on the priestly abuses scandal. An instinctive deference to the Church had inhibited the press in this Roman Catholic city from recognizing a scandal in its own backyard. Baron was not subject to that thrall. He was initially thought of as outside the Boston culture—an unmarried man, a Jew, not interested in the sacred Boston Red Sox.
In Tom McCarthy’s Spotlight—which has received six Oscar nominations, including for Best Film and Best Director—The Boston Globe story has been given a movie treatment like that of The Washington Post story. Both films retain some of the clichés of such tales—the resistance of society to what the enterprising reporters are trying to do, the difficulty of prying evidence from fearful witnesses, the final victory of the good guys over powerful resistance. But there are many differences. Woodward and Bernstein were outside the normal political reporting of Washington. The “Spotlight Four,” though not churchgoers, were all Catholic-raised or influenced. The crimes being investigated were more personal and religious, combining sexual and theological inhibitions.
As the team begins, lethargically, to go into the one case that had been superficially handled in the Globe, the serial abuses and regular moves of Father John J. Geoghan, they saw that other priests had been treated the same way—four, they turned up; then eleven. In diocesan records they began tracing the patterns of such frequent shiftings-about for priests. They were stunned as they found that large numbers of priests fit the pattern. They called on Richard Sipe, a former Benedictine monk and psychotherapist who has studied priestly sexual activity for decades. (He is a respected scholar whom I have consulted for my writing and speaking on priests.) He tells the Spotlight team over the phone (his voice supplied by the actor Richard Jenkins) that he had found a high quotient of predatory priests in America, almost uniformly protected by bishops, and by that quotient the number of offending priests in Cardinal Law’s domain would be ninety—which was eerily close to the number they had turned up in diocesan records—seventy-six.
The team now had to interview the priests and find their victims. The priests were protected by Cardinal Law, and many victims did not want to be reminded of their shame. The feisty leader of the team, Walter “Robby” Robinson (played by Michael Keaton), talks to people from his high school to find out what a coach did there, and continuously pressures a golfing pal who is a lawyer for the diocese to speak with him candidly. Over and over he is told he cannot write this story. But he threatens back, telling one man, “You do not want to be on the wrong side of this story,” and telling another that there are going to be two stories, one of the priests and bishops who committed the crimes, the other of the people who covered them up. “Which one do you want to be in?” These are uncomfortable bits of dialogue, since it soon develops that even the Globe is part of the cover-up story.
An early member of the important (then nascent) organization SNAP—Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests—brings in records of abuse, and the team asks him to turn them over. He says he already did give them to the paper, five years ago. From this time on, the mystery grows—where had those records gone? Keaton’s Robby gets more stunning news when a lawyer he has been pressing to tell him about his work for the diocese tells him he had turned over a long list of priestly abusers twenty years ago. What happened to them? We are bound to suspect Ben Bradlee, Jr. (played by John Slattery)—the Globe’s deputy managing editor and the son of the legendary Washington Post editor who exposed the Watergate scandal—since he has been skeptical all along about the possibility of prevailing over the Church’s many allies, and considering lawyers for the victims just cranks.
The script, written by the film’s director Tom McCarthy and the academic- and-showbiz marvel Josh Singer, is amazing in its mastery of the complex material, since many strands converged for the paper to break the hold of the hierarchy over the city—not only records of priest moves, testimony of victims and predators, but correspondence of the Cardinal and other bishops that were obtained by court action but put under a seal that the Catholic judge refuses to lift. That bottleneck is broken by one lawyer for the victims, actually a compound of several lawyers working for the abused. This man, plodding on with bent back and no time for frivolities, is played by Stanley Tucci, who is normally the best thing about any movie he is in. His character, an Armenian, Mitchell Garabedian, has been defeated too many times to give in to the pestering of the hothead on the Spotlight team, Mike Rezendes (played by Mark Ruffalo); finally he indicates that some of the sealed material was attached to one of his cases and is outside the ban, but the documents have been removed (“Boston is a Catholic city”). Rezendes scrambles for a judge to return the removed documents—and he wins.
Now the paper has a case solid enough to be published. But Robby opposes publication. He now wants to bring down the whole nationwide system of Church corruption. Boston can wait for that bigger story. But the momentum is too great to be held up and the story goes to press. There is a stock picture of the presses rolling, the triumph scene of many journalism movies, but there is not universal jubilation. One member of the team has to break the news gently to her pious grandmother. Rezendes takes one of the first copies off the press to Garabedian, who receives it wearily because he is interviewing new victims.
There was a crucial scene before publication, when the investigative team met with their superiors, Baron from the Times, Ben Bradlee, Jr. from the Metro section, and a representative of the paper’s legal department. They are facing the fact that a lawyer hounded by Robby finally said that he turned over a list of victims to the Globe twenty years ago. Ben Bradlee, Jr., the man we have been suspecting of burying that list, was not at the paper twenty years ago. The lawyer says he turned it over to Metro. Ben Bradlee, Jr., looks at Robby and says, “It was you. You were Metro.” Robby, with blank eyes says, yes, “It was me.” As others look at him in amazement, he mutters, “I forgot.” His early zeal on the quest makes this claim convincing. People do forget what is unpleasant, or what would be a terrible disturbance in a city with many ties of loyalty and dependence. But in a carefully calibrated shift Keaton manages perfectly, a memory has been growing that is a burden and makes him not want to reach the goal he began to chase so well.
At this point, with the Spotlight team sitting there irresolutely, Schreiber caps a calmly powerful performance as the outsider who put the investigation into motion. He says that when people have been in the dark a long time, and the light is suddenly turned on, they are stunned and disoriented. He softly pronounces that he knows only one thing now, that a difficult task has been done very well. He is advising the others to forgive Robby. But does Robby forgive himself?
We get the answer in the very last scene. The team has come back to the paper on the day after the story appeared, and the phones in the Spotlight are ringing with reports from new victims, who know now they will be heard. Rezendes and Robby are just in the door when they are told to pick up the phones and take down the victim information. Rezendes is quick to move to his phones, but Robby hesitates at the door, and the expression on his face is not of elation but anguish. Then he walks to his desk at the far end of the office, turns back to face the room jangling with phones, looks disconsolate for a moment, then picks up his own phone. We are not told, but we know, that he is thinking of all these kids whom he could have protected twenty years ago. The whole city, including its paper, was complicit.
Full article with links here: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/15/boston-truth-and-complicity-spotlight/
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2016-02-28 20:41:052016-02-28 20:41:05Gary Wills, Boston: Truth and Complicity, NYR Daily
7 LONG TITLE
8 General Description:
9 This bill provides a window for the revival of civil claims against perpetrators of sexual
10 abuse of a child.
11 Highlighted Provisions:
12 This bill:
13 ▸ allows child sexual abuse victims to bring a civil action against an alleged
14 perpetrator even though the statute of limitations has run;
15 ▸ provides a window to age 53 for such actions; and
16 ▸ specifies limitations.
17 Money Appropriated in this Bill:
18 None
19 Other Special Clauses:
20 None
21 Utah Code Sections Affected:
22 AMENDS:
23 78B-2-308, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2015, Chapter 82
24
25 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
26 Section 1. Section 78B-2-308 is amended to read:
27 78B-2-308. Ĥ→ Legislative findings — ←Ĥ Civil actions for sexual abuse of a child —
27a Window for revival of time
28 barred claims.
28a Ĥ→ (1) The Legislature finds that:
28b (a) child sexual abuse is a crime that hurts the most vulnerable in our society and
28c destroys lives;
28d (b) research over the last 30 years has shown that it takes decades for children and
28e adults to pull their lives back together and find the strength to face what happened to them;
28f (c) often the abuse is compounded by the fact that the perpetrator is a member of the
28g victim’s family and when such abuse comes out, the victim is further stymied by the family’s
28h wish to avoid the “ugliness”;
28i (d) even when the abuse is not committed by a family member, the perpetrator is rarely
28j a stranger and, if in a position of authority, can bring pressure to bear on the victim to insure
28k silence;
28l (e) in 1992, when the Legislature enacted the statute of limitations requiring victims to
28m sue within four years of majority, society did not understand the long-lasting effects of abuse
28n on the victim;
28o (f) the Legislature, as the policy-maker for the state, may take into consideration
28p advances in medical science and understanding in revisiting policies and laws shown to be
28q harmful rather than beneficial; and
28r (g) the Legislature has the authority to change old laws in the face of new information,
28s and set new policies. ←Ĥ
29 Ĥ→ [(1)] (2) ←Ĥ As used in this section:
30 (a) “Child” means a person under 18 years of age.
31 (b) “Discovery” means when a person knows or reasonably should know that the injury
32 or illness was caused by the intentional or negligent sexual abuse.
33 (c) “Injury or illness” means either a physical injury or illness or a psychological injury
34 or illness. A psychological injury or illness need not be accompanied by physical injury or
35 illness.
36 (d) “Molestation” means [touching] that a person, with the intent to arouse or gratify
37 the sexual desire of any person:
38 (i) touches the anus, buttocks, or genitalia of any child, or the breast of a female child
39 [younger than 14 years of age, or otherwise taking];
40 (ii) takes indecent liberties with a child[,]; or [causing]
41 (iii) causes a child to take indecent liberties with the perpetrator or another[, with the
42 intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any] person.
43 (e) “Negligently” means a failure to act to prevent the child sexual abuse from further
44 occurring or to report the child sexual abuse to law enforcement when the adult who could act
45 knows or reasonably should know of the child sexual abuse and is the victim’s parent,
46 stepparent, adoptive parent, foster parent, legal guardian, ancestor, descendant, brother, sister,
47 uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, grandparent, stepgrandparent, or any person cohabiting
48 in the child’s home.
49 [(g)] (f) “Perpetrator” means an individual who has committed an act of sexual abuse.
50 [(h)] (g) “Sexual abuse” means acts or attempted acts of sexual intercourse, sodomy, or
51 molestation by an adult directed towards a child.
52 [(f)] (h) ” Ĥ→ [[] Person []] [Victim] ←Ĥ ” means an individual Ĥ→ victim ←Ĥ who
52a was intentionally or negligently
53 sexually abused. It does not include individuals whose claims are derived through another
54 individual who was sexually abused.
55 Ĥ→ [(2)] (3) ←Ĥ (a) A person may file a civil action against a perpetrator for intentional
55a or negligent
56 sexual abuse suffered as a child at any time.
57 (b) A person may file a civil action against a non-perpetrator for intentional or
58 negligent sexual abuse suffered as a child:
59 (i) within four years after the person attains the age of 18 years; or
60 (ii) if a person discovers sexual abuse only after attaining the age of 18 years, that
61 person may bring a civil action for such sexual abuse within four years after discovery of the
62 sexual abuse, whichever period expires later.
63 (3) The victim need not establish which act in a series of continuing sexual abuse
64 incidents caused the injury complained of, but may compute the date of discovery from the date
65 of discovery of the last act by the same perpetrator which is part of a common scheme or plan
66 of sexual abuse.
67 (4) The knowledge of a custodial parent or guardian may not be imputed to a person
68 under the age of 18 years.
69 (5) A civil action may be brought only against a living person who:
70 (a) intentionally perpetrated the sexual abuse;
71 (b) was criminally responsible for the sexual abuse in accordance with Section
72 76-2-202; or
73 (c) negligently permitted the sexual abuse to occur.
74 (6) A civil action against a person listed in Subsection (5) for intentional or negligent
75 sexual abuse that was time barred as of July 1, 2016, may be brought within 35 years of the
76 victim’s 18th birthday, or within three years of the effective date of this Subsection (6),
77 whichever is longer.
78 (7) A civil action may not be brought as provided in Subsection (6) for:
79 (a) any claim that has been litigated to finality on the merits in a court of competent
80 jurisdiction prior to July 1, 2016, however termination of a prior civil action on the basis of the
81 expiration of the statute of limitations does not constitute a claim that has been litigated to
82 finality on the merits; and
83 (b) any claim where a written settlement agreement was entered into between a
84 plaintiff and a defendant or perpetrator when the plaintiff was represented by an attorney who
85 was admitted to practice law in this state at the time of the settlement, and the plaintiff signed
86 the agreement.
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2016-02-26 23:44:352016-02-26 23:44:35Utah Bill to be Voted On
SAN DIEGO — A woman who modeled as a teen 25 years ago in San Diego is suing a well-known modeling school, claiming it is responsible for booking photographers who sexually abused her.
“This is the perfect area for a predator to come out and prey,” Janine Kyser said.
At age 14, Kyser enrolled at Barbizon modeling school in San Diego. Like many young girls, Kyser dreamed of being famous. But that dream turned into a nightmare after her first modeling shoot when she says Barbizon sent her to the Bonita home of a photographer – alone.
“He had sex with me. His girlfriend had sex with me. It was sexual intercourse and it was all video taped,” Kyser said.
She says her mother didn’t believe her so she put it out of her mind until another girl came forward a year later and the two photographers were arrested. Still, she never said a word.
“They never even called to ask how I was and they never called and asked if I was molested, but these people had been arrested and they had sent me there,” Kyser said.
For two decades she went about her life, got married and had children. It was the safety of her own kids that triggered her, in August, to search the registered sex offenders website. That’s how she found out the two defendants skipped bail back in 1993 and were still outstanding.
She has filed suit against the two suspects, a man and a woman, along with several unnamed people associated with Barbizon, whom she holds responsible.
“They are looking to make money and they are not looking out for your child’s best interest,” Kyser said.
She hopes by going public, other victims will come forward and Barbizon will change their practices.
Kelly Friar, vice president of corporate communications at Barbizon International, released this statement:
“This is a most unfortunate situation and our hearts go out to Ms. Kyser. While this incident occurred with individuals unaffiliated with our company, our students safety is our top priority. We strive to educate and communicate with our students and parents, safety practices in the modeling and acting industry and can assure our families that their safety remains our top priority.”
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2016-02-26 23:35:402016-02-26 23:51:24Misha Debono, Former teen model sues modeling school over alleged sex assault, Fox 5 San Diego
A change in the statue of limitations for child sexual abuse victims to file a civil suit against a suspect in a Tennessee courtroom is on the horizon. State Representative Dr. Bryan Terry of Murfreesboro commented….
The bill as proposed by Representative Daren Jernigan, extends the statue of limitations for civil actions against the accused child rapist or person who committed sexual crimes against a child.
In civil litigation, the victim of a child sexual attack can file suit against the suspect for illnesses or injuries related to the abuse, even though the abuse occurred when the victim was a child and did not come forward with the allegations until adulthood. The bill will extend the statute of limitations by three years from the date of discovery.
Currently, victims of child sexual abuse only have one year to file a civil claim after the discovery of the reported crime. One in ten children are victims of sexual abuse by the time they turn 18 in Tennessee, according to the Child Advocacy Center of Rutherford and Cannon Counties.
The Civil Justice Committee will review the proposed bill on Tuesday (2/23/2016).
HB 2593 / SB2484 states:
Statutes of Limitations and Repose – As introduced, extends the statute of limitations for civil actions based on injury or illness resulting from child sexual abuse that occurred when the person was a minor but was not discovered until after the person became an adult to three years from the discovery of the abuse. – Amends TCA Title 28, Chapter 3, Part 1.
Full article: http://wgnsradio.com/the-statue-of-limitations-for-child-sexual-abuse-victims-in-civil-court-could-extend-cms-31391
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2016-02-23 19:00:462016-02-23 19:00:46The Statue of Limitations for Child Sexual Abuse Victims in Civil Court Could Extend, WGNS Radio
Victoria Police are investigating senior Catholic Church figures, with the idea of charging them with child neglect or endangerment.
The Australian can reveal that Task Force Sano detectives have been examining charging church figures with failing to protect children when they were facing potential danger.
Former Victorian crown prosecutor and chief magistrate Nick Papas QC said he would prosecute a case against church officials for endangering a child provided the legal threshold was met.
Several senior clergy in Victoria knew that pedophile priests were operating, but failed to report the crimes to police, the sex abuse royal commission has been told, with many victims, perpetrators and church officials now dead.
Details of the investigation emerged as George Pell announced he had written to the Victoria’s Acting Police Minister formally requesting an inquiry into the “maliciously timed” leaking of details of a police investigation into allegations against him.
Mr Papas, one of Australia’s most experienced prosecutors, said people needed to face the courts if police uncovered a proper basis for taking action. “As a private barrister who both defends and prosecutes, my personal opinion is if the evidence is there and there’s no other factors that prevent the matter being prosecuted properly and fairly, then you should prosecute them,” he said.
Neil Wileman, 55, was abused by former Christian Brother Ted Dowlan at St Patrick’s College in Ballarat more than 40 years ago.
He told the royal commission he reported the physical abuse to the college in 1973 but was punished for complaining and the abuse continued, both physical and sexual. “They had a duty of care for those underage children,’’ he said. “They did nothing and they allowed them to be raped.”
The child sex abuse royal commission has heard evidence that officials in the Ballarat diocese knew of pedophile priests but failed to report the offenders to the police. At the time, failing to report knowledge of child sexual crimes was not an offence, however misprision of a felony — or concealment of a felony by someone other than a participant — was a common law offence until 1981 and conduct endangering people became an offence in 1985.
Detectives have been reviewing evidence of when victims of abuse made complaints to church officials.
The royal commission has received evidence former bishop of Ballarat Ronald Mulkearns moved one of Australia’s worst pedophile priests, Gerald Ridsdale, between parishes when complaints were made. Ridsdale, who had possibly hundreds of victims, was moved to the western Victorian parish of Horsham to serve as assistant priest in 1986.
The royal commission also heard evidence Ridsdale committed further offences in Horsham.
Cardinal George Pell served as auxiliary bishop in the Melbourne archdiocese from 1987 until 1996, when he was appointed archbishop. Pedophile priest Peter Searson served in the archdiocese and many complaints were made about his conduct, which included holding a knife to a schoolgirl’s chest. Searson is dead.
Archbishop Denis Hart told the royal commission there was a failure in the handling of complaints and he would have expected Cardinal Pell to have an “adequate degree of knowledge” about the situation. “Whether he knew all these awful things, which make me feel ashamed, I’m not sure,” he said.
Mr Papas said there was an imperative to ensure the truth was told. “Sexual abuse in the context of breach of trust, especially in the environment such as priest and parishioner and child, can’t simply be swept under the carpet,” he said.“If there’s a proper basis to bring criminal proceedings, no matter when they occurred, they need to be brought. Ultimately, the prosecution of all serious sexual offences is in the interest of the community, but always subject to competing factors.”
He said the factors included the length of time since the matters occurred, ability to obtain evidence and fairness to all parties.
Cardinal Pell yesterday announced he had written to the Victorian Acting Police Minister formally requesting an inquiry into the “maliciously timed” leaking of details of a police investigation into allegations against him.
Victoria Police confirmed that Cardinal Pell’s complaint had been referred to the state’s peak anti-corruption body for investigation. “Victoria Police takes this allegation seriously and accordingly we have referred the matter to IBAC,’’ a spokeswoman said.
full article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/royal-commission/top-catholic-church-clergy-could-face-child-neglect-charges/news-story/0c8a8072029d6efd7f4d51998893a62b?nk=f31fa3b9d3d697628b8404c5f4c68965-1456169277
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2016-02-23 17:14:162016-02-23 17:14:16Tessa Akerman , Top Catholic Church clergy could face child neglect charges, The Australian
In a country built on the principles of democracy and equality for all, the contrast between ideology and praxis is sharp. Refugees are unwelcome here, people of color are subjected to police brutality, and here in Indiana, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the right to discriminate. By affiliating with a religion, businesses or individuals can discriminate based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
Indiana needs to step up. RFRA is an atrocious piece of legislation which facilitates discrimination and endangers LGBT people, including youth, who already at higher risk for mental illness, suicide and bullying. Laws like RFRA aren’t victimless: there are real people, living in our state, being treated as lesser citizens. Where did our commitment to equality go?
Gov. Mike Pence has repeatedly stated his absolute refusal to protect LGBT people, even when confronted with an estimated $60 million loss in state revenue as a result of RFRA. Members of the Indiana Senate share Pence’s mind, even rejecting bills like SB 344, which moved to protect individuals based on sexual orientation while still protecting religious freedoms.
Contact your legislators and Gov. Pence. They need to hear the frustrations of allies. We must hold them accountable.
Theo Kuchar
Goshen
Full article with links: http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/02/18/rfra-enables-discrimination-take-place-indiana/80576776/
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2016-02-20 02:34:392016-02-20 02:34:39RFRA enables discrimination to take place in Indiana, Indy Star
Gary Wills, Boston: Truth and Complicity, NYR Daily
/in Uncategorized /by SOL ReformInvestigative reporting got a boost in 1976, after the movie All the President’s Men showed what a small team (two men) could do if an editor and owner like Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham at The Washington Post let them keep digging for a long time. Another such coup was brought off by The Boston Globe in 2002, when its own investigative team of four people, called “Spotlight,” broke the story of Cardinal Law’s protection of priests who sexually preyed on children. In this case, Spotlight, which normally chose its own subjects, had not followed up on leads fed to the paper. It took an outsider, Martin Baron (played by Liev Schreiber), who had become editor of the paper in 2001, to jog the team into action. Baron was sent by the Globe’s new owner, The New York Times, to trim costs, yet he spent heavily on the priestly abuses scandal. An instinctive deference to the Church had inhibited the press in this Roman Catholic city from recognizing a scandal in its own backyard. Baron was not subject to that thrall. He was initially thought of as outside the Boston culture—an unmarried man, a Jew, not interested in the sacred Boston Red Sox.
In Tom McCarthy’s Spotlight—which has received six Oscar nominations, including for Best Film and Best Director—The Boston Globe story has been given a movie treatment like that of The Washington Post story. Both films retain some of the clichés of such tales—the resistance of society to what the enterprising reporters are trying to do, the difficulty of prying evidence from fearful witnesses, the final victory of the good guys over powerful resistance. But there are many differences. Woodward and Bernstein were outside the normal political reporting of Washington. The “Spotlight Four,” though not churchgoers, were all Catholic-raised or influenced. The crimes being investigated were more personal and religious, combining sexual and theological inhibitions.
As the team begins, lethargically, to go into the one case that had been superficially handled in the Globe, the serial abuses and regular moves of Father John J. Geoghan, they saw that other priests had been treated the same way—four, they turned up; then eleven. In diocesan records they began tracing the patterns of such frequent shiftings-about for priests. They were stunned as they found that large numbers of priests fit the pattern. They called on Richard Sipe, a former Benedictine monk and psychotherapist who has studied priestly sexual activity for decades. (He is a respected scholar whom I have consulted for my writing and speaking on priests.) He tells the Spotlight team over the phone (his voice supplied by the actor Richard Jenkins) that he had found a high quotient of predatory priests in America, almost uniformly protected by bishops, and by that quotient the number of offending priests in Cardinal Law’s domain would be ninety—which was eerily close to the number they had turned up in diocesan records—seventy-six.
The team now had to interview the priests and find their victims. The priests were protected by Cardinal Law, and many victims did not want to be reminded of their shame. The feisty leader of the team, Walter “Robby” Robinson (played by Michael Keaton), talks to people from his high school to find out what a coach did there, and continuously pressures a golfing pal who is a lawyer for the diocese to speak with him candidly. Over and over he is told he cannot write this story. But he threatens back, telling one man, “You do not want to be on the wrong side of this story,” and telling another that there are going to be two stories, one of the priests and bishops who committed the crimes, the other of the people who covered them up. “Which one do you want to be in?” These are uncomfortable bits of dialogue, since it soon develops that even the Globe is part of the cover-up story.
An early member of the important (then nascent) organization SNAP—Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests—brings in records of abuse, and the team asks him to turn them over. He says he already did give them to the paper, five years ago. From this time on, the mystery grows—where had those records gone? Keaton’s Robby gets more stunning news when a lawyer he has been pressing to tell him about his work for the diocese tells him he had turned over a long list of priestly abusers twenty years ago. What happened to them? We are bound to suspect Ben Bradlee, Jr. (played by John Slattery)—the Globe’s deputy managing editor and the son of the legendary Washington Post editor who exposed the Watergate scandal—since he has been skeptical all along about the possibility of prevailing over the Church’s many allies, and considering lawyers for the victims just cranks.
The script, written by the film’s director Tom McCarthy and the academic- and-showbiz marvel Josh Singer, is amazing in its mastery of the complex material, since many strands converged for the paper to break the hold of the hierarchy over the city—not only records of priest moves, testimony of victims and predators, but correspondence of the Cardinal and other bishops that were obtained by court action but put under a seal that the Catholic judge refuses to lift. That bottleneck is broken by one lawyer for the victims, actually a compound of several lawyers working for the abused. This man, plodding on with bent back and no time for frivolities, is played by Stanley Tucci, who is normally the best thing about any movie he is in. His character, an Armenian, Mitchell Garabedian, has been defeated too many times to give in to the pestering of the hothead on the Spotlight team, Mike Rezendes (played by Mark Ruffalo); finally he indicates that some of the sealed material was attached to one of his cases and is outside the ban, but the documents have been removed (“Boston is a Catholic city”). Rezendes scrambles for a judge to return the removed documents—and he wins.
Now the paper has a case solid enough to be published. But Robby opposes publication. He now wants to bring down the whole nationwide system of Church corruption. Boston can wait for that bigger story. But the momentum is too great to be held up and the story goes to press. There is a stock picture of the presses rolling, the triumph scene of many journalism movies, but there is not universal jubilation. One member of the team has to break the news gently to her pious grandmother. Rezendes takes one of the first copies off the press to Garabedian, who receives it wearily because he is interviewing new victims.
There was a crucial scene before publication, when the investigative team met with their superiors, Baron from the Times, Ben Bradlee, Jr. from the Metro section, and a representative of the paper’s legal department. They are facing the fact that a lawyer hounded by Robby finally said that he turned over a list of victims to the Globe twenty years ago. Ben Bradlee, Jr., the man we have been suspecting of burying that list, was not at the paper twenty years ago. The lawyer says he turned it over to Metro. Ben Bradlee, Jr., looks at Robby and says, “It was you. You were Metro.” Robby, with blank eyes says, yes, “It was me.” As others look at him in amazement, he mutters, “I forgot.” His early zeal on the quest makes this claim convincing. People do forget what is unpleasant, or what would be a terrible disturbance in a city with many ties of loyalty and dependence. But in a carefully calibrated shift Keaton manages perfectly, a memory has been growing that is a burden and makes him not want to reach the goal he began to chase so well.
At this point, with the Spotlight team sitting there irresolutely, Schreiber caps a calmly powerful performance as the outsider who put the investigation into motion. He says that when people have been in the dark a long time, and the light is suddenly turned on, they are stunned and disoriented. He softly pronounces that he knows only one thing now, that a difficult task has been done very well. He is advising the others to forgive Robby. But does Robby forgive himself?
We get the answer in the very last scene. The team has come back to the paper on the day after the story appeared, and the phones in the Spotlight are ringing with reports from new victims, who know now they will be heard. Rezendes and Robby are just in the door when they are told to pick up the phones and take down the victim information. Rezendes is quick to move to his phones, but Robby hesitates at the door, and the expression on his face is not of elation but anguish. Then he walks to his desk at the far end of the office, turns back to face the room jangling with phones, looks disconsolate for a moment, then picks up his own phone. We are not told, but we know, that he is thinking of all these kids whom he could have protected twenty years ago. The whole city, including its paper, was complicit.
Full article with links here: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/15/boston-truth-and-complicity-spotlight/
Utah Bill to be Voted On
/in Utah /by SOL Reformhttp://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/hbillamd/HB0279.htm
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS REFORM AMENDMENTS
2
2016 GENERAL SESSION
3
STATE OF UTAH
4
Chief Sponsor: Ken Ivory
5
Senate Sponsor: ____________
6
7 LONG TITLE
8 General Description:
9 This bill provides a window for the revival of civil claims against perpetrators of sexual
10 abuse of a child.
11 Highlighted Provisions:
12 This bill:
13 ▸ allows child sexual abuse victims to bring a civil action against an alleged
14 perpetrator even though the statute of limitations has run;
15 ▸ provides a window to age 53 for such actions; and
16 ▸ specifies limitations.
17 Money Appropriated in this Bill:
18 None
19 Other Special Clauses:
20 None
21 Utah Code Sections Affected:
22 AMENDS:
23 78B-2-308, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2015, Chapter 82
24
25 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
26 Section 1. Section 78B-2-308 is amended to read:
27 78B-2-308. Ĥ→ Legislative findings — ←Ĥ Civil actions for sexual abuse of a child —
27a Window for revival of time
28 barred claims.
28a Ĥ→ (1) The Legislature finds that:
28b (a) child sexual abuse is a crime that hurts the most vulnerable in our society and
28c destroys lives;
28d (b) research over the last 30 years has shown that it takes decades for children and
28e adults to pull their lives back together and find the strength to face what happened to them;
28f (c) often the abuse is compounded by the fact that the perpetrator is a member of the
28g victim’s family and when such abuse comes out, the victim is further stymied by the family’s
28h wish to avoid the “ugliness”;
28i (d) even when the abuse is not committed by a family member, the perpetrator is rarely
28j a stranger and, if in a position of authority, can bring pressure to bear on the victim to insure
28k silence;
28l (e) in 1992, when the Legislature enacted the statute of limitations requiring victims to
28m sue within four years of majority, society did not understand the long-lasting effects of abuse
28n on the victim;
28o (f) the Legislature, as the policy-maker for the state, may take into consideration
28p advances in medical science and understanding in revisiting policies and laws shown to be
28q harmful rather than beneficial; and
28r (g) the Legislature has the authority to change old laws in the face of new information,
28s and set new policies. ←Ĥ
29 Ĥ→ [(1)] (2) ←Ĥ As used in this section:
30 (a) “Child” means a person under 18 years of age.
31 (b) “Discovery” means when a person knows or reasonably should know that the injury
32 or illness was caused by the intentional or negligent sexual abuse.
33 (c) “Injury or illness” means either a physical injury or illness or a psychological injury
34 or illness. A psychological injury or illness need not be accompanied by physical injury or
35 illness.
36 (d) “Molestation” means [touching] that a person, with the intent to arouse or gratify
37 the sexual desire of any person:
38 (i) touches the anus, buttocks, or genitalia of any child, or the breast of a female child
39 [younger than 14 years of age, or otherwise taking];
40 (ii) takes indecent liberties with a child[,]; or [causing]
41 (iii) causes a child to take indecent liberties with the perpetrator or another[, with the
42 intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any] person.
43 (e) “Negligently” means a failure to act to prevent the child sexual abuse from further
44 occurring or to report the child sexual abuse to law enforcement when the adult who could act
45 knows or reasonably should know of the child sexual abuse and is the victim’s parent,
46 stepparent, adoptive parent, foster parent, legal guardian, ancestor, descendant, brother, sister,
47 uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, grandparent, stepgrandparent, or any person cohabiting
48 in the child’s home.
49 [(g)] (f) “Perpetrator” means an individual who has committed an act of sexual abuse.
50 [(h)] (g) “Sexual abuse” means acts or attempted acts of sexual intercourse, sodomy, or
51 molestation by an adult directed towards a child.
52 [(f)] (h) ” Ĥ→ [[] Person []] [Victim] ←Ĥ ” means an individual Ĥ→ victim ←Ĥ who
52a was intentionally or negligently
53 sexually abused. It does not include individuals whose claims are derived through another
54 individual who was sexually abused.
55 Ĥ→ [(2)] (3) ←Ĥ (a) A person may file a civil action against a perpetrator for intentional
55a or negligent
56 sexual abuse suffered as a child at any time.
57 (b) A person may file a civil action against a non-perpetrator for intentional or
58 negligent sexual abuse suffered as a child:
59 (i) within four years after the person attains the age of 18 years; or
60 (ii) if a person discovers sexual abuse only after attaining the age of 18 years, that
61 person may bring a civil action for such sexual abuse within four years after discovery of the
62 sexual abuse, whichever period expires later.
63 (3) The victim need not establish which act in a series of continuing sexual abuse
64 incidents caused the injury complained of, but may compute the date of discovery from the date
65 of discovery of the last act by the same perpetrator which is part of a common scheme or plan
66 of sexual abuse.
67 (4) The knowledge of a custodial parent or guardian may not be imputed to a person
68 under the age of 18 years.
69 (5) A civil action may be brought only against a living person who:
70 (a) intentionally perpetrated the sexual abuse;
71 (b) was criminally responsible for the sexual abuse in accordance with Section
72 76-2-202; or
73 (c) negligently permitted the sexual abuse to occur.
74 (6) A civil action against a person listed in Subsection (5) for intentional or negligent
75 sexual abuse that was time barred as of July 1, 2016, may be brought within 35 years of the
76 victim’s 18th birthday, or within three years of the effective date of this Subsection (6),
77 whichever is longer.
78 (7) A civil action may not be brought as provided in Subsection (6) for:
79 (a) any claim that has been litigated to finality on the merits in a court of competent
80 jurisdiction prior to July 1, 2016, however termination of a prior civil action on the basis of the
81 expiration of the statute of limitations does not constitute a claim that has been litigated to
82 finality on the merits; and
83 (b) any claim where a written settlement agreement was entered into between a
84 plaintiff and a defendant or perpetrator when the plaintiff was represented by an attorney who
85 was admitted to practice law in this state at the time of the settlement, and the plaintiff signed
86 the agreement.
Misha Debono, Former teen model sues modeling school over alleged sex assault, Fox 5 San Diego
/in Uncategorized /by SOL ReformOriginally posted at Fox 5 News San Diegot/
SAN DIEGO — A woman who modeled as a teen 25 years ago in San Diego is suing a well-known modeling school, claiming it is responsible for booking photographers who sexually abused her.
“This is the perfect area for a predator to come out and prey,” Janine Kyser said.
At age 14, Kyser enrolled at Barbizon modeling school in San Diego. Like many young girls, Kyser dreamed of being famous. But that dream turned into a nightmare after her first modeling shoot when she says Barbizon sent her to the Bonita home of a photographer – alone.
“He had sex with me. His girlfriend had sex with me. It was sexual intercourse and it was all video taped,” Kyser said.
She says her mother didn’t believe her so she put it out of her mind until another girl came forward a year later and the two photographers were arrested. Still, she never said a word.
“They never even called to ask how I was and they never called and asked if I was molested, but these people had been arrested and they had sent me there,” Kyser said.
For two decades she went about her life, got married and had children. It was the safety of her own kids that triggered her, in August, to search the registered sex offenders website. That’s how she found out the two defendants skipped bail back in 1993 and were still outstanding.
She has filed suit against the two suspects, a man and a woman, along with several unnamed people associated with Barbizon, whom she holds responsible.
“They are looking to make money and they are not looking out for your child’s best interest,” Kyser said.
She hopes by going public, other victims will come forward and Barbizon will change their practices.
Kelly Friar, vice president of corporate communications at Barbizon International, released this statement:
Read more at: http://fox5sandiego.com/2016/02/25/former-teen-model-sues-modeling-school-over-alleged-sex-assault/
The Statue of Limitations for Child Sexual Abuse Victims in Civil Court Could Extend, WGNS Radio
/in Tennessee /by SOL ReformA change in the statue of limitations for child sexual abuse victims to file a civil suit against a suspect in a Tennessee courtroom is on the horizon. State Representative Dr. Bryan Terry of Murfreesboro commented….
The bill as proposed by Representative Daren Jernigan, extends the statue of limitations for civil actions against the accused child rapist or person who committed sexual crimes against a child.
In civil litigation, the victim of a child sexual attack can file suit against the suspect for illnesses or injuries related to the abuse, even though the abuse occurred when the victim was a child and did not come forward with the allegations until adulthood. The bill will extend the statute of limitations by three years from the date of discovery.
Currently, victims of child sexual abuse only have one year to file a civil claim after the discovery of the reported crime. One in ten children are victims of sexual abuse by the time they turn 18 in Tennessee, according to the Child Advocacy Center of Rutherford and Cannon Counties.
The Civil Justice Committee will review the proposed bill on Tuesday (2/23/2016).
HB 2593 / SB2484 states:
Statutes of Limitations and Repose – As introduced, extends the statute of limitations for civil actions based on injury or illness resulting from child sexual abuse that occurred when the person was a minor but was not discovered until after the person became an adult to three years from the discovery of the abuse. – Amends TCA Title 28, Chapter 3, Part 1.
Full article: http://wgnsradio.com/the-statue-of-limitations-for-child-sexual-abuse-victims-in-civil-court-could-extend-cms-31391
Tessa Akerman , Top Catholic Church clergy could face child neglect charges, The Australian
/in Australia, International /by SOL ReformVictoria Police are investigating senior Catholic Church figures, with the idea of charging them with child neglect or endangerment.
The Australian can reveal that Task Force Sano detectives have been examining charging church figures with failing to protect children when they were facing potential danger.
Former Victorian crown prosecutor and chief magistrate Nick Papas QC said he would prosecute a case against church officials for endangering a child provided the legal threshold was met.
Several senior clergy in Victoria knew that pedophile priests were operating, but failed to report the crimes to police, the sex abuse royal commission has been told, with many victims, perpetrators and church officials now dead.
Details of the investigation emerged as George Pell announced he had written to the Victoria’s Acting Police Minister formally requesting an inquiry into the “maliciously timed” leaking of details of a police investigation into allegations against him.
Mr Papas, one of Australia’s most experienced prosecutors, said people needed to face the courts if police uncovered a proper basis for taking action. “As a private barrister who both defends and prosecutes, my personal opinion is if the evidence is there and there’s no other factors that prevent the matter being prosecuted properly and fairly, then you should prosecute them,” he said.
Neil Wileman, 55, was abused by former Christian Brother Ted Dowlan at St Patrick’s College in Ballarat more than 40 years ago.
He told the royal commission he reported the physical abuse to the college in 1973 but was punished for complaining and the abuse continued, both physical and sexual. “They had a duty of care for those underage children,’’ he said. “They did nothing and they allowed them to be raped.”
The child sex abuse royal commission has heard evidence that officials in the Ballarat diocese knew of pedophile priests but failed to report the offenders to the police. At the time, failing to report knowledge of child sexual crimes was not an offence, however misprision of a felony — or concealment of a felony by someone other than a participant — was a common law offence until 1981 and conduct endangering people became an offence in 1985.
Detectives have been reviewing evidence of when victims of abuse made complaints to church officials.
The royal commission has received evidence former bishop of Ballarat Ronald Mulkearns moved one of Australia’s worst pedophile priests, Gerald Ridsdale, between parishes when complaints were made. Ridsdale, who had possibly hundreds of victims, was moved to the western Victorian parish of Horsham to serve as assistant priest in 1986.
The royal commission also heard evidence Ridsdale committed further offences in Horsham.
Cardinal George Pell served as auxiliary bishop in the Melbourne archdiocese from 1987 until 1996, when he was appointed archbishop. Pedophile priest Peter Searson served in the archdiocese and many complaints were made about his conduct, which included holding a knife to a schoolgirl’s chest. Searson is dead.
Archbishop Denis Hart told the royal commission there was a failure in the handling of complaints and he would have expected Cardinal Pell to have an “adequate degree of knowledge” about the situation. “Whether he knew all these awful things, which make me feel ashamed, I’m not sure,” he said.
Mr Papas said there was an imperative to ensure the truth was told. “Sexual abuse in the context of breach of trust, especially in the environment such as priest and parishioner and child, can’t simply be swept under the carpet,” he said.“If there’s a proper basis to bring criminal proceedings, no matter when they occurred, they need to be brought. Ultimately, the prosecution of all serious sexual offences is in the interest of the community, but always subject to competing factors.”
He said the factors included the length of time since the matters occurred, ability to obtain evidence and fairness to all parties.
Cardinal Pell yesterday announced he had written to the Victorian Acting Police Minister formally requesting an inquiry into the “maliciously timed” leaking of details of a police investigation into allegations against him.
Victoria Police confirmed that Cardinal Pell’s complaint had been referred to the state’s peak anti-corruption body for investigation. “Victoria Police takes this allegation seriously and accordingly we have referred the matter to IBAC,’’ a spokeswoman said.
full article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/royal-commission/top-catholic-church-clergy-could-face-child-neglect-charges/news-story/0c8a8072029d6efd7f4d51998893a62b?nk=f31fa3b9d3d697628b8404c5f4c68965-1456169277
RFRA enables discrimination to take place in Indiana, Indy Star
/in Uncategorized /by SOL ReformIn a country built on the principles of democracy and equality for all, the contrast between ideology and praxis is sharp. Refugees are unwelcome here, people of color are subjected to police brutality, and here in Indiana, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the right to discriminate. By affiliating with a religion, businesses or individuals can discriminate based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
Indiana needs to step up. RFRA is an atrocious piece of legislation which facilitates discrimination and endangers LGBT people, including youth, who already at higher risk for mental illness, suicide and bullying. Laws like RFRA aren’t victimless: there are real people, living in our state, being treated as lesser citizens. Where did our commitment to equality go?
Gov. Mike Pence has repeatedly stated his absolute refusal to protect LGBT people, even when confronted with an estimated $60 million loss in state revenue as a result of RFRA. Members of the Indiana Senate share Pence’s mind, even rejecting bills like SB 344, which moved to protect individuals based on sexual orientation while still protecting religious freedoms.
Contact your legislators and Gov. Pence. They need to hear the frustrations of allies. We must hold them accountable.
Theo Kuchar
Goshen
Full article with links: http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/02/18/rfra-enables-discrimination-take-place-indiana/80576776/