Thursday, January 2, 2014

The D.A. Throws A Temper Tantrum; Lynn Still In Jail


By Ralph Cipriano
for Bigtrial.net

A week after a panel of Superior Court judges reversed his landmark conviction and ordered him to be "discharged forthwith," Msgr. William J. Lynn remains in jail.

It's not known whether Lynn will be out by Sunday, his 63rd birthday. But on 12:30 p.m. Monday, the prisoner is scheduled to return to the courtroom of Judge M. Teresa Sarmina, for another ritualistic humiliation.

"I want him in front of me when I tell him what his conditions are," Judge Sarmina warned ominously from the bench last week, regarding what she described as her "conditions pending bail." This is the same judge who presided over Lynn's now discredited show trial in 2012, a judge whose application of the law in that case was unanimously panned by a panel of three Superior Court judges as "fundamentally flawed."

Sarmina isn't through with Lynn yet. Concerned about about the monsignor's possible flight to the Vatican, the judge has ordered the official scapegoat of the archdiocese prosecution to turn in his passport and put up $250,000 bail. She also wants the monsignor to wear an electronic ankle bracelet, and report on a weekly basis to a Philadelphia parole officer.

Not to be outdone in theatrics, District Attorney Seth William threw a temper tantrum outside the Union League on New Year's Eve over Lynn's impending release.

If nothing else, the judge and the district attorney have definitely put a damper on the monsignor's victory party.

"She keeps throwing up roadblocks," Lynn's lawyer, Thomas A. Bergstrom, said of Judge Sarmina. "And he [District Attorney Williams] keeps pouring gasoline on the fire."

And the media keeps letting both of them get away with it.

On New Year's Eve, the district attorney teed off on the Archdiocese of Philadelphia for  posting a bail deposit of $25,000 to free Lynn.

"It is disgusting that they would pay to free this man," Williams told reporters at what The Philadelphia Inquirer described as a "hastily called press conference." The archdiocese, Williams said, is conducting "business as usual" by "protecting their own." The church has closed churches and schools, the D.A. complained, but they have the money to bail out Lynn. As a Catholic and a former altar boy, Williams declared, "I am shocked and overwhelmed."

In Bergstrom's view, Seth Williams has crossed a line here.

"If he's going to criticize the archdiocese this way he might as well criticize the panel of Superior Court judges who studied the case and found his position in the case to be lacking in fact and in law," Bergstrom said of the D.A. "In my view the archdiocese all along supported Msgr. Lynn because they knew full well what the Superior Court found, that the [state's original child endangerment] law didn't apply to him."

"Why shouldn't they [the archdiocese] post his bail," Bergstrom asked; "He [Msgr. Lynn] is innocent."

In Bergstrom's view, Williams' conduct is unbecoming of his office and position as the city's top law enforcement officer.

"All of a sudden he [Williams] is now judge, jury and executioner, and he's still railing about this man being guilty, and he's innocent," Begrstrom said of his client.

Lynn has served more than 18 months at SCI-Waymart, some 2 1/2 hours north of Philadelphia. When the Superior Court issued its Dec. 26th opinion reversing Lynn's conviction, officials at the Waymart prison were ready to release Lynn and send him off to the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility on State Road in Philadelphia, in preparation for the prisoner to be "discharged forthwith."

But Bergstrom objected, saying he didn't know if the monsignor would be safe at the local prison. Especially when, thanks to Judge Sarmina, it became obvious that Lynn's expected release was not going to happen right away.

"We had to fight to keep him there," at Waymart, Bergstrom said. In the view of prison officials, Bergstrom said, Msgr. Lynn is a free man because of the Superior Court opinion reversing his conviction, and ordering him to be "discharged forthwith."

"But she [Judge Sarmina] disputes that, saying he [Msgr. Lynn] is still under a sentence of the [trial] court," Bergstrom said. As far as Bergstrom is concerned, Judge Sarmina's application of the law continues to be "fundamentally flawed." But, Bergstrom said, he doesn't anticipate filing any challenges to Judge Sarmina's conditions of bail.

"As long as he [Lynn] is comfortable and safe," Bergstrom said.

[This morning, the Associated Press, quoting a state prison spokesman, said that Lynn had left the Waymart prison, and was being transported by the Philadelphia sheriff's department to a city jail, where he will be fitted with an electronic ankle bracelet. By the end of the day, Lynn was in custody  at Curran-Fromhold in Philadelphia, as news helicopters circled overhead.]

I missed the D.A.'s so-called "press conference." I used to be on his email list, but he no longer invites me to his press conferences, or sends me alerts telling me what he's up to. He also doesn't answer any of my questions. This has been going on for more than a year. Why? Because I raised questions about his self-described and now discredited "historic" prosecution of the church.

Williams doesn't want to answer any of those questions. He has no answers. What he does know how to do, however, is to keep inciting on behalf of mob rule. And the rest of the press corps continues to let him get away with it.

Williams's latest diatribe is a puzzler on several fronts.

The high amount of bail wasn't Lynn's fault. It was Judge Sarmina who set bail at $250,000. The archdiocese has already shelled out at least $1 million for Lynn's trial defense. Lynn is basically a pauper. Who did Williams think was going to post this kind of bail on his behalf? The ACLU?

So all of the principal characters in this show trial continue to play on according to type.

The judge still treats Lynn, who just got his conviction reversed, as a dangerous criminal, about to flee the country, and run off to Vatican.

The district attorney is carrying on like Al Sharpton.

And the media continues to give both of them a pass.

The media, however, has an obligation in this case to set the record straight.

They have trumpeted Seth William's 2011 grand jury report as gospel, the same grand jury report that has more than 20 factual mistakes in it. The same grand jury report that relied on a faulty interpretation of the law, as well as a thoroughly discredited and unreliable "victim" dubbed Billy Doe.

It's a grand jury report that tarred and feathered Lynn and the rest of the defendants, while they and their lawyers were silenced, under years of judicial gag orders.

Nobody did more tarring and feathering than The Philadelphia Inquirer, the same newspaper that uncritically reported the judge's recent draconian bail conditions, as well as Seth Williams's recent temper tantrum.

A data base search of the Inquirer displays 160 stories that mention that 2011 grand jury report.

For more than a year now, I have published stories on this blog, as well as in a long National Catholic Reporter piece, that have drawn on formerly secret grand jury transcripts and police records to raise serious questions about the D.A.'s now-unraveling "historic" prosecution of the church.

It's a local and national issue; its even an international issue. Officials at the Vatican have closely followed the Lynn case.

As the city's paper of record, what has the Inquirer done about a controversy in their backyard concerning the church and a landmark legal case?

They have willfully ignored it.

It gets worse.

When the Catholic League wanted to pay the Inquirer $58,000 to publish a two-page ad in that newspaper that would have raised questions about the D.A.'s historic prosecution, mainly through the reporting on this blog, what did the Inquirer do?

They turned down the money; they refused to publish the ad.

The Inquirer took a stand against the First Amendment.

 Meanwhile, they keep enabling Judge Sarmina and Seth Williams in their continued efforts to tar and feather a man that a higher court just said should never have been charged in the first place.

Disgraceful.

Ralph Cipriano can be reached at Ralph@bigtrial.net.

71 comments:

  1. Bravo again Ralph. Thank you for keeping us informed of the real truth to this "historic" prosecution. The inky and local media outlets are meer puppets of city hall and the DAs office.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What is the length of Judge Sarmina term of office?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. Ralph, can't Lynn's lawyers challenge the judge's contention that the sentence is still in effect in a federal court using the principle of habeas corpus?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They could but they won't; their goal is to get their guy out of jail.

      Delete
  4. Ralph, you continue to be amazing in your reporting on Msgr. Lynn. Could you/ would you assist the PA Attorney General's office into an investigation of the Philadelphia DA's Office - focusing on Seth Williams, Judge Sarmina and the abusive bully tactics of Patrick Blessington against Msgr. Lynn and all respected defense attorneys of Msgr. Lynn's. The Inquirer and other press do not report as you do. You have played such a part in this. Would love to see you play a part in Seth Wms tumbling down off his humpty dumpty wall.
    Happy New Year & God bless you for your honest direct reporting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ralph, it's hard for me to pinpoint which of your excellent articles is the best, but this is up there. Thank you for what you are doing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ralph, once again - excellent work!

    Anonymous (take your pick!)

    In my opinion, any investigation should start with the initiators of the Grand Jury action. The grand jurors apparently accepted at face value Billy’s largely uncorroborated testimony and then chose to indict well before Billy’s widely varying accounts were thoroughly investigated. A criminal and admitted drug abuser claiming sexual abuse at the hands of three perps – all from the same school mind you – should have raised a bunch of red flags right from the get-go.

    The first question then is why the investigation was assumed to be complete when clearly it was not? Who at the DA’s office signed off on this? There must be document to this effect somewhere. Does the DA’s office have a locked safe like the Archdiocese did?

    Had the grand jurors been presented with the details of the investigative work done at Saint Jerome’s just before the trial, they – in all probability – would never have indicted anyone, not even the proverbial ham sandwich. Is it possible for a citizen to get a complete copy of it??? If so, I'd gladly pay for it.

    The second question is about the final investigations (e.g. Detective Walsh, etc) at Saint Jerome’s. Who initiated them and why? Could this have been the ‘high ranking official’ in the DA’s office that Mike McGoven mentioned in one of Ralph’s previous posts? Perhaps one or more of these professionals will come forward with the unvarnished truth. This information is really way overdue.

    The third question concerns the fatally flawed 2011 Grand Jury Report, still showcased on the DA’s website (http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/grandjury_clergyabuse2.html), readily available on internet search engines, and indelibly stored on innumerable computers throughout the world. When it will be removed – or if not totally removed – at the very least redacted to comport with the facts?? Perhaps the DA could bring Sorensen back for a couple of days to correct it.

    The fourth and last question concerns the DA’s discretionary prosecutorial powers. Specifically, were they unethically ‘stretched’ by affording ‘Billy’ the ‘red carpet’ treatment by EXPUNGING ALL of Doe’s criminal records ostensibly in exchange for his testimony.

    Disgusting? You bet!

    ReplyDelete
  7. there are more than 20 factual errors in the 2011 grand jury report. You don't know the half of it but many people do and the truth will come out when the time is right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've run my list. Feel free to add to it.

      Delete
  8. There is a lot more truth to come out too and maybe someday it ALL will come out!

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is why the Inquirer is in financial trouble and why more and more folks are turning to your blog to find out the truth. Once we find it out, we send it out to our friends and they send it to their friends and so on. The truth will out and certain folks will come to regret their lies and/or grandstanding.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I can only add to the compliments above on Ralph's outstanding reporting. Innocent men will walk free in 2014, and Ralph is playing no small part in that - and the overturning of these egregious miscarriages of justice. But we must not stop there. The spotlight now needs to turn on the real villains of this sordid affair. They are well know to the savvy commentators on this blog - they are the false accusers, the liars, the manipulators, the extortionists, the bullies and the corrupt and unethical officials who have given justice in Philadelphia a bad name. My impression is that they are not going to get away with this.
    Finally, I am delighted to see gutter rags like the Inquirer and New York Times being forced to cover this story, no matter how uncritically. Their dilemma is a delicious one - continuing to ignore the pantomime is now not an option for them. Reporting on it accurately will expose their hitherto anti-Catholic agenda (so these losers just woke up to the truth?). Thus they are left in this excruciating middle ground, choking on their words as they try to appear informative, cursing their luck as they are swept along by this unraveling disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Neither Seth nor Sarmina can read the plain language of the statute that they convicted Monsignor Lynn under. Now they can't understand the words "discharged forthwith". They seem to have difficulty comprehending basic English. I think that they are having trouble with the words "fundamentally flawed", the words used by the Superior Court to describe this prosecution and the trial.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Poor "man of God" who participated in aiding and abetting the crimes of some pedophile Catholic priests can't get out of jail as soon as some of his sycophants would like... oh, THE HORROR! Take a closer look at what the court had to say about the conduct of this "man of God" as he repeatedly placed the image of the religious organization over safety and well being of innocent children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The appeals court said as much, but as a matter of law -- which you and others refuse to acknowledge -- the Lynn conviction could never stick. The judges are supposed to keep emotions out of their deliberations.

      Delete
  13. "the monsignor's victory party" ? "scapegoat" ?

    This is hurtful and discouraging for thousands of clergy abuse victims to accept, plus the fact that the Archdiocese church officials helped to pay Lynn's bail to get out of jail.

    We don't believe that being obedient to your boss outweighs being obedient to the laws of the land. If Lynn's bishop would have told him to kill someone or to go rob a bank. Lynn would get prosecuted and land in jail for committing his crimes. Lynn has his own brain, his own conscience, and he is responsible for his own actions. He knew exactly what he was doing.
    He always had other choices, he could have quit his job, he could have gone to law enforcement, he could have chosen to use common sense. But he didn't ...
    Thankfully District Attorney Seth Williams is going to appeal this devastating court decision to have Lynn's conviction overturned. It takes a courageous prosecutor to not give up on victims and to not give up on protecting kids The superior court panel ruling sends the strong message to high ranking church officials, that, "Hey, we can keep covering up these crimes and get away with it"..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Superior Court judgement does not send a message to church officials that they can cover up these crimes and get away with it. It simply stated that there was no legal obligation on Monsignor Lynn to report the crime because the child-endangerment statute applied only to supervisors of children. The statute was amended in 2007 to include people in Monsignor Lynn's position but Seth Williams applied it retrospectively. The US Constitution prohibits retrospective criminalisation. The Superior Court judgement did not strike down the 2007 amendment.

      Delete
  14. Again with the Catholic League. Ralph's argument is compelling and it continues with a marvelous crescendo until it suddenly collapses and loses all credibility by calling on the frantic antics of Bill Donohue who tried to force or bribe the Inquirer to print his editorial in the form of an advertisement. Donohue has pulled the same bullying maneuvers with several other newspapers. None have fallen for it so far as I know. The most confusing thing about that is that Ralph is a journalist and surely knows the difference between an advertisement and an editorial. I'm still waiting to hear and wonder if we'll ever hear the answer to how many members the Catholic League has. Do you know, Ralph?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Big Bill happens to be right on this one. The National Catholic Reporter basically agrees with him. Only you can't see what's going on here.

      Delete
    2. Why wouldn't the PI print Donohue's editorial? Why wouldn't the PI take 58K to print it as an advertisement? Why won't they print any opposition, from anyone, to the bigoted mantra that led to the 'marvelous crescendo' that imprisoned an innocent man for 18 months?

      Why do you care how many members Catholic League has? Will you want their names, next? When you get their names, will you then villify them, personally?

      I see frantic antics... everywhere I see bigots and criminals pursuing Catholic clergy, regardless of guilt. Where do you see them, exactly?

      Delete
    3. Right on, JAE. People like SNAPpy Sarah (Sarah Kleman, that is) and the not so judicious Judy Jones (another with SNAP reactions) are anti-Catholic bigots, pure and simple. They are indeed becoming more desperate as the truth about so many false accusations, wrongful convictions and travesties of justice begins to emerge, thus corroding their reason for being. Bill Donohue and the Catholic League are doing a fantastic job of exposing anti-Catholic prejudice wherever they see it.

      Delete
    4. JAE, newspapers don't do that. They don't take large payments in return for publishing anyone's editorial. They pay reporters and columnists and they write their own editorials. It has nothing to do with opposition to any mantra. It has nothing to do with religion. They simply don't take that kind of money in return for publishing other people's screeds. So, when Bill Donohue publicly tries to force newspapers to violate professional ethics, that tells us that Bill Donohue is not an ethical man.

      Ralph says that Bill is right on this one. Really? Bill is right to use large sums of money (tax-exempt at that) to try to force newspapers to print his screeds, and not even in an honest form but disguised as advertisements? Hold up. You are kidding, Ralph.

      Many people have asked how many members the Catholic League has because many people have wondered how many people do the Catholic League and Bill Donohue represent. This is tax-exempt money. It's an organization with the word "Catholic" in it. It's possible that it could be just one man or just 10 people who are conducting these raids on newspapers and networks and state legislatures in the name of the Catholic faith. In what capacity does Bill Donohue speak for the American Catholic Church?

      I couldn't care less what the names of the members are. I only wonder how many are in the group. The fixation with naming names is pretty much unique to this very volatile blog. One gets the sense that naming names here at bigtrial.net is tantamount to putting an "X" on people's foreheads or marking them as targets. Maybe that's because there's so much mob stuff going on in Philadelphia. It pretty much belittles the blog, though, and reduces its credibility.

      Regarding credibility, certainly, if Ralph supports Bill Donohue's actions against newspapers, then credibility under any definition of journalism is all but lost.

      Delete
    5. Unless you're a leftist rag with an agenda, right Sarah?

      http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/times-nixes-anti-islam-ad-runs-anti-catholic-ad/

      And, the racism and hatred coming out of the leftist media, same media that pummels the Catholic Church, such as MSNBC, is exploding it's hate all over itself these days, isn't it?

      It's a shame (and a sham) that the leftists can't live by their own rules, isn't it?

      Delete
  15. Ralph
    Yellow Journalism is out of style.
    ritualistic humiliation? Temper tantrum? latest diatribe?
    You have this, a public forum. Kindly write a well balanced article instead of this snarky one. WWJD?
    "I was only following orders" is the Nurenberg defense. Didn't work for the Nazis. doesn't work now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think anybody approves of what happened with the monsignor and the cardinal and innocent children in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, OK? Ok, I covered all of that and remember it well.

      However, we have something called the rule of law in this country. A 2005 grand jury and a district attorney carefully weighed the child endangerment law, and decided it didn't apply to Lynn. They said the child endangerment law did not apply to supervisors. Then the DA launched a statewide campaign to reform that law, so it would include supervisors. The state legislature heeded the DA and changed the law.

      So if another Lynn comes along, he's going down under the current child endangerment law. There won't be any debate.

      However, you cannot retroactively apply the standards of the amended law to Lynn after the fact. That's basically what the Superior Court said.

      Also, holding one low-level guy responsible for the sins of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia over 40 years is absolute nonsense. Also, his trial was a crock; I covered it. You cannot have a fair trial where you include 21 supplemental cases of sex abuse dating back to three years before the defendant was born. OK?

      What you don't seem to realize is that you're hurting your own cause. A fraud like Billy Doe who comes along and perpetrates a lie, he undermines every legitimate victim. A fraudulent prosecution of Lynn as scapegoat, that relies on a phony victim, and a phony plea bargain, undermines the real victims, the real suffering, as well as the cause of justice.

      Wake up.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your clarity and your reporting. It gets so tiresome reading the comments where people don't understand what really happened and got no trial coverage except on bigtrial.net. Just maybe you are getting through with the crowd that read the comments here.

      Delete
    3. We understand the law,... we just don't agree with it... And Ralph, you believe that Billy Doe is a fraud as much as we believe that he is a victim of clergy sex abuse that could have been prevented, if Lynn had any guts....ok?

      Delete
    4. If you believe in Billy Doe' story, you believe in a fairy tale.

      Delete
    5. And if you believe that Msr. Lynn and the various Bishop's that aided and abetted the shameful cover up of the crimes of numerous sexually abusive pedophile Catholic priest are "men of God" faithfully serving God and being good shepards to their flock (especially innocent children), YOU believe in fairy tales. Msr. Lynn helped destroy the souls of many children acting on behalf of his superiors within the hierarchy of the Catholic church. He is NOT a "man of God," he is a man who helped pedophile Catholic priests abuse more children... nothing more, nothing less.

      Delete
    6. You have no evidence that any crime was committed against any minor by a Catholic priest in this case. If you do, let's see it. Otherwise, it's all a fairytale. For the wrongly maligned and real abuse victims, it's a nightmare.

      Bigots and their criminal enablers need to understand definitions (eg. pedophile) and the rule of law and how an understanding of both are required for a civil society.

      You are witness to the uncivil society that your anti-Catholic hatred spawned. I hope you don't succumb to it yourself, someday. You are a bigot, nothing more, nothing less.

      Delete
    7. "Criminal enablers" like Msr. Lynn and the Bishops he helped move sexually abusive priests around so they could prey on more innocent children? I AM a Catholic... I don't hate Catholics. I have nothing for those claiming to be "men of God" who participated in this sordid affair. As I said, these ARE NOT "men of God" doing "God's work." They are just men who helped their religious organization hide the crimes of sexually abusive priests, nothing more... nothing less!

      Delete
    8. I don't care if you're a Cardinal, if you approve of convicting men without evidence or according to long-standing and absolutely required statutes (aka constitutional), you are either a bigot or a criminal - or support either one or both of those entities. Perhaps your ideology is suppressing your theology these days, who knows? Your words, as pertains to 'Catholics' and religious, are dripping with contempt.

      Just tell me which priests were proven, with evidence and/or via a civilized legal process, beyond a reasonable doubt, of sexually abusing an adolescent and I'll consider your claims as worthy of consideration.

      Anything short of that is your own axe-grinding for whatever nefarious reason(s) you may have, and nothing more, nothing less.

      Delete
  16. And WE are trying to keep our comments CIVIL.....!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. And btw... real names... my name is Judy Jones... tk you..!!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Williams criticized the appellate court in a way I have not seen a prosecutor do in my 28 years of practicing law.

    What Williams did was clearly unethical and he should be reported to the state bar for it. Lawyers take an oath not to bring the justice system into disrepute and that is exactly what Williams did with his intemperate and out of control remarks.

    Anyone brave enough to take this on?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Suzy,

      Can a non-lawyer do it?

      Delete
    2. Joe1944, your earlier posting asking for a complete investigation of this entire case start to finish is what's needed, forget about just sanctioning Seth for his unethical comments about the conviction reversal. Does anyone think that will ever happen, I certainly don't.

      The entire case orchestrated by Danny Gallagher with the help of this District attorney's office was a fraud, Danny got his series of drug arrests (at least 4 at last count including the 56 bags of heroin intent to distribute charge) expunged and/or dismissed by the Philly courts in exchange for his testimony as the key witness for alleged assaults involving Avery, Engelhardt and Shero, assaults that never happened. They coerced Avery into his plea in exchange for that sweetheart 2 1/2 to 5 deal so that he could plead to the conspiracy with Lynn so Lynn's conviction was virtually a lock, especially with how Judge Sarmina conducted that trial allowing decades old archive files with no relevance to the case at hand to be presented by the DA.
      However, the legality of that conviction has now been refuted by the higher court. That's at least 1step in the right direction.


      The attorney General of this state should start with the mysterious 11 1/2 month timelapse between the time those alleged assaults against Danny Gallagher were reported by the Archdiocesan Lawyer to the DA's office January 30th, 2009 until the investigation was actually started late January 2010. Even though the shredding machines obviously work in the DA's office, perhaps an interview or 2 with "all" of the detectives involved in this case and the retired assistant DA who first received that letter from the archdiocese about the allegations of assault back in Jan, 2009 might prove enlightening. But that would take a great deal of courage, something sorely lacking with people who know the truth about this entire scam.

      Delete
  19. Ralph, you are The Man! What would we do without you?! Kudos, always, for journalism without an agenda or prejudice. You are now a lone wolf, and a maverick in society. Thank God for you!

    ReplyDelete
  20. This is a very volatile blog. What happened to all the "bravo" and "hurrah" that the conviction was reversed? Oh, that was yesterday. Today, it's replaced with an attack on the media and talk of ritualistic humiliation. What will it be tomorrow?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Volatile" would better describe the [criminal] antics of the legal-judicial system in Philly.

      Reporting on the obvious corruption of that system and the equally corrupt media that provides cover for them is not an 'attack', it is honest reporting (it actually exists).

      Volatility and ritualistic humiliation, both personally and professionally, is the norm for the bigoted and criminal Philly prosecutorial team that brought this wrath upon themselves.

      It is normal to celebrate the good news of a righted wrong one day and critique the response of the criminal entities that caused the injustice another day.

      Tomorrow it will be normal responses to, and honest analysis of, whatever the day (and days after) brings on the subject.

      Confused much?

      Delete
  21. There is no question that Seth Williams committed a breach of professional and judicial ethics by criticizing Superior Court outside the Union League in front of called news cameras. This is akin to a sore loser blasting the other team for cheating after the big game is over and his team was beaten bad. Nobody has any respect for a sore loser. What would have happened had an ADA made similar comments to news cameras? If any ADA would not even think of doing what Seth did, then why is he still the DA?

    As I said before, Seth is filing an appeal and Sarmina is treating Lynn like a convicted rapist in order to take a pound of flesh with one last humiliation. Both know that the State Supreme Court can decline to take on their case and let it end, thus it will be several months before the hated monitor is removed from his ankle and the 25K refunded the Archdiocese. Both know they are not qualified in any shape and form to serve as DA and Common Pleas Judge.

    Best we can do is not to vote Seth to be our next mayor but if the black community chooses to do so, then we are stuck with him. If a Philadelphia law firm hires Sarmina as an defense attorney, they will have undermined the case against her. A public advocacy group could have Sarmina as a spokesperson or chairperson for child abuse issues but questions should be raised about her qualifications to serve given the performance at the child abuse kangaroo court she presided over with the resultant damage against true victims of child abuse who may be even more reluctant to step forward. Best thing we can hope for is that the two fade into obscurity.

    Yes, Lynn is entitled to a celebratory party and a celebration of the Midnight Mass he missed while imprisoned.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ralph,what about Shero and Engelhardt? Where do there appeals stand? Does Shero have the money to continue the process?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you care if shero has the money to continue to pay for his defense?

      Delete
    2. To "Anonymous": Because I believe that Shero is most likely innocent and I know that he doesn't have a lot of money. Brian B. Pinter

      Delete
    3. I understand the appeal is going forward, although money is a problem. I believe Bernard Shero is bankrupt, and his family has done just about all they can do.

      Delete
    4. Finally, somebody else in the press is holding Seth Williams accountable:

      http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140103_Disgusted_over_D_A__s_Lynn_verdict_disgust.html

      Delete
    5. "I am "disgusted" at the continuation of a show trial that was flawed at the outset and which exploited the public's legitimate anger at the evil crimes committed against children by a minority of Catholic men. I am also "disgusted" at the hypocrisy of those who seek justice by embracing injustice."
      From the above mentioned article. Its only glaring flaw is the naive phrase "in an admirable show of humility" regarding Sarmina's rhetorical question about the conviction being flawed. There is nothing admirable about Sarmina. She is one of the complicit in the Philly Truth Abuse Scandal:

      Judges: Renée Cardwell Hughes, Sarmina and Ceisler
      DA office: Mark Cipoletti, Seth Williams, Mariana Sorensen
      False accusers: Daniel P Gallagher, abetted by officer James Gallagher Sr., Sheila Gallagher and James Gallagher Jr. (also, Mark Bukowski in the Brennan case)
      "Detective" Walsh.
      Please feel free to add to the list. None of these should get off the hook.

      Delete
    6. ADA Pat Blessington deserves a prominent spot on this list.

      Delete
    7. Don't forget ADA Evangelina Manos

      Delete
    8. Add to the list the 24 jurors from the 2 cases who sent innocent men to prison

      Would any of them break the pact they made during deliberations. Why should they still be able to hide behind juror #1, juror #2, etc.?

      Delete
    9. That would be Bergstrom to the rescue of Shero and Englehardt should a willing wealthy Catholic be made aware of the particulars of the case in a crystal clear way so that he or she will be able to conclude that it is money well spent to spring out two innocent people put in jail by Billy Doe's daily fabrications of unbelievable fiction. And the Archdiocese could be persuaded to drop some coin in this endeavor once convinced of th eir innocence and lack of funds to pursue the appeal. Once funds secured, then Bergstrom's team will handle the appeals.

      Delete
    10. I believe Edward Avery should be included as a "co-conspirator" with the group mentioned above. The DA coerced him into a plea for an assault of Danny Gallagher that never happened with the promise of a brief prison term and most likely a promise of no further prosecutions for "legitimate abuse victims" from his past that were apparently coming forward. Amazing how Avery had so many alleged prior victims that have mysteriously vanished, never to have their day in court.

      Avery's guilty plea deal (2 1/2 to 5 for a known predator/and a defrocked priest) which was reached a few days before his trial was to start alongside Lynn, was later recanted in the trial of Engelhardt and Shero, set the stage for the wrongful convictions of Lynn (there was no assault of Danny Gallagher, the lone subject of Lynn's prosecution) and eventually, Fr Engelhardt and Bernard Shero.

      Great scam by a well connected con artist, drug addict and drug dealer. Those men had no chance at a fair trial once they coerced Avery into that plea.

      Glad someone added Blessington to the list, he and Sorenson were absolutely livid when his attempt to include those decades ago archived irrelevant box of allegations were not permitted to be presented in the Engelhardt and Shero trial But Ceisler made sure Cipoletti and Manos had full reign to present everything else to those jurors, truthful or not, so that Engelhardt and Shero did not walk out of that courtroom as "free men"......

      Delete
    11. anonymous@3:23

      I would not consider Avery a 'co-conspirator'. Even if there were Avery abuses earlier than the one alleged by the victim who testified at Lynn's trial, not even this DA could hope to prosecute them as the SOL's had long since lapsed. No leverage - nothing to squelch!

      Avery's more collateral damage - another victim, if you would - harmed by an unscrupulous and ambitious DA who deliberately accepted at face value the incompletely investigated and inconsistent testimony from a jailed junkie.

      Couple this with a predisposed jury pool - and a clearly biased and heavy handed judge - and you have the formula for the consummate travesties that played in Sarmina's courtroom, and later in Ceisler's.

      Take a read through Ralph's earlier post with Mike Wallace's picture on it.

      Delete
    12. HAHAHAHAHA! Avery is not collateral damage. He is a "man of God" who either lied when he pled guilty (placed his hand on the BIBLE and flat out lied!) or he is lying now. He is not a victim. He is just a self-admitted liar who poses as a "man of God" yet abandons his faith and his God to lie (under oath or afterwards) instead of standing tall (on thr witness stand) and proclaiming his innocence. Check out the standard apologists excuse... ("Even if there were Avery abuses...") It is standard operating procedure here. "Sure Msr. Lynn facilitated the abuse of more innocent children by shuffling sexually abusive priests around so they could prey on even more innocent souls... but he is not a criminal!" One thing is certain. He is no "man of God," either.

      Delete
    13. Hey Laughing Anonymous @8:49.

      Avery was motivated both by Sarmina's 'prior bad acts' ruling and by the expected testimony of the fellow he supposedly groped to accept a lesser sentence than the one that Max Mary (Sarmina) would have undoubtedly dished out had the jury found him guilty along with his co-joined co-defendants. It's really that simple.

      In search of his 'historic conviction', the DA was after a bigger fish (Monsignor Lynn) and used Avery's coerced plea to snare him.

      Regrettably, Father Engelhardt and Bernie Shero were caught in the same net, but their appeals are expected to be heard this summer.

      In the meantime, perhaps a disenchanted member of the DA's office will come forward with the unvarnished truth.

      Delete
    14. You list Avery's "motivations" but you fail to mention the one thing (above all others) that should have "movitated" him as a "man of God," TRUTH! Here is a moral leader of his religious sect, a supposed example to the "flock," who placed his hand on the Bible (the word of God!) and willfully LIED on the witness stand, according to you and others. A "man of God" that is so lacking in the courage of his convictions that he willingly lied under oath. Or a "man of God" who told the truth under oath and is lying now... take your pick. You may make the same old apologists excuses ("...the expected testimony of the fellow he SUPPOSEDLY [caps mine] groped...") for Avery and "Msr." Lynn but there is no denying that their actions were NOT those of "men of God." I hate to break it to you and other apologists, but "men of God" do not swear on the Bible and then lie under oath, and they certainly do NOT destroy the souls of innocent children by repeatedly exposing them to priests known to be pedophiles and sexual abusers.

      Delete
    15. anonymous @12:47.

      .....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

      Delete
  23. Hey Sarah TX2, I am a member of the Catholic League. Do you want me indicted for that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here we see another proud member of the cult.

      I assume his birth name is anonymous.

      How would your leader Bill Donahue feel about your shame in letting us know who you are ?

      Delete
    2. His birth name is none of your business, why would you care?

      Respond to his Words, and worry less about his name. You cowards are all so tough when you have the leftist pop culture, including the corrupt media, doing your bidding in the press and in our courtrooms. You are not so tough one-on-one, particularly when the truth is revealed. Then, you look to attack your opponents on a personal level. You fabricate lies about your opposition, call them disgusting names and attempt to vilify them in public, including their families, and at their workplace, and then you ask why no one will submit their real names.

      You are welcome to keep consuming your own Kool-Aid, just don't ask anyone else to join you.

      This isn't your friendly kumbaya meeting where we all smoke weed, down mushrooms and hold hands to 'overcome' our troubles in our parents basement. This is a battle for the heart and soul of our nation as expressed in our legal-political system. What you distort in law, civics, ethics and morals to persecute your hated enemy, the Catholic Church, you force upon our nation as precedent. That may be fine with you so long as one of your 'guys' is at the helm. Now, use your 'expanded consciousness' to imagine it isn't one of your guys at the helm...

      Delete
    3. Not sure what you mean, but I guess you're saying you support trying to force newspapers to print your group's message. Your group offered $58,000 to a newspaper to print an editorial disguised as an advertisement. And it did the same with several other newspapers. It seems dishonest to me and also an improper use of tax-exempt money. Just my opinion though.

      Delete
    4. Someone posts as anonymous and criticizes another for doing the same.

      Delete
    5. The persecutors always act confused when pounded by facts, how 'quaint'.

      How did Donohue 'try to force' the PI to publish his editorial - did he hold a gun to someone's head? An 'offer" is just that. Nothing was disguised, it was offered as an editorial, and when rejected out of sheer bias, he then offered to pay for it's publication as an advertisement. You swing between it being and 'offer' and 'trying to force", which is it?

      What's 'dishonest' to you? Apparently, railroading innocent men under the guise of cleansing the Catholic Church of an infestation of pedophiles isn't dishonest to you. Therefore, you have no credibility.

      Your opinion is biased towards the persecution of the Catholic Church. How the Church or any other tax exempt organization uses it's funds to support their causes is their and their contributors business. Your opinion on that matter is not sought.

      You can be sure if there is a question of how any Catholic or conservative 501(c)(3) organization is using their funds, this administrations IRS will be quite vigilant in pursuing all those 'wrongs'. The bigots need not worry their empty little heads about any of it.

      Delete
    6. Sarah blogs from the state of Texas and is familiar with Philadelphia through reading the Inquirer online. She is not an alleged victim. Most of the time, she is incorrect about the facts and one of the regular Catholic haters.

      Delete
  24. Even worse of all, a former DA named Lynne Abraham concluded that the 1972 EWOC law did not apply to Msgr Lynn. New DA Seth Williams chose to ignore this legal freebie given by the former DA to instigate his own war against the Archdiocese to secure two convictions, against Lynn and Brennan and Shero and Englehardt based on the fabrications of sexual abuse uttered by Billy Doe.

    No excuse for a DA pretender to ignore such wise advice from a previous DA.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ersatz Judge Sarmina, politically ambitious Williams and the tendentious Inquirer have poisoned the Well of Justice in Philadelphia. They need to be held accountable for their willfully duplicitous, dishonorable, mendacious and perfidious prostitution of the public trust assigned to them. That Sarmina continues to occupy the position of Judge in Philadelphia is a reproach and disgrace to the Commonwealth's system of justice in general and a censure and abasement of every and all individual judges and Justices in Pennsylvania. Her continued presence on the Bench is a toxic pall that hangs over them all and calls into question their own veracity and credibility so long as long as they allow Sarmina continued occupancy of her current office.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ralph,

    The sheer volume of errors in this article are immense as well. Though I am unsure if they are intentional, I would encourage you to better verify your information before including it in your reports.

    To begin, the appellate courts ruling was not unanimous, as the three justices involved in the original appeal did not unanimously agree on the issue at hand, though the appeal was accepted. Painting this verdict as a clear sign that Lynn was innocent all along is ludicrous. If three justices in the appellate process are unable to unanimously agree on an issue, it is clear that issue is legally uncertain. Thus, the prosecutions actions against Lynn in this case weren't entirely out of line, in fact at this point as the appeal process continues, they're still in question.

    Also, the Philadelphia Inquirer did not "a take a stand against the 1st Amendment" as you put it. Newspapers are widely recognized as private entities and thus are under no obligation to accept any advertisement. Newspapers regularly deny many advertisements to simply avoid being controversial. It is unrealistic and ludicrous to declare these rejections as a stand against the 1st Amendment because there is not enough space in their articles to contain all of the ad requests they receive every day. They pick and choose advertisements to feature, just like all other private companies across this entire country.

    What baffles me the most is the conception brought forth on this website that the District Attorneys' office is fundamentally anti-Catholic. The DA's office is a public organization composed of a vast array of people with vast variety of different beliefs. Suggesting that any organization so designed is fundamentally against a cause is incorrect. Suggesting that Seth Williams, a Catholic himself, is anti-Catholic is ludicrous. The District Attorneys' office has not other cause except for being anti-crime. If a perceived crime exists, they prosecute it. It really is as simple as that. In this case, one of the worst crimes in existence was committed, supported overwhelmingly by the evidence, and thus began the prosecution of a variety of offenders. Lynn was responsible for the aiding of this process, and so he too was prosecuted.

    The thing that baffles me the most is the Catholic communities support of offenders in this issue. The crimes committed in this case were despicable, and you would figure that this organization would applaud the removal of these criminals from an otherwise pure organization. If an embezzler is caught stealing money from his company, or sexually harassing other employees, companies usually applaud the prosecution of those individual.

    The bottom line is that Lynn's case is not yet over, and is nowhere near as clear cut as you are presenting it. The legal issues are still in contest, as they have always been in contest. The only truth clear so far is that Lynn, whether legally guilty or not, has committed a grievous wrong on innocent children, and strangely the Catholic church stands by his side, and continues to pay his bills.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Take a deep breath, anonymous, and we'll run down how many things you got wrong.

    The three judges agreed to reverse the conviction, didn't they? Isn't that what we call unanimous?

    I didn't say Lynn was innocent all along, I said you can sure construct a logical argument that by the time Seth Williams came to office, Lynn couldn't be charged with EWOC. The 2005 grand jury said the original EWOC law didn't apply to him and he couldn't be charged. Then the prior DA lead a statewide campaign to change the law so that it would apply in the future to supervisors like Lynn. And the state legislature followed suit by changing the law.

    So Seth was trying to re-invent the wheel by basically charging him under the meaning of the amended EWOC law, which said the law applied to supervisors. It was only a matter of time before some appeals judge called him on it. You can't charge somebody after the fact with a new law. A reversal was, in retrospect, easily foreseeable. Ask Lynne Abraham and the 2005 grand jury, which basically said the same thing the Superior Court opinion did reversing Lynn's sentence.

    I haven' said anything about the DA being anti-Catholic. He is a Catholic! So are most of the DA's detectives who investigated in 2005 and 2011, as well as probably most grand jurors. Any anti-Catholic stuff didn't come from me. But the DA's recent rantings about Lynn using the worldwide forces of the Catholic church to escape to the Vatican border on that, don't they?

    There was nothing controversial about that Catholic League ad. I have printed the entire text on this website. It was merely a contrasting view, one that could have appeared on an op-ed page. Given the 160 times the Inky ran stories trumpeting that fatally-flawed 2011 grand jury report as gospel, in my opinion, the Inky was required to run that ad simply for reasons of fair play, and airing both sides of an argument. It is not unrealistic and ludicrous, contrary to what you say, to say that banning the ad was against free speech. That's exactly what happened.

    ReplyDelete

Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

 

Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog Copyright © 2016 BigTrial.net

Privacy Policy: BigTrial.net does not distribute, share or sell email addresses, or any other personal information received from this website.