Refreshingly, A Critical View Of Manly's Strategy
Posted by: Jubal | 09/28/2007 4:08 PM
A commenter named Sean posted this comment earlier today, and I think it shines a clear light on John Manly's maneuverings in the Andrade case and the sham claims by Manly and his associates that Monsignor Urell is central to their case:
And the fact that California law permits out-of-the-country depositions doesn't mean that the party in question has to cooperate.
Okay, another short primer on California civil litigation for you armchair attorneys.
Yes, there is a chance that Msgr. Urell would be sanctioned for failure to complete his deposition.
But much more likely, and much more damaging, would be the sanctions against the actual defendants in this case: the Diocese of Orange and Bishop Brown.
You see, if the plaintiff's attorney is actually trying to prove a case before a jury, rather than try it in the media, he would make a simple motion to compel the completion of this deposition (which, by the way, would have been done long before now if Msgr. Urell were even a necessary witness much less a critical witness). That motion to compel would be granted, resulting in a court order - to the Diocese - to produce Msgr. Urell for completion of his deposition.
If that court order were ignored, plaintiff's attorney could then move for sanctions - and not just monetary sanctions. They could move for issue sanctions and evidence sanctions against the Diocese, making their case that much stronger/easier to prove before a jury. And yes, they could also move for monetary sanctions against the Diocese.
None of this has come to pass (at least, it hasn't been reported - but we've seen the completeness and quality of the reporting on this subject to date).
By failing to take the steps any first year attorney would take in a situation where a defendant organization was failing to produce an employee who is a key/critical witness, plaintiff's attorneys demonstrate with crystal clarity that they have no interest in Msgr. Urell beyond using him as a flashpoint in the media to drum up ire against the Diocese of Orange.
That, or they really really want to be sued for gross malpractice.
Too bad members of the media don't take a similarly critical view, preferring to lap up Manly's doggie treats and viewing every utterance from Monsignor Urell's attorney or the Diocese's attorney with utmost suspicion.
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
AUTHOR: john manly
EMAIL: jmanly@manlymcguire.com
IP: 70.237.111.121
URL:
DATE: 09/28/2007 06:48:24 PM
As usual you've got it wrong Matt. All of the above has been done. Urell's depo has been compelled - that's when he got shipped off to Southdown.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to come in and review your pal Monsignor Urell's files. We have warm coffee and snacks. I've offered you access for a year but you always seem to have an excuse. I'm beginning to feel like your avoiding me.
Instead of going to mass on Sunday, why don't you do a Saturday evening service and come in on a Sunday? We'll even turn the air on for you. Speaking of Church, why don't you just give me the money you're going to put in the collection basket this weekend? It would be quicker.
See you at Mass.
Manly out.
omg.
Manly:
I'll be there. You'll just have a wait a few days.
By the way, exactly why is Msgr. Urell so central to your case? No one disputes Andrade had a sexual relationship with your client when she was a minor. And Msgr. Urell didn't handle cases involving lay people. Or do you you just want to chance to ask Msgr. Urell if he had heard rumors about this priest or that having too much to drink?