Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Much fanfare was made in the media over two lawsuits, O'Bryan v. Holy See and Doe v. Holy See, which made allegations that the Vatican was part of an international conspiracy to protect predator priests. Coverage was extensive when courts previously held that the lawsuits could proceed against the Holy See despite the protections of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Both cases then proceeded to be addressed on the facts alleged by the plaintiffs.

When O'Bryan was dismissed a few years back, there was hardly any media coverage of the dismissal.

Last month, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Doe, a case brought by Jeffrey Anderson.

Events in this case were frequently given prominent coverage by the New York Times. Here is the Times' article about the dismissal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/natio ... ml?hp&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 9th Circuit is a fundamentalist teabagger junta.

It's routine and thus not newsworthy that the Vatican hides behind soveirgnty laws and diplomatic immunity.

Kudos to the plaintiffs for bringing forth the lawsuits and in the process further exposing the Vatican as an immoral and corrupt organization with a sordid history of crimes against humanity.

If there is a heaven, Jeff Anderson will be there, in the arms of Jesus, while Benedict, Francis, Dickhead Dolan, the silent laity who turned a blind eye to the monsters raping their children, and the rest of the catholic criminals will rot in hell.

Thank you Jeff Anderson for saving our children from the catholic pedophile machine.

D1B wrote:It's routine and thus not newsworthy that the Vatican hides behind soveirgnty laws and diplomatic immunity.

I'd guess that was the editorial judgment of the NY Times underlying its decision to not publish any story about the dismissal of a lawsuit that it had previously extended so much coverage. You should go into journalism; you think like a New York Times editor.

And don't let it rain on your parade that the Federal District Court denied the Vatican's immunity arguments, but then dismissed the case on summary judgment,after discovery, holding that the plaintiffs could advance no facts sufficient to prove their allegations, such that a trial was not necessary.

You just keep saying the Vatican won because it hid behind sovereign immunity laws.

Incidentally, I predicted years ago that both O'Bryan and Doe would be dismissed before trial. Perhaps when you get hired to the Times' editorial board, you can then hire me as a legal analyst.

JoltinJoe wrote: Federal District Court denied the Vatican's immunity arguments, :

Thank you for publicly acknowledging the Vatican hides behind diplomatic immunity and sovereignty laws.

Joe, there is hope for you yet.