Foosters
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Currently
Viewing Topic: Markets still falling like whoa
Posts posted by Foosters
-
-
-
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-02/mater-dei-abuse-lawsuit
Opinion piece written by a former writer at the OC Weekly who spent years covering Matter Dei and the Diocese.
QuoteA high school student gets assaulted. Their innocence is shattered; their life, forever changed.
School officials learn about the incident. They do worse than nothing; they cover it up, and even laugh about the matter. Their superiors look the other way. The enablers and abusers get protected; the survivor gets ostracized. And when critics cry foul, the institution plays the victim card.
Just another day at Mater Dei High School, the crown jewel of Catholic education in the Diocese of Orange.
Its powerhouse football team is making national news right now, and not just because the Monarchs are on the cusp of claiming their fourth national championship in five seasons. A lawsuit filed last month against Mater Dei and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange says a former football player suffered a broken nose, a traumatic brain injury and permanent scarring in a February hazing ritual called “Bodies” that amounted to a school-sanctioned beat down.
The lawsuit says the team’s adult staff did nothing to stop the victim’s assault by a much larger player, initially ignored his injuries and lied to Santa Ana police when they investigated the incident. It also alleges that when the boy’s father confronted head football coach Bruce Rollinson about what happened to his son, the prep sports legend cracked, “If I had a hundred dollars for every time these kids played Bodies … I’d be a millionaire.”
The victim transferred to another school but soon found out that he couldn’t immediately participate in sports because Mater Dei officials put a disciplinary mark on his transfer papers. Meanwhile, Rollinson — who was charged in 1989 with choking a female athletic trainer in front of students and eventually pleaded no contest to disturbing the peace over his actions after a trial ended in a hung jury — is preparing his team to play next week for the California state football championship.
The allegations have disgusted the sports world, especially since it seems there’s a high chance there won’t be any disciplinary action whatsoever against the Monarchs. Mater Dei President Walter E. Jenkins just released a letter that basically said the school’s moving on but promises to do better in the future; Diocese of Orange Bishop Kevin Vann hasn’t uttered a word. Through a spokesperson — a Mater Dei graduate, no less — both declined further comment because of the “pending civil action and the involvement of minors.”
The Orange County district attorney’s office declined to file criminal charges against the alleged assailant even though a Santa Ana police investigator recommended charging the unnamed student with felony battery. Even the California Interscholastic Federation, which governs high school sports in the state, said it wouldn’t sanction Mater Dei for what happened, arguing it had no jurisdiction over the school — never mind that Mater Dei is playing in a CIF title game Dec. 11.
To those left incredulous by all this, I say: Forget it, Jake. It’s Mater Dei.
I covered the school for years in my previous job, focusing on the many sex-abuse civil cases that originated from the school. We’re talking about easily more than a dozen known multimillion-dollar sex-abuse settlements since 2002 involving at least 10 accused Mater Dei former employees — counselors, teachers, staff, administrators and more — with next to no discipline for anyone involved.
The latest incident is not a sex-abuse case, but it bears one hallmark of how the Orange diocese has dealt with controversy involving minors at Mater Dei: institutional silence and obfuscation.
Take the case of former Principal Michael Harris. Multiple male students alleged that he repeatedly assaulted them in his office through the 1970s and 1980s before he left to open Santa Margarita High, where Harris later resigned in the wake of more accusations that the Orange diocese kept secret for years. Harris was never convicted of any crimes, but he alone has already cost the Orange diocese more than $7 million in sex-abuse settlements — and another former Mater Dei student has a pending lawsuit that names Harris as their abuser.
The Orange diocese also stayed quiet in 1989, when Mater Dei officials allowed then-choir director Thomas Hodgman to quietly resign after he had admitted to sexually abusing a female student. Then-Principal John Weling said nothing to parents at the time but did joke to diocesan officials in a memo that “there is never a dull moment at [Mater Dei]!”
The same silence happened again in the mid-1990s with Jeff Andrade, an assistant boy’s basketball coach that Mater Dei administrators suspected of inappropriate relations with female students. When they interrogated Andrade about such rumors, legendary head coach Gary McKnight burst into the meeting and told Andrade to lawyer up and not say anything else until one arrived.
Mater Dei ended up firing Andrade, who was never convicted of a crime even though he admitted in a deposition to having sex with an underage student. Years later, both he and then-Mater Dei school President Patrick Murphy said during depositions that Andrade returned to campus to help run fundraisers for athletic teams with the blessing of McKnight, who continues to coach at Mater Dei.
None of the above was ever volunteered by Mater Dei or the Orange diocese; they only came to light via lawsuits and the media.
In 2007, current Principal Frances Clare did tell parents in a letter after yet another batch of sex-abuse lawsuits that the school had “informed and cooperated with the legal authorities in an appropriate manner” about two alleged abusers back in the 1990s. But when I called up the Children and Family Services Division of Orange County’s Social Services Agency back then — which mandatory reporters are supposed to contact whenever they find out about child abuse — they said they had no record of any talks with Mater Dei.
Student abuse at Mater Dei isn’t a few rogue individuals over the decades; it’s institutional. And no one knows this better than John Manly, who has repeatedly sued his alma mater on behalf of clients over alleged sexual abuse by adults and currently has “multiple” pending lawsuits against Mater Dei. He’s always made it a point that any sex-abuse settlements he enters with Catholic diocese involve the release of depositions and documents that show what actually happened versus what prelates claimed happened.
“The funny thing about this is that everyone expects them to do something about this,” he said about the scandal currently roiling Mater De football. “But they didn’t do anything about child rape. Do they really think they’re going to do anything about hazing?”
For a minute, I thought they would.
I really thought Bishop Vann had changed the Orange diocese, which has ultimate jurisdiction over Mater Dei, for the better. His predecessor, Bishop Tod D. Brown, presided over a diocese that was just as bad as the archdioceses of Los Angeles and Boston when it came to protecting pedophile priests and ignoring their victims.
Fortunately, Orange County Catholics haven’t seen that with Vann. But it’s a failure of accountability if he allows Mater Dei football to get off scot-free in this case.
For his part, Manly doesn’t think anything will happen to Rollinson, his former sophomore history teacher.
“If you’re a winner, that’s all that matters,” he said. “The thinking is, ‘We’re going to protect the organization, we’re going to protect the money machine.’ If one kid gets violently assaulted, they just don’t care.”
But what really angers Manly about the current hazing case is how Mater Dei has let the Monarchs football team continue to play — and let Rollinson coach — as if nothing is going on.
“Why does Mater Dei protect bullies?” Manly asked. “That young man who hurt the student, what has he learned? ‘Might makes right.’ That you can get away with anything.”
-
-
-
15 hours ago, Anastasis said:
Yeah, there were some good posts by JJ, Twice, etc. . Still haven't seen much in teh way of analysis of the arguments made today. fenix had a post I remember seeing but wasn't much context I could track.
Below is analysis from random dude on Reddit:
I listened to most of the oral arguments this morning and jesus christ, what a fucking mess. I honestly can't think of another SCOTUS oral argument I've listened to or read that was so... all over the place. The only thing that is clear is that there will be one of two outcomes: (1) abortion will flat-out no longer be a protected right, or (2) the viability ban from Roe will be eliminated and replaced with something like a "reasonable possibility" standard. In either case, Roe and Casey will effectively be overturned, whether explicitly or not.
Here is a link to the oral argument and a searchable transcript for reference, but because I'm a big nerd here are the key points I took away from each Justice.
Roberts was hyper-focused on the 15 week aspect. Prelogar essentially kept saying that the state isn't asking you to replace the viability line with a clear/brightline 15-week rule and Roberts kept finding a new way to say "but the thing before us today is 15 weeks" (despite that not being how precedent works). (See oral argument at 50:21 and 1:39:00).
Alito essentially implied that Roe and Casey were equivalent to Plessy. (See oral argument at 1:33:10). He also asked originalist questions about history, 1868, the founding, etc.. And when Rikelman gave killer answers to every single one of his questions, he just came back with another question that he obviously saw as the next reason why Roe and Casey were not supported by an originalist reading. This was one area where Rikelman's advocacy skills really shined, so I'd recommend checking it out. (See oral argument at 1:13:43).
Kavanaugh spent most of his time essentially setting the stage for why stare decisis wouldn't prohibit SCOTUS from overturning Roe and Casey. He spent like five minutes just listing decisions liberals love that he thought overruled precedent just to prove his point and own the libs -- Baker v. Carr, Brown v. Board, West Coast Hotel, Miranda, Lawrence, Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, Obergefell. (See oral argument at 1:19:38). The problem is that some of those cases didn't overrule any SCOTUS precedent (e.g., Baker v. Carr didn't overrule Colegrove (the majority just said that the "[a]ppellees misconceive the holding of that case" and that the "holding was precisely contrary to their reading of it.") and Miranda). Anyway, Kavanaugh's position was pretty clear.
Thomas brought up a case out of South Carolina where a woman had been convicted of criminal child neglect because she ingested cocaine during her pregnancy (a post-viability case) and asked if the state had any interest in enforcing such a law against the woman if it was pre-viability. (See oral argument at 47:42). Thomas also hinted that "liberty" rights were not really Constitutional rights and that cases like Meyer, Griswold, Casey, Loving, and Lawrence "all of those sort of just [came] out of Lochner and [SCOTUS] has dropped part of it." (See oral argument at 1:11:00). In other words, Thomas said the quiet part out loud -- he believes substantive due process rights originate in the discredited Lochner doctrine. So the only logical outcome is that all substantive due process rights may be at risk (like all of those from Meyer, etc. mentioned above).
Gorsuch was pretty much a mix of Kavanaugh and Roberts, focusing on replacing the viability line. He was also kind of a dick about it. (See oral argument at 1:45:00).
Barrett primarily focused on safe haven laws and strongly implied that even though Roe and Casey focused on the burden of parenting, safe haven laws essentially eliminate this concern entirely. (See oral argument at 54:47).
Breyer decided to use his time to pontificate almost incoherently about the institutional integrity of SCOTUS and stare decisis. (See oral argument at 1:08:17).
Kagan basically said what Breyer said, but with much more clarity, sass, and strength. From 32:54, to Stewart of Mississippi:
Kagan: "You come here very honestly saying 'we want you to discard the entire setup and then even if you don't do that, we want you to discard the viability line . . . '. In the end, we are in the same exact place as we were [50 years ago]. Except that we're not, because there's been 50 years of water under the bridge; 50 years of decisions saying 'this is part of our law, that this is part of the fabric of women's existence in this country.' And that places us in an entirely different situation than if you had come in 50 years ago and made the same arguments. I guess I just wanted to hear you react to that."
Sotomayor spent most of her time screaming into the void that is the public dialogue. She clearly did the obvious math that Roe was going to be overturned and decided to make a plea to the public for the record. My favorite quotes were around 27:18 of the oral argument:
Sotomayor: "How is your interest anything but a religious view. The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It's still debated in religions. So when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that's a religious view, isn't it? Cause it assumes that a fetus is life at... when? When do you suggest we begin that way? . . . ."
Stewart: " . . . I think this Court in Gonzalez pretty clearly recognized that before viability we are talking with unborn life with a human organism. I think the philosophical questions your honor mentioned, all those reasons -- that they're hard, they've been debated, they're important -- those are all reasons to return this to the people, because the people should get to debate these hard issues and this Court does not in that kind of circumstance."
Sotomayor: "When does the life of a woman and putting her life at risk enter the calculus? Meaning, right now, forcing women who are poor -- and that's 75% of the population -- and much higher percentage of those women in Mississippi who elect abortions before viability. They are put at a tremendously greater risk of medical complications and ending their life -- 14 times greater to give birth to a child full term than it is to have an abortion before viability. And now the state is saying to these women, we can choose not only to physically complicate your existence, put you at medical risk, make you poorer by the choice, because we believe... what???"
Given the above and everything I've seen from these Justices before, I'm gonna take a complete shot in the dark and say these are the chances each Justice signs on to a given holding:
Justice No Right to Abortion Eliminate Viability Ban and Replace Undue Burden Uphold Roe and Casey Roberts 3% 87% 10% Alito 95% 5% 0% Kavanaugh 25%45%75%55%0% Thomas 98% 2% 0% Gorsuch 49% 51% 0% Barrett 34%40%65%60%1%0%Breyer 0% 0% 100% Kagan 0% 0% 100% Sotomayor 0% 0% 100% Based on this wild conjecture, I would guess the opinion will come out like this:
-
Barrett or Roberts writes the majority opinion to eliminate viability ban and replace the undue burden standard. All conservatives sign on except for maybe Alito or Thomas, either of whom might concur instead and write/sign on to an opinion stating there is not right to abortion.
-
Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor all sign on to a dissent written by Kagan. Sotomayor may also write an additional dissent focused on the substantive/moral arguments and I'd give a slim chance that Breyer writes a dissent focusing on the integrity of the Court just to make sure he's added to this footnote in history.
EDIT: I’ve relistened to the oral arguments several more times and some commentary on it, and it has me wanting to change my percentages for Kavanaugh to 45% / 55% / 0% and for ACB to 40% / 60% / 0%.
The main reason I’m making that shift for Kavanaugh is because of one line he said multiple times at 41:42 and at 1:16:49:
“The Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice.”
Prof. Leah Litman at the Strict Scrutiny podcast pointed out that this line sounded very rehearsed and work-shopped and sounds like something Kavanaugh would love to have in an opinion. Given his list of allegedly overruled prior cases, I think his percentage to eliminate a federal right to abortion should be increased from where I had it.
I also changed Barrett’s percentages after reviewing her history again. Specifically, I relistened to her confirmation hearing and reviewed her Notre Dame speech where she said:
"The implications of our Catholic mission . . . is this: that you will always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and . . . that end is building the kingdom of God."
I also thought about why she asked her question about safe havens and realized that the only reason could have been to say that “there is no undue burden in requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term so long as you relieve her of her duty of being a parent.” ACB did mention that this didn’t eliminate the bodily autonomy argument (when she also cited vaccinations), so I’ll still put her chances lower than Kavanaugh’s for eliminating the right entirely. But nonetheless, I thought she deserved a lower percentage on a second look.
I don’t think either change will result in a different outcome from what I said, but I think it makes my prediction a bit more tenuous.
I also want to add a prior prediction I made that the Texas ruling will come out before the Dobb’s opinion so that the Court can say “look, we’re not crazy”, thereby shifting the Overton window and giving them space to gut Roe and Casey.
-
-
- Popular Post
33 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:Ahh ohhh, looks like the cats out of the bag. How can cheap Ivermectin save an elderly man on his Covid death bed?
If I were you, I'd start taking as much Ivermectin as I could get my hands on just to be safe.
No half measures.
-
18 minutes ago, Bravo said:
Just 2 examples. Simple Google search has many more easily within last 6 Mos.
Amazing. Even for you.
A 4 month old speech where Biden is discussing the withdrawal timeline as set by the previous administration and a clip of not Joe Biden.
Good job, good effort.
-
4 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:
Dude's twitter over the past 72 hours makes it very clear he has no idea what the fuck he is talking about.
I thought it was pretty obvious that one tweet about the two extremes was a joke representing the expected over-reaction that is going to occur when the hire is announced.
-
2 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:
There are probably quite a few steps in between what we have now and a disarmed society. Maybe start with those.
OK!
20 years since Columbine and not a single step has been taken despite multiple attempts at legislation that do not include a "disarmed society." Because the pro-gun lobby shoots them down as a "slippery slope" to disarmament.
Got any more advice?
-
-
-
7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:
I wouldn't be remotely surprised if police departments weren't interested in doing the hard work of an actual investigation into these groups.
We were told on page 1 of this thread that crime is up because of progressive "pro-crime" policies. When it was pointed out that crime is up EVERYWHERE, including in jurisdictions with lock 'em up DA's, @52-80 told that it was because people are being so mean to the police and publicly questioning their effectiveness, that they simply are unable to do their job. A pretty shocking admission. I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which a different government entity could meet criticism with "well, of course we're doing a shit job, have you seen what people are saying about us?"
-
4 minutes ago, Bravo said:
It's pretty damn far left.
BTW I see you have the CR mantra down. Repeat with me. Nazi, white supremacist, troll.
Look dude, you're the one blaming the "media" when a guy is called out for promoting the violent establishment of a white ethno-state. Between the two, if you find yourself carrying water for the latter, then yeah, I'm comfortable calling you a Nazi.
Btw, what was your last handle before your were crowdsourced?
-
5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
Of course you don't. I've been here essentially since the inception of the site, so there must be a huge sample size of pro-Nazi posts and assorted white supremacy evidence to really solidify your fucking witch hunt.
Yeah, like the time you posted a link to a Nazi website, you fucking dolt.
-
23 minutes ago, 52-80 said:
His point is pretty obvious to see if you arent looking with blinders: the attitude he quoted represents an apathy towards crime. that sort of indifference permits more crime.
And if you want to tie it back to law, just look at California’s Proposition 47. Any property crime under $950 is downgraded to a misdemeanor. So if you want to smash a window and grab a wallet or whatever, the risk and severity of prosecution is much lower than it was before.
Is the idea clearer now?
So crime should only be up in places like California, right?
-
-
-
9 hours ago, Nicole44 said:
Good luck to everyone. The whole "stay at home" shit didn't work. It wasn't feasible. Or realistic. I got my shots and will will get my booster and it doesn't matter. It is mutating and coming around. I did my part as did millions who stayed at home and got vaccinated for what? People who were going to die anyway? Shit tomorrow is promised to no one. We have been living in fear of this shit and I am sorry it seems like time has run out on the people who wanted life shut down. It will find its way around the vaccinations because that is what a lab created virus does. It mutates.
Wow such words of wisdom
-
-
43 minutes ago, NoName said:
really makes you wonder what would have happened if Texas hired Odom
Does it?
After watching this team for the last 10 years, I have to assume had Odom been hired, he would've totally shit the bed and finished the season with the worst defense in CFB. Doesn't really seem to matter who we hire, TBH.
-
-
-
-

Plumber finds bags of cash and checks in the walls of Joel Osteen's church
in Daily Texan
Also, this always gets me: