Your pedophile protector is in prison, Joe.JoltinJoe wrote:The 1995 law under which Lynn was convicted (having been cleared of other charges) concerned reckless endangerment of a child over whom the defendant had a duty to supervise.D1B wrote:
Nope, 89Hairfollicals. Just holding Joltin Joke accountable. Saw this article on Abuse Tracker, a site almost solely dedicated to monitoring the crimes of your church.
Wanted Doltin's collassal fail on record here.
In 2005, the Philadelphia DA's office issued a grand jury report noting Msgr. Lynn's negligence, but saying he could not be charged under the existing law because he did not have a duty of supervising any child.
In 2007, Pennsylvania amended the law to include within its scope negligent and reckless acts of an individual charged with the responsibility over someone with a duty of supervising a child.
In 2011, the Philadelphia DA's office indicted Lynn -- who left his position in 2004 -- under the new law. Lynn moved to dismiss, arguing he left his position in 2004, and thus could not be charged under the new law. The DA then amended the indictment to charge him under the 1995, arguing that it covered Lynn -- despite the office's prior concession that it did not.
Lynn moved to dismiss the amended indictment, and the trial judge denied the motion, saying she agreed with the ridiculous claim of the DA. After trial, the appellate court reversed, saying it is a firmly established constitutional right that one cannot be charged ex post facto. The opinion also derided the trial judge for her obvious bias.
The PA Supreme Court, an elected group not known for scholarship nationally, reversed the obviously correct decision of the appellate court in an opinion that includes a lengthy Clintonesque discussion of what "supervision of a child" means -- ultimately concluding that it means someone who doesn't have a duty of supervision of child.
They do this by saying that the statute is ambiguous -- i.e., did it mean "direct supervision" (which is, to those who understand proper English, a redundancy) or "indirect supervision (which is, to those who understand proper English, a contradiction)? By the way, this is how lawyers manufacture so-called ambiguity, by arguing that a word that has a clear meaning is ambiguous, and then trying to attach modifiers to the word that actually contradict it.
It also then used the term that the statute concerned "children," rather than a specific "child," and thus obliterated any need for the "duty to supervise" be of a specific child (an important aspect of the case, since Lynn never met the esteemed Billy Doe).
The court then explained away that the constitutional mandate that any ambiguity in a law be construed against the government, for lack of proper notice to a defendant that his actions may be subject to the statute.
At the moment, the case is back before the appellate court so it can resolve other issues raised by that it previously had no reason to decide. Once he is done with the PA courts -- and assuming the conviction is not overturned again, which is still likely -- Lynn's attorney is promising federal court and Supreme Court review of the illegal decision of the PA Supreme Court, which will undoubtedly overturned.
And, this does not even touch upon the fact that the so-called victim is a heroin addict and liar who not long before he filed the case told a state psychiatrist that he'd never been sexually abused.
And the Philly DA keeps dismissing charges brought against Billy Doe in other cases, intolerable corruption at its worst.
Deal with it.
