Friday, August 04, 2006

From the La Salette Journey Archives

Attorney Daniel Shea in an email to myself back in 2003:


"That's Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII speaking in an Encyclical which teaching is to be taken seriously but is NOT ex cathedra. You seem to be blinded by the ability of Ratzinger and Co. to engage in an international conspiracy to obstruct justice. Crime is crime no matter how much watered silk you wrap it in. You're right about one thing though, Mystici Corporis and Immortale Dei are now driving this train and Vatican II isnt worth the paper its written on."

Dan Shea.

Anti-Catholic for District Attorney?

Attorney Daniel J. Shea, who has referred to the Catholic Church as "a criminal institution," announces bid for District Attorney position:Attorney Daniel J. Shea, an attorney who represented clergy abuse victims within the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts and who has referred to the Catholic Church as "a criminal institution," while asserting that "Ratzinger and Co" have engaged in an "international conspiracy to obstruct justice," has announced that he will seek the Democratic nomination to the position of District Attorney for the Middle District, which encompasses Worcester County/Central Massachusetts. On one occasion, attorney Shea wrote me an email in which he said that the Church, " a criminal institution and those who contribute to it any longer are aiding and abetting this criminal conduct called obstruction of justice." On another occasion, he asserted that I "..seem to be blinded by the ability of Ratzinger and Co. to engage in an international conspiracy to obstruct justice."Please take the time to read my two articles on attorney Daniel J. Shea, the links to which are below. Note how attorney Shea has been involved with the transgender movement. Attorney Shea's anti-Catholic remarks are a cause for serious concern. Do we really want to see this man elected to the District Attorney's Office of the Middle District? How will Catholics fare under Daniel Shea as a District Attorney? Will Catholics be able to receive justice from a man who has said that Catholics who contribute to the Catholic Church are "aiding and abetting" a "criminal institution"?What do you think?

The articles:

Read Attorney Shea's letter to the Honorable Michael J. Sullivan and expressing his interpretation of Crimen Sollicitationes:

Daniel J. Shea, P.C.1928 WEST BELL STREET, HOUSTON, TX 77019-4814(713) 942-7500 (713) 942-7507 FACSIMILE

Hon. Michael J. Sullivan Facsimile: (617) 748-3974
United States Attorney
And U.S. Mail, First Class
District of Massachusetts
1 Courthouse Way,
Suite 9200
Boston, MA 02210-3011

RE: Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, A Corporation Sole

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

Reference is made to a hand-delivered letter of even date to you from Mr. Carmen L. Durso. That letter transmits to you a copy of a 1962 Vatican document "On the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation," a/k/a "Crimen Sollicitationes."A word first on provenance and authentication.

Crimen Sollicitationes first appears in a footnote to a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, dated May 18, 2002, "To All Bishops of the Catholic Church . . . Concerning Very Grave Sins Which are Reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." I have in my possession the official Latin texts of both these documents.

The Ratzinger letter was brought to the attention of the Massachusetts Attorney General by letter of March 1, 2002. A copy of that letter and its attachments is hereby provided. Since March 1, 2002, I have conducted a search for Crimen Sollicitationes and until two weeks ago, had been unable to find it. Major Thomas Doyle, a catholic chaplain in Germany, was able to unearth it and send me both the Latin original, and the English translation you have in your possession.

Father Doyle is the co-author of the so-called Doyle-Mouton Report which apprized the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) of the criminal implications of this coverup in 1985 with the warning that catholic judges and lawyers would no longer shield them from the consequences of their behavior in this matter. I sent a copy of Crimen Sollicitationes to Massachusetts Attorney General Reilly by letter of July 28, 2003. That letter contains a brief "commentary" on Crimen, forbidden in its preface with the warning: "This text is to be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be added to with any commentaries." That letter is also hereby provided Hon. Michael J. Sullivan July 28, 2003 Page Two____________________As you can glean from my correspondence with Mr. Reilly, I have been involved in the Ratzinger-Bank of New England nexus for some time. Consequently, I am less inclined to characterize the A.G.'s report as "regrettable," as does Mr. Durso.

First of all, I find the Reilly Report legally unacceptable to the extent that it names the "target" as the "Archdiocese of Boston." That is a canonical term. The target institution is "Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, A Corporation Sole" as Mr. Durso correctly indicates. Significantly, the Bank of New England jurisprudence, cited by Mr. Durso, has never been applied to a special, legislatively created, corporation sole. That unique corporate form has been a legislative privilege extended to the Archbishop of Boston that allows him to operate as a de facto monarch.

I believe the Reilly Report intentionally sidesteps the implications of Bank of New England's collective knowledge doctrine to this de facto monarch. The Report (page 1) states, "The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston has been a duly registered corporation, formed under Chapter 180 of the Massachusetts General Laws, for religious purposes since 1897." That is incorrect. This chapter shall apply to all corporations whenever established, except so far as such application may be inconsistent with provisions still in force of any special acts of incorporation, enacted before March eleventh, eighteen hundred and thirty-one, and not subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the general court, or with provisions of any special acts of incorporation enacted after October first, nineteen hundred and seventy-one.

Mass. Gen. L. ch. 180 § 1.The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, A Corporation Sole is, thus, not incorporated under Chapter 180, but is a noted exception to it. Otherwise, the "Archdiocese of Boston" would be subject to the requirements for officers and directors, articles of incorporation, and other legal safeguards that Chapter 180 otherwise provides.The next instance of issue-avoidance in the Reilly Report is found on page 22 therein. "The evidence gathered during the course of the Attorney General's sixteen month investigation, does not provide a basis for bringing criminal charges against the Archdiocese or its senior managers." Id. (emphasis added). At this point in the report, the reader would expect that there would be separate treatment of criminal charges against the "Archdiocese" under Bank of New England, and criminal charges against any individuals. Instead, the report continues, The investigation did not produce evidence that senior Archdiocese managers encouraged priests to abuse children, intended that priests would abuse children, intended to obstruct justice by helping abusive priests avoid arrest or punishment, Hon. Michael J. Sullivan July 28, 2003 Page Three____________________interfered with the testimony or role of a witness in a judicial proceeding, or entered into unlawful agreements. Nor is there evidence that the Archdiocese benefitted by priests sexually abusing children. Id. Thus ends any reference to criminal charges against the corporate entity, however mis-characterized. Turning, however, to the criminal conduct of the individuals involved, I fail to see how such evidentiary conclusions can be reached in light of the Ratzinger letter (in the AG's possession since March 1, 2002), Crimen Sollicitationes, and the fact that in one case, there was "some evidence" of sexual molestation of a minor by the RCAB himself, i.e., Humberto S. Medeiros.

In addition, I can direct you to at least four places in the deposition testimony of Bernard F. Law where, in light of the Ratzinger letter and Crimen, there is "some evidence" of perjury. Finally, I find it unacceptable that in a report of this importance, appropriate legal distinctions between "no evidence," "some evidence," "preponderance of evidence," and the like are not maintained. I trust that unlike Mr. Reilly, you will not be so unprofessional as to fail, at the very least, to acknowledge receipt of this letter.

Very truly yours,
Daniel J. Shea
Mass. B.B.O. No. 652896
cc: Mr. Carmen L. Durso, w/o encl.Facsimile: (617) 426-7972

Attorney Shea provided me with this copy as part of an exchange of emails we had back in 2003.



Anonymous said...

Catholics in and around the Worcester Diocese should spread the word about this anti-Catholic bigot.

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

You would hope Lee. There is still much voter apathy out there. However, attorney Shea is no stranger to controversy and this will undoubtedly affect his candidacy. In my view, he is not District Attorney material.

Anonymous said...

Shea is out of control. While he might not stand a chance of winning the office of District Attorney for Worcester because of his idiotic statements in the past and his involvement with the transgender movement, still Catholics should address his anti-Catholicism by writing letters to the editor etc.

Site Meter