John J. Uskert

March 10, 1889

 

Most Revered John Doe

1234 Main Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 00000-0000

(123) 456-7890

 

Re:  Fr. Johnny Jones (Anytown, USA)        via Priority Mail and e-mail

 

Your Excellency:

Please find below my Memorandum in Support of Fr. Johnny Jones.  Your prompt consideration of this memorandum and action thereto are greatly appreciated.

Memorandum in Support of Fr. Johnny Jones

1. Introduction.

The subject matter of this memorandum is of great import and consequence not only to Fr. Johnny Jones, but also to his former parishioners, his family and his friends.  While I am experienced in civil law, having practiced law in the states of xxxx and xxxx for nearly thirty years, I come to you not as an attorney, but as friend of the Jones family with a simple request.  For reasons set forth below, it appears Fr. Jones' rights have effectively and practically been denied (justice delayed is justice denied). My request is that you consider the current priestly status of Fr. Jones in the archdiocese of Anytown, USA, and compel his case forward to resolution pursuant to Canon Law.

2. Salient Facts.

In July, 1888 Msgr. Michael Smith (delegate for clergy misconduct for the archdiocese of Anytown) fabricated a sodomy charge against Fr. Jones.  Smith made the false rape allegations to the Archdiocesan Review Board, the Archbishop and others.  The alleged “rape victim,” John Doe, denied he had been raped by Fr. Jones. Smith nevertheless continued his pursuit against Fr. Jones for alleged priestly misconduct.  Fr. Jones recently won a defamation lawsuit against Det. Dick Tracy for filing a false police report (Tracy's “facts”'  were summarily denied by John Doe).  Despite the emphatic denial of the alleged charges against Fr. Jones by John Doe, and the civil defamation settlement against Det. Dick Tracy, the “misconduct” case remains pending against Fr. Jones, and Fr. Jones remains “restricted from all public ministry” until his “canonical proceeding is fully resolved,” as jurisdiction is with the Vatican.

To complicate matters, Archbishop Charlie Angel,  Smith's superior, presumably was responsible for the delay of transmitting Fr. Jones' file from the archdiocese of Anytown to the Vatican.  Angel has recently been sued civilly for inexplicably reassigning a priest (a known child predator) and then secreting the priest out of the archdiocese.  Angel has unclean hands and is equitably precluded from relief in any Vatican tribunal.

3. Conflict of Interest.

Title III. “The Discipline to be Observed in Tribunals (Can. 1446-1475)” sets forth exclusions of participants, that is, who may be excluded from The Duty of Judges and Ministers of the Tribunal.  Can. 1447 states that “A person who has taken part in a case as a judge, promoter of justice, defender of the board, procurator, advocate, witness, or expert cannot later in another instance validly decide the same case as judge or perform the function of assessor.”  Accordingly, it is anticipated, and reasonably expected, that Smith and Angel will both be called as witnesses to testify in Fr. Johnny Jones' case.  Based on the simply stated facts herein, both have a conflict of interest as assessors and witnesses in Fr. Jones' case in chief.  Smith and Angel should immediately be removed from any position of authority respecting false allegations of priestly misconduct in Fr. Jones' case.

4. Due Process.

In any state or federal civil or criminal court in the United States, a named defendant is entitled to procedural safeguards and is afforded an opportunity to defend himself against the charges lodged.  In the case at hand, Msgr. Smith levied a charge of “sodomy” against Fr. Jones in or about July, 1888 with the  Archdiocesan Review Board, the Archbishop and others.  As temporary administrative remedies, the archdiocese terminated Fr. Jones' position as parish priest, ordered him out of the rectory and restricted Fr. Jones from all public ministry.  Even apprised of John Doe’s denial of the allegations as false charges, Angel has not dismissed the case against Fr. Jones, has delayed transmission of the Jones case file to the Vatican and has refused to properly advanced the case within the Vatican as required.

Certainly, Fr. Jones is entitled to his day in court.  But, no.  The Jones case languished on the desk of an obviously incompetent officer in the archdiocese of Anytown from July, 1888 until sometime in April, 1889.  The Jones case file now further languishes in the Vatican, apparently unattended, unnoticed and subjected to additional prejudicial delay.

5. Argument.                                                                                                                                                       1.  Malfeasance by Dilatory Conduct

 Can. 1446 requires that “the Christian faithful, and especially bishops, are to strive diligently to avoid litigation……and to resolve litigation peacefully as soon as possible.”

 Angel has not done so and, therefore, is liable for misfeasance or malfeasance in his duties.

Can. 1452 states that “Once a case has been legitimately introduced, however, the judge can and must proceed………(in) the public good of the Church or salvation of souls.”  [It can only be assumed the case against Fr. Jones has been “legitimately introduced” by filing the allegations made by Smith with the Archdiocesan Review Board, the Archbishop and others.]  Yet no further action has been taken by Smith or Angel.

Smith and Angel have not done so and, therefore, both are liable for misfeasance or malfeasance in their duties.

Can. 1453 states that “Without prejudice to justice, judges and tribunals are to take care that all cases are completed as soon as possible and that in a tribunal of first instance they are not prolonged beyond a year and in a tribunal of second instance beyond six months.”

 It has been approximately 20 months since Smith legitimately introduced sodomy allegations (thoroughly dismissed and denied by John Doe) against him, yet Fr. Jones remains ousted from his Anytown parish and rectory and “restricted from public ministry.”  Fr. Jones has had no opportunity to present his defense due to the irrational, dilatory conduct of the Archdiocese and its failure to properly advance the case forward in the Vatican.

Smith and Angel have not done so and, therefore, both are liable for misfeasance or malfeasance in their duties.

      2. Innocent.

While American law presumes every defendant innocent until proven guilty, Fr. Jones has taken one step further.  The sodomy/rape case against him has been emphatically disproven.  John Doe has stated to Angel that allegations Smith made are absolutely false.  There was no rape.  There was no sodomy.  Det. Dick Tracy's police report has been determined to be false. The civil authorities declined criminal prosecution. There was no rape. There was no sodomy.  Fr. Johnny Jones is innocent. He has proven his innocence.

      3. Conflict of Interest.

Smith and Angel are so deeply entrenched with false allegations against Fr. Jones, they are incapable of occupying any position of authority or as assessors.  Their true roles are those as witnesses, not so much in Fr. Jones' case, but as witnesses to their own malfeasance. 

6. Conclusion and Relief Requested.

Based upon the facts of the Fr. Johnny Jones case, the dilatory conduct of Smith and Angel, the lack of due process afforded Fr. Jones and the conflict of interest, one can only conclude that the sodomy allegations lodged against Fr. Jones are false and wholly without merit.  Accordingly, it is requested that you, John Doe, papal nuncio,

 

1. Remove Smith and Angel from all aspects of the Fr. Jones case.
2. Appoint a neutral assessor to expediently proceed with this case,
3. Remove all Fr. Jones' restrictions regarding his public ministry immediately,
4. Reassign Fr. Jones to his previous parish and rectory immediately,
5. Dismiss the false sodomy case against Fr. Jones immediately, or alternatively,
6. Cause the Fr. Jones file in the Vatican to be resolved expeditiously and with no further delay. (The alleged sodomy case was filed by Smith twenty (20) months ago. The case file against Fr. Jones has been with the Vatican for nearly twelve (12) months with no notification to Fr. Jones as to status or resolution. Such is totally contrary to Can. 1453 that “all cases are to be completed as soon as possible and that in a tribunal of first instance they are not prolonged beyond a year…..”)

Respectfully Submitted,

 

John J. Uskert

(Friend of Jones family)

1234 Main Avenue

Anytown, Any State 00000-0000

(888) 111-1111 (cell)

johnuskert@gmail.com