(Analyzing Cardinal Roger Mahony's statements under oath in deposition January 25, 2010 in the case of Luis C v. Doe, continued from from Part 1 and Part 2 . )
So Much For Pastoral Care. Since the July 2007 settlements in L.A. every mainstream news group has quoted the Archbishop saying he approaches the matter of pedophile priests in a pastoral way. He apologized on camera and says he is truly concerned about the victims who are struggling today. Yet this is what he said about two former altar boys in the deposition released to the public last month:
Q: Did the issue of reporting this to the police ever enter your mind [in 2000] when the Cadigan* matter carne up?
MR. HENNIGAN: Purely argumentative.
THE WITNESS: I answered that. I told you, these were adults. They were angry. They were furious at Baker. They had an attorney that was furious at Baker. They were in a different state. seemed to me if they really wanted to get him, they would have reported it in Arizona.
***
(Then 30 pages of transcript later, Mahony says about those same victims:)
***
MANLY: So the reason you didn't tell the parishes about Michael Baker molesting children is because you were worried about a [2000] confidentiality agreement?
10 MAHONY: I was worried- not worried. I wanted to get that lawsuit settled.
12 Q Why?
13 A For the sake of these men, these victims.
***
*"Cadigan" refers to Lynne Cadigan, the Arizona attorney representing this set of victims; John Manly is the Orange County attorney representing Luis C. Hennigan is the L.A. attorney who represents Mahony.
Around page 146 of transcript, Manly queries why the story of the illegal alien victims who went back to Mexico is nowhere in the "Report to the People of God" released in 2004.
When Mahony's asked again why not call police, his laywers object: Not again, "It's argumentative and it's offensive." Manly says, "Yeah, especially if you were molested 
by Father Baker." Another question never really answered: Where did Father Baker get the $500,000 he apparently gave to one of his victims to make him go away?(Wasn't that little graphic fun? Here is the deposition deconstructed, starting from the beginning:)
Q: When you were bishop of Stockton, did you have a policy of where you kept files with allegations of sex molestation by priests against children?
A: There was a confidential section in the files.
Q: Did a confidential section for files exist when you came to Los Angeles?
A: I don't recall.
**********
[Okay, He Right Away Remembers the Confidential Section Of Files In Stockton Where He’d Been 20 Years Earlier, But He Can't Remember For Los Angeles Where He Is Today? That Just Does Not Sound True. Look at Any Deposition, You See, Church Hierarchy Believe They Can Say Anything Under Oath, And Since No One Can Verify It, They Can Say Anything They Want Even Under Oath. ]
***************
DEPOSITION QUOTES CONTINUED:
Q: If a priest says to you, “I molested children,” don't you think it’s appropriate at that point to call the police, be it in 1985 or now?
A: If you want to review the suspected child abuse form, you'll see that the very top little section says, name of mandated reporter, title of mandated reporter, category of mandated reporter, the agency to which it is sent.
And the rest of it is a big section about each victim and the victim’s parents. So you-- obviously, if you can’t fill out the form you can’t send it.
Q: I see. What about just picking up the phone as Bishop and calling for example, you knew Chief Gates, right?
A: Yes.
Q: You knew him personally, right?
A: Yes.
Q: He came to the Red Mass, right?
A: I think possibly.
Q: Couldn't you cal up Chief Gates and say, “Hello, Chief, this is Cardinal Mahony. I have a priest here who has violated a child. I am not sure who it is. Could you please get somebody over here and begin an investigation?”
Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?
A: Well today it would, but back then that isn’t the way these matters were approached.
Q: I see. When did that change, you know, when in your mind do you think it would have been appropriate to call the police? What was the year that changed?
A: Well my first approach is always the pastoral one. That is, if there is a suspicion of wrongdoing, regardless what it is, to get the priest away from ministry, to find out what is going on, and then to take whatever steps seem appropriate.
Q: How many priests admitted to you in Los Angeles they had molested children?
A: Over what time period?
Q: The entire time you've been here.
A: One. Michael Baker.
Q: What did he tell you?
A: He told me that they were two families of illegal aliens and they had left the Los Angeles area.
**********
[As City of Angels posted July 3rd in Part 2, no one used the term "illegal aliens" in 1985, making this testimony appear more coached than responsive.]
****************
Q: And you naturally took notes on that?
A: I don't think I took written notes.
Q; The first thing you would want to do if that were true is make sure somebody found those families and got help, right/
A: Well I asked him names. He said he did to know the last names and that he had no idea where they were, no idea they could be found, that they had moved multiple times.
Q: What did you do to find those children?
A: Well asked him where this happened and he said it did not happen at the parish.
Q: Okay and you believed him?
A: Unfortunately I believed everything he said.
Q: I take it at that point you directed your staff to find the kids?
A: no I did not.
Q: Did you call the pastor where he served?
A: Well since he told me this had nothing to do with the parish, I did not call the pastor.
Q: What did he tell you he did to the kids?
A: Interesting. He said he had some touching with them.
Q: What does that mean?
A: I have no idea.
…
Did you then notify the parish in Los Angeles where he was serving?
A: I told you that he said this did not happen in the parish, it happened someplace else.
Q: What does that matter?
A: It did not occur to me at the time that there were other victims in the parish, because these were not people that belonged to the parish.
Q: According to the pedophile?
A: Yes.
...
Q: Did you think it to prudent to go to the parish ad make an announcement that Father Baker had hurt these kids?
A: well, the challenge is trying to look at 1986 through the lenses of 2010.
**********
(Oh come on, when was forcing sex on a child ever okay?)
****************
Q: I want to know, in 1986, did it occur to you that it would be a good idea, sir, to make a announcement to the parish?
A: Let me explain. It is impossible to talk about 1986 without understanding all that has gone on since…I can’t disassociate what we have accomplished over the years to protect children. . . .
I think if he (the pedophile) had said these children had anything to do with the parish, I may have. But I don't recall that as an idea.
…
Q: how many other priests other than Father Baker have you asked your staff to delay reporting to the parishes on?
A: I don't think it’s a matter of delay. We have to be able to announce what we know is accurate.
Q: Where did you send Father Baker immediately after he told you he had molested kids?
A: He was sent to the center in Jemez Springs, New Mexico, operated by the Paracletes.
Q: Didn't you send him to Big Sur first, the monastery?
A: I don't recall.
*****
(Yeah right)
***********
Q: Did you ever send him to Big Sur for a retreat?
A: I honestly don't recall.
Q: What was Jemez Springs?
A: It is a location where the Paraclete priests and brothers operated a, a, kind of a psychological treatment center for priests with a variety of problems.
Q: Did they treat pedophilia there?
A: I'm sorry?
**********
(Oh? You're Going To Ask Me About That? How Innocent Of Me To Forget.)
***************
Q: Did they treat pedophilia there?
A: I believe so.
Q: Do you recall seeing an article where Father Baker describes a meeting, and he admitted he molested these two boys? Did such a meeting take place with you, Mr. Baker, and another individual?
A: I don't believe one word Michael Baker says.
Q: Have you seen where Michael Baker has told the media that occurred?
A: Michael Baker has said a lot of things and I don't believe any of it.
****
UP TO PAGE 39
********
(Hmm, The Doyle and Mouton Delivered Their Report at the Bishops Meeting 1985 in Collegeville, Minnesota)
********************
[Says when he came back set up a policy in September 1985]
Q: Why did you think written guidelines were important?
A: So that we could educate priests and people in ministry about what their duties and responsibilities are with children:
Q: Like calling the police?
A: All of them.
Q: If a priest admits he’s molested children, isn’t the first thing you do to call the police?
A: Not necessarily.
Q: Can you think of an instance it would not be appropriate to call the police?
A: In my experience, you only call the police when you've got victims that you can talk to. … If you want to review the Suspected Child Abuse form, you'll see that the very top little section says, Name of mandated reporter, title, and there’s a big section about each victim and the victim’s parents. So-- obviously if you can’t fill out the form, you can’t send it in.
I always viewed the psychologist and psychiatrists whole language I could never learn to understand, as a therapy level, and that information primarily is for them. so I've always looked at it in my role as the pastoral role. How is he doing pastorally/ Is he making progress spiritually?
***************
(ME: Monsignor Curry got the reports, says the Archbishop, and the Court says, well then we'll have to go onto another subject, Buck Passing Achieved.
MAHONY CLAIMS the Servants of the Paraclete did not send him a report on Baker after he went there for treatment of pedophilia. Manly says all the priests came out of Servants with a release document saying whether or not they could return to ministry. Then Mahony buck passes saying, oh well then Monsignor Curry would have gotten it.
Then comes the conversation where they name several priests who also have been accused, but their names are all REDACTED out, which resulted in our previous post “REDACTED” and here are some sample pages.
These redacted priest names with known priest names remaining in the transcript shows that sex crimes are still being kept secret in the Los Angeles Archdiocese.
***************
DEPOSITION QUOTES CONTINUED:
Q: Okay, 1985 or 86 he [REDACTED NAME OF PRIEST] was arrested and charged with child molestation, does that sound right?
A: Somewhere in that time frame?
Q: Does it help refresh your recollection if I represent to you he was accused of putting his hands and touching the genitals of high school seminarians while they were in bed at Our Lady Queen of Angels Seminary?
A: Yes.
Q: So he was accused of touching and did go to jail?
A: I don't recall.
...
Q: If you saw Michael Baker in the 1990s with altar boys or altar girls in the mid nineties, you would have viewed that as a violation of his aftercare contract and done something about it, right?
A: No. Those contacts were minimal in a public setting. He was not alone with a minor, he was there in a church with minors. My experience is the sacristy area at churches, especially on Sundays, are very busy places. People coming and going, lectors, ministers of eucharist. People constantly. It’s a public situation, it’s not a private place.
**********
[Hmm, I Think There Are A Few Former Altar Servers Around The Country Who Can Contradict That.]
***************
Mr. HENNIGAN: Let me say that the way you are using the phrase, I think it’s misleading. When you say dress, it would sound as though there is some moment where there is undressing, which is typically not the case.
Mr. MANLY: Unless you're Michael Baker.
[YES!!! MANLY IS A TRUE HERO!]
Q: You ever heard of a child molested in a sacristy, Eminence?
A: No.
Q: [In the 1990s] was Father Baker allowed to dress with the altar boys and altar girls at the parishes he was serving at?
A: I don't know the configuration. Most of the sacristies that I'm aware of, they have kind of a work sacristy, then they have just near it the priest sacristy where all the vestments are.
[RE: One of the priests with name redacted on page 60]
Father BLANK was retired in Nazareth House. The Los Angeles County Jail was looking for somebody to be a half time chaplain to the men’s jail, so he lived in residence at the St. Vibiana’s Cathedral and went over to the jail, ministered, and came back.
**********
To A Church Attorney: Rape is too argumentative a word?
***************
Mr. MANLY: Re not wanting this to be public, this being priests raping little boys and little girls, did the concept of that being public ever influence your decision not to call law enforcement?
Mr. HENNIGAN: The use of the term raping is argumentative and inconsistent with most of the allegations. So I think it’s offensive.
Mr. MANLY: I'm not going to withdraw it. I think there’s substantial evidence to indicate many of these priests, including Michael Wempe, raped kids.
THE COURT: The way you're wording it is argumentative.
Q: Cardinal, did the idea of a public scandal ever enter your mind and influence you not to call the police?
A: No.
Q: That's your testimony?
A: Yes.
…
Q: Did you ever have a conversation with Chief Bernard Parks about the Baker matter?
A: Not to my recollection.
Q: If you learned that Michael Baker was in the private area of the rectory with children, what would have been your response based on your policy?
Mr. HENNIGAN: Do you have a time period?
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what you mean by private area.
Q: If you learned that Michael Baker was upstairs with a child, would that have been a violation of his aftercare contract?
A: In a bedroom?
Q: Anywhere in the area.
A: Certainly in the bedroom. I don't know the specifics of what happened. If he was found in the bedroom with Michael Baker, yes.
Q: Did you ever learn that Michael Baker had been found with a child in the rectory?
A: Yes. The first thing we did, we asked that the young person be interviewed.
***********
[Okay Here’s a Blatant Contradiction where he then goes back and covers for himself:]
***************
Q: Did you tell the priests at the 1986 retreat that if you have done this [molested a child], I'm going to call the police on you?
A: No.
Q: And why didn't you do that?
A: First of all, those days, the custom was the parents were the ones who would make contact with police, or those who were mandated reporters at that time.
Q: You didn't have a policy in Stockton to call the police?
A: Oh, I said, yes, if we had victims we did.
Q: So as Archbishop, every time you found victims, you always called the police, is that your testimony?
A: Well let me say it wasn’t always myself who called the police.
…
Q: Did it matter to you before 1997 whether someone who worked for you was a mandated reporter in terms of calling the police?
A: No, the point is that the mandated reporters were the first line people who normally found out about these matters.
Q: Okay, but if a priest found out a priest had molested a child, it was your expectation that they would call the police, right?
A: That who would call the police?
Q: The brother priest?
A: I'm just not aware of a case like that.
Q: Would you call the police?
A: We weren’t mandated to do it.
Q: I understand that's your position but did it matter to you whether you were mandated or not, without calling the police be the right thing to do?
A: In virtually every case I was not the first one to find out.
Q: The only case you found out directly about was Baker, right?
A: Yes.
Q: And you didn't report?
A: No.
[Discussion: In the People of God Report for Baker it reads that the priest met with “Cardinal Mahony and vicar for Clergy to discuss his relationship with two boys from 1978 to 1985.]
Q: So he told you he touched REDACTED on the genitals for seven years?
A: No.
Q: Well this says 1978 to 1985, that strikes me as an extraordinarily long period of time.
A: When he met with me, he gave me the impression that this may have happened once or twice.
Q: Do you know where these dates come from?
A: The 1978 date, I have no idea.
Q: I'm just curious because you said he told you they were illegal aliens. They were certainly here for a long time, if that was the case, if it was 1978 to 1985.
Mr. HENNIGAN: He has just testified that 78 is not his recollection.
Mr. MANLY: This is in the People of God Report, the Addendum.
Q: Do you have any idea where these dates came from?
Mr. HENNIGAN: He has already said he did not.
Mr. MANLY: Okay, just bear with me. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: I don't know where it came from.
Q: Is this at odds with your memory of the incident?
A: This summary was done by a number of people looking at a number of things, and I don't know exactly where that date came from.
**********
(Oh, Come On, You Expect Us To Believe The Cardinal Did Not Look Over Every Punctuation Point On The People Of God Report, Released At The Height Of L.A. Archdiocese’s Several Hundred Lawsuits Being Filed?)
*******************
Q: Okay, just to make sure I've got this clear, you have no idea as you sit here today where the information comes from in this line we've been talking about?
Mr. HENNIGAN: You mean his memory hasn’t been refreshed in the last ten minutes?
Mr. MANLY: Yeah, because you haven’t given me the documents. If you would give me the documents, maybe we could do that.
Mr. HENNIGAN: He is not going to answer the question again.
…
Q: Let me read it verbatim, Mr. Woods.
Mr. WOODS: Good.
Q: “1-1-87. Placed on sick leave through 8-31-87. Is that what it says?
Mr. WOODS: Yes.
Q: Is that accurate?
THE WITNESS: I did not personally draw up these documents.
Q: Does that comport with your memory, Cardinal?
A: Approximately.
Q: Who placed him on sick leave?
A: I did.
Q: What was wrong with him?
A: Well again, the word sick leaves is not my word. This was back in 1986.
Q: Okay, 1-2-87, it says “He leaves for evaluation by Servants of the Paraclete Foundation House in Jemez Springs, New Mexico. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: What was Father Baker’s problem as you understood it that caused you to send him to the Paraclete?
A: Well, his volunteering that he had had inappropriate touches with two boys.
Q: 1-23-87, it says, “Evaluation report from Servants of the Paraclete re Baker.” Did you ever see that report, Cardinal?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Was it addressed to you?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Over the years have you seen reports from this facility?
A: Possibly yes.
[LUNCH BREAK:]
Q: Alright, it says May 3rd 1987, “Vicar for Clergy Curry meets with Baker and staff at Servants of the Paraclete in New Mexico.” Was it customary for somebody from the Archdiocese to meet with the Paracletes at the conclusion of treatment or during treatment?
A: We would send the Vicar for Clergy from time to time to obtain a progress report.
Q: Okay, June 4, 1987, it says, “fourth and final report from Servants of the Paraclete, do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Then it says June 22nd 1987 “he returned to the Archdiocese.
A: I see that yes.
...
Q: Who assigned him then to St. Elizabeth in Van Nuys?
A: I imagine it would have been Monsignor Curry.
Q: And who has the authority to assign priests in the Archdiocese?
A: Myself and the Vicar’s General and specialized Vicars like Vicar for Clergy. The authority to appoint them is totally mine, but I can delegate them for associate pastors o for administrators.
***
Q: Did Baker go to counseling for the entire time he remained in ministry as far as you know?
A: As far as I know, but again, I don't believe anything he said.
Q: Do you have any understanding as to why none of these counselors ever reported Michael Baker to the police or Child Protective Services?
A: No, I don't.
***
Q: It says “9=1=87, assigned to residence at St. Thomas the Apostle.” Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Does St. Thomas the Apostle have a school attached to the parish?
A: Yes.
Q: And did y\he live there?
A: He lived at the rectory.
Q: Did anybody think it was not a good idea to assign Father Baker to a parish that had a school given that he had molested children?
A: Well, being in residence, his only contact would probably be on Sunday mass or confessional maybe. But he had no relationship with the school.
Q: I take it the parishioners at St. Thomas the Apostle were alerted that he had previously molested kids?
A: Not that I know of.
**********
(YIKES. That Cavalier Attitude, Shows What's Been Wrong With the Church from the Start. Just Brush It Off with a, "Not That I Know Of," Like What's the Big Deal, Man?)****************
Q: There was nothing in Father Baker’s restrictions that prevented him from having a face-to-face confession with a child, is that accurate?
A: I think that's accurate.
Q: Did you think of Father Baker as a sex offender, Cardinal, when you brought him back?
A: I did but as somebody who I felt was really trying to change his life.
Q: And what was it about father Baker that made you believe that?
A: The fact that he came in to self report.
**********
(As we reported July 3, Mahony was a masters level social worker before becoming a bishop. Yet he claims to have known so little about sex offenders? It begs credibility)
*****************
[Back from Lunch, Discussion: Baker had numerous parish assignments from 1987 to 2000]
Q: What does that mean?
A: Basically the short term assignments mean somebody who can come in and sign the checks and leave, basically.
Q: But he’s the pastor until he’s replaced, right?
A: Well not really. These pro tem assignments for a few months, couple months, two three months are primarily to facilitate signing checks.
Q: So he didn't say mass there?
A: I don't know. I expect each of these [assignments] was a little different, but I don't know exactly what he did there.
***********
PAGES 105 AND 106, THESE PAGES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES:
(Baker was sent to St. Linus, no need to warn parishioners, because, "[After his return from the Paracletes, he was fulfilling his aftercare agreement and there were no suspicions.”)
NEVER ENDING Buck Passing
****************
Q: Was there a policy in the Archdiocese that priests accused of abuse were not presented to the Priest Personnel Board for assignment?
A: Not that I'm aware of.
Q: The Board’s job is to review a priest’s file and make recommendations to you for assignments for priests, is that correct?
Mr. WOODS: I'm going to object as compound.
THE WITNESS: (Buck Passing Begins The job of the clergy Personnel Board is almost always full time assignments, full year long or more administrators, full time pastors, not these temporary brief assignments.
Q: Cardinal, who in the Archdiocese was aware that Michael Baker was a child molester prior to 2000?
A: I really don't know.
Q: How about [when Baker was sent to] St. Gerard Majella, was anybody advised?
A: Not that I'm aware of.
Q: How about St. Mary’s?
A: I simply do not know.
Q: Was it the custom or practice of your office to advise that he had previously offended with a child?
A: Again, most of these, he did not reside at the place and I don't know exactly what the Vicar for Clergy told them.
Q: Was it custom and practice to advise other priests?
A: I know they would have been told something, but it was not- not my job.
Q: Is there a reason you didn't advise the parishes?
A: Well, remember these years that we're looking at here. During this specific time that Michael Baker would have had those temporary assignments.
Q: Cardinal, did it ever occur to you [to notify parents] in order to keep kids safe from a child molester in the early 1990s?
A: Well, keep in mind, we deal with these case by case. In the case of Michael Baker, he was not put into a regular parish.
...
Mr. MANLY: Your honor, can I get an answer to my question?
[QUESTION READ BACK]
Mr. WOODS: I’ll object, it’s a hypothetical.
MANLY: You can answer, Cardinal.
THE WITNESS: As I said, he was not assigned to a parish.
Q: Okay let’s change the question and say serving in a parish. [He does]
A: As I said, in this time frame, that was not our normal practice because that kind of priest would never be put full time into a parish.
Q: Respectfully, my question is different-
Mr. HENNIGAN: I think at this point he’s answered.
Q: So your testimony is that at no point did you ever consider that it would be prudent to let people in the parish know that he had molested kids?
A: I'm not sure if I thought about that or not.
**********
(NOTE: Church hierarchy guys only admit what they realize they have to admit, because the questioner has evidence:)
***************
Q: Did you ever go to a confirmation service at St. Columbkille while Baker served there?
A: I don't think so.
Q: So if my client and his family recall you being there with him while this boy was serving mass, do you take issue with that?
A: I just don't remember.
Q: Let me show you the next document. [Exhibit 3] Have you had a chance to read it?
A: I can’t make out all the words.
Q: Let me tell you what I think it says. It says, “Roger. Thank you so much for blessing our priest council area meeting at St. Hilary’s. Appreciate mucho being a member of ‘your parish.’ Thought you might be interested in any of the handouts at today’s meeting. Thank you, Mike.” Does that look about right?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall going to a meeting at St. Hillary’s?
A: No.
Q: And do you know why he would address you as roger?
Mr. HENNIGAN: Who’s he?
Mr. MANLY: Mike Baker.
H: any evident that this is Mike Baker?
M: Uh-huh. Go ahead.
H: I'm sorry there is no foundation.
M: That's that it’s been presented to us as. It was presented and produced as a Cardinal correspondence, am I wrong about that?
Mr. STEIER: I doubt if I have ever produced that.
Q: Let me read the Bates label number as CIVBAKE 000107. Whose Bates number is that.
STEIER: I believe that's the personnel file.
MANLY: That's what I think.
THE COURT: Why don't you go on with the questions.
MANLY: So do you know why he would address you as Roger?
HENNIGAN: Again there is no foundation.
Q: I mean, it was in his personnel file,
H: You can answer the question.
THE COURT: The question is, does he address you by your first name?
MANLY: Did he address you by your first name, Cardinal/
A: I don't remember.
**********************
(We will pick this up again on page 119 as we begin the dialogue about Monsignor Dyer.)
AT THIS POINT CITY OF ANGELS got a copy of the deposition that can be copy and pasted, so I can finally stop copy typing. From here on quotes will (thank god) be different with the hard returns and page and line numbers included, starting with part 3 of Deconstructing the Deposition of Cardinal Roger Mahony.
Then stay close b, as we still have William Levada’s deposition to complete, plus the judge and other bishop deposed in the Luis C case that produced this deposition of the L.A. Archbishop.
Plus a deposition of Cardinal George that landed in my lap last month
Plus more stuff as it comes up.
By Kay Ebeling,
The City of Angels is Everywhere
CUTS:
Q: Did you know Bishop Ward and Archbishop Levada before you came to Los Angeles?
A: Yes, I was actually a classmate of Bishop Levada. And Bishop Ward and I met over the years because I have family here...
**********
Dear Old L.A., where the Arhbishop grew up, just blocks from where I live today in Hollywood... I'll probly see him bicycling around after he retires. Lucky me
****************
Background: Tuesday, June 29, 2010
REDACTED: Sex Offender Priest Names Blacked Out in Transcript of Cardinal Mahony Deposition
AND Saturday, July 3, 2010
Mahony Redux: Deconstructing the Deposition of the Archbishop of Los Angeles, Part 1
*****
(When we criticize the Church for letting thousands of Catholic priests rape little children in the USA, there is No Anti-Catholic agenda, Believe me. I don't care one way or the other about this religion. I also know it doesn't matter if one bishop replaces another one, they're all dedicated to the Church first and foremost, even over the wellbeing of children, that's been proved. But I will be standing on the sidelines when people are buying old churches at repossessed real estate auctions if that happens, because the fall of the church is not on my agenda at all. I just wake up and do what is right in front of me.
Since everything in my life got skewered, starting with that priest who took advantage of my father being gone on business trips most weekdays and my mom, the former atheist flapper flirting with him, then her thinking Father Horne was such a great guy to take care of the kids and give her some free time, because all that happened and now all I can do is what is right in front of me, this is City of Angels.
-ke
This is Part 3, Part 4 will be posted soon. (I accidentally called Part 2, Part 1 last week... seriously need a proofreader.
Don't Forget we need PayPal clicks to keep going
No comments:
Post a Comment