Kudos: Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown Again Refuses to Cave to the Anti-Catholic Mob

Gov. Jerry Brown : California

California Gov. Jerry Brown

California Assembly Bill 3120 (AB-3120) would have extended, if not outright eliminated, the statute of limitations for people to sue the Catholic Church and other institutions for sexual abuse, no matter how long ago or ridiculous the claim.

Thankfully, earlier this month, California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill from becoming law.

In truth, back in 2002, California already enacted SB-1779, which eliminated the statute of limitations for a full calendar year (2003), allowing accusers to sue the Catholic Church (but not public schools, of course) for claims no matter how long ago or incredulous. The result of the measure was that the Catholic Church paid out over $1.2 billion in settlements, almost all of which were for claims that were essentially impossible to defend due to the long passage of time.

Apparently, the $1.2 billion in 2003 has not been enough to satisfy the bigoted mob of lawyers and haters in the Golden State, because this is actually the second time in recent years that Gov. Brown has vetoed a bill attempting to wipe out the statute of limitations. In 2013, Brown vetoed SB-131. (See our post back then).

Gov. Brown's words this month in vetoing the measure are rare syllables of levelheadedness in today's incredibly warped political landscape. Please take a moment:

In 2013, I vetoed a substantially similar bill, SB 131. My views have not changed. As I said then:

Statutes of limitation reach back to Roman law and were specifically enshrined in the English common law by the Limitations Act of 1623. Ever since, and in every state, including California, various limits have been imposed on the time when lawsuits may still be initiated. Even though valid and profoundly important claims are at stake, all jurisdictions have seen fit to bar actions after a lapse of years.

The reason for such a universal practice is one of fairness. There comes a time when an individual or organization should be secure in the reasonable expectation that past acts are indeed in the past and not subject to further lawsuits. With the passage of time, evidence may be lost or disposed of, memories fade and witnesses move away or die.

Not surprisingly, AB-3120 was heavily very lobbied by the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP.

Bravo to Gov. Brown for not caving into this corrupt mob.


  1. Otto says:

    This was a brave move by Gov. Brown given the current wave of anti-Catholic hysteria. I hope we see similar actions by other politicians in the future.

  2. Dan says:

    Surprise, surprise! The ex-Jesuit seminarian, Jerry Brown, once again vetoes extending the statute of limitations, all for the glory and honor of his unholy church. Not any more surprising, Catholics seem more worried about the money they have spent, or in the future might have to spend, than the damage they've caused innocent children. If the crimes were never committed, the Church would not have had to pay out one dime. Instead they hid all their sins from all the haters and now its become an avalanche of troubles, so now lets blame everyone else. What a group of unrepentant and likewise unforgiven hypocrites. You Catholics make people hate your Church, because it is disgusting and unworthy of God's forgiveness.

    Jerry's own words, "Even though valid and profoundly important claims are at stake …" it's "one of fairness" that "past acts are indeed in the past and not subject to further lawsuits". Could you remind us how this equates "fairness" to present or future victims? Have we forgotten that God knows what is done in darkness and He's the One you'll be answering to. The only "corrupt mob" in all of this would have to be your Church, so quit slandering the innocent.

  3. Dan says:

    And I'm willing to bet that "AB-3120 was heavily very lobbied [against] by the [Church]-funded" lawyers of that opposing "hate group", the Catholic Church. Either that or they knew they had Jerry Brown in their back pocket. So which one is the more "corrupt mob", the greedy Church protecting every penny or SNAP lawyers ?

  4. Glenna Kerker says:

    Extending the statute of limitations has been in the crosshairs for some time now.  Knowing what we now know about memory and its quirks, this is a disastrous trend.  Even in the old days we knew that timely prosecution was necessary to have any semblence of justice. Pennsylvania is working hard to change the laws, as evidenced by the inflammatory charges against the Church lately, specifically against dead Priests.  I am not a Catholic.  I am an Atheist but I know right from wrong.  

    • malcolm harris says:

      Glenna Kerker, on the 17th, has made a perceptive comment about the process of justice.  Although she describes herself as an athiest, she seems to be free of prejudice, which can blind people. Many are unaware of the consequences of changing the law. Traditionally the law functions on precedents….. or what was the verdict in simiilar cases? If greedy lawyers, in a feeding frenzy, change the statute of limitatons… then it will apply to all. So I can forsee many accusations being made, which allege sexual abuse from long ago, The only people who would be safe from such claims would be those with few assets (like myself) or those protected by sovereign immunity (like schoolteachers). Thank goodness for the sanity of men like Jerry Brown.



    • Dan says:

      Glenna, There were cases reported within the statute of limitations, but the bishops, msgr.s and priests decided it was beneficial to the Church to keep them secret and shuffle the perpetrators to other locations where their history was unknown. Even prosecuters and police were reluctant to press charges against the holy catholic church and its priests. You claim to "know right from wrong", but do you think that demonstrates fair "justice" for victims? Now the Church asks for "due process". I think they deserve the incarceration "due" them and the Church should compensate the victims, especially those with a paper trail and cases where perpetrators admitted to their crimes against the innocent. That would be "justice".

    • LLC says:


      That would be "justice" = correct. It would be "justice", but in quotation marks, another word for “Dan’s personal view of the US Justice process”, which doesn’t resemble in any shape or form how the process actually works, and fortunately only applies inside his obtuse mind, where facts never shine their lights, history is forgotten, Scriptures are molded to his warped interpretation and everything is covered by the darkest cloud of negativism and bitterness. Meditate on Ephesians 4:31-32 and Matthew 6:14-15, my friend.

  5. Jim Robertson says:

    Dan, I could not agree more with what you posted Oct 17 at 1015 P.M. Your dig at "holy catholic church" was unnecessary but you know that.

    LLC paints Dan as all evil. He's not. Boring in his attacks against your faith Catholics, that, he is. But Dan, or whoever is creating the "Dan", who is used here as an both an anti-Catholic and  a pro-victim protagonist is quite the character.

    If Dan didn't exist why someone might have made him up to antagonize Catholics to disregard their fellow Catholic victims who were harmed as children.

    Because our rapes as children are categorized as attacks, not on the victims by a failed church and the perpetrators the church system let prosper, but as an attack on the church by the "greedy lying" victims.

    If someone attacks the faith. (A wearisome job that bores all and repels Catholic believers) and at the same time he/she tell the truth about the reality of the sex abuse crisis ; then it is so much easier for the believer to "connect" the two as more attacks against the church. The faithful will lump them together as one.

    And this meeting place on the web becomes a propaganda tool for the very enablers and perpetrators that caused this mess in the first place.

    You as any institution will always have child molesters, the difference between you and legitimate institutions is they end it the minute they find out and help the people harmed. Your church decided it was more important to help the perpetrators by transferring them to fresh Catholic children than they decided to help the Catholic children who were/are harmed. A poor moral choice indeed.

    • Dan says:

      I'm confused, Jim? You label the Catholic Church a "failed church", one of "perpetrators" and "child molesters" and insinuate that they are an "[il]legitimate institution" making "poor moral choice[s]", but Dan is the one attacking the faith and making victims look bad. Really!?!

  6. Jim Robertson says:

    In Catholicism we are all members of the Body of Christ. The vast majority of that body never knew about the abuse nor would they have tolerated its continuation through tranfers had they known about it That's a given.

    So faith is not the issue. Bad actions by those in power, who are still in power, is the issue.