Chapter One
 Thirteen irregularities in Canon Law from an actual case researched by a respondent who is not a Canon Lawyer.  by Sheryl Temaat

 
Respondent's comments are underlined.
 
Canon 1544  Documents.. . .may be inspected. . .by the opposing party.
 If there were any documents in the case, I was not given the opportunity to inspect them.
 
Canon 1554  Before witnesses are examined, their names are to be communicated to the parties.
 The names of witnesses were not communicated to me before examination.
 
Canon 1555  . . .a party may request that a witness be excluded.
 
Canon 1576  Experts can be excluded or objected to for the same reasons as witnesses.
 I was never given the opportunity to request that all witnesses alleging to be "experts" on the so-called disease of alcoholism or "adult children of alcoholics" be excluded.  The theories and hypotheses regarding the co-called disease of alcoholism and behavior patterns of ACOAs are conjecture and are not based on scientific fact.
 
Canon 1564  The questions. . .are not to be leading questions.
 The purpose of most of the questions asked me was to gain evidence against the bond.  As I recall, almost no questions were asked to gain evidence in support of the bond.
 
Canon 1567  The use of a tape-recorder is allowed, provided the replies are subsequently committed to writing and, if possible, signed by the deponents.
 There is no legitimate excuse why I was never given the opportunity to sign my replies.
 
Canon 1569 (1)  At the conclusion of the examination, the record of the evidence, either as written down by the notary or as played back from the tape--recording, must be communicated to the witness, who is to be given the opportunity of adding to, omitting from, correcting or varying it.  (2)  Finally, the witness, the judge and the notary must sign the record.
 The record of my evidence was never communicated to me and I was not given the opportunity of adding to, omitting from, correcting or varying it, or signing said record.
 
Canon 1579 (2)  When he is giving the reasons for his decision, the judge must state on what grounds he accepts or rejects the conclusions of the experts.
 I don't recall the decision stating on what grounds the conclusions of experts were accepted or rejected.
 
Canon 1598 (1) When the evidence has been assembled, the judge must, under pain of nullity, by a decree permit the parties and their advocates to inspect at the tribunal office these acts which are not yet known to them.  . . .he must take care. . .that the right of defence always remains intact.  (2)  To complete the evidence, the parties can propose other items of proof to the judge.
     I was not given the opportunity to inspect the acts and contest the many falsehoods that went unchallenged.  The right of defence was, therefore, denied me.  It was only after a decision had been rendered that I was given the opportunity to propose other items of proof, that being in the second instance, not the first instance as specified.  See enclosed copy of my letter of  ( date  ) to Father (         )  for other items of proof and part of my defence that was denied me in the first instance. 
 
Canon 1608 (1)  To give any judgement, the judge must have in his mind moral certainty about the matter to be decided in the judgement.
     It is inconceivable that moral certainty could have been reached in the affirmative, in light of the negative animadversions given by the defender of the bond.
 
Canon 1614  A judgement is to be published as soon as possible, with an indication of the ways in which it can be challenged.
      It was never indicated in the judgement, nor in a subsequent discussion with the judge on (date) regarding an appeal, that I could challenge the judgement by proposing a plaint of nullity, or appeal in the second instance to the Roman Rota.  I was only told that an appeal in the second instance to the Court of Appeals in (diocese) was automatic.
 
Canon 1616 (1)  A judgement must be corrected. . .if, in the text of a judgement, there is an error in. . .the presentation of the facts. . . .
     Please see my letter of (date) to Father (      ) describing examples of erroneous facts that require a correction of judgement.
 
Canon 1620  A judgement is null with a nullity which cannot be remedied if:  (7) the right of defence was denied to one or other party.
  I was denied the right of defence by not being given the opportunity to contest the substantial amount of erroneous testimony, upon which the decision was based.
 
This case was sent to the Rota and the decree of nullity was overturned.

Questionnaire for Respondent
 
The first eight questions are general: name, address. . . .  Number seven, however, asks: “Do you understand the meaning of an oath?
 
My immediate response to that question is yes, and I understand the meaning of a vow also, and so does my spouse.  Do you?
 
Number eight is similar: “Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in answer to these questions, so help you God?”
 
And again my first thought is, “Will these questions really pertain to what the Church requires for decrees of nullity?  Or for what American tribunals have decided are grounds for nullity?”
 
There are 22 questions in all.  I will continue in another posting.

Question: Do you have advice, perhaps five brief points, that respondents to a nullity petition can take right from the beginning to defend the validity of their marriage?

Question: One respondent I know told the tribunal up front that he would go to the Roman Rota to defend his marriage.  Would this be one point that you could recommend?

Answers
1)I do think it is a positive thing to state that one is willing to appeal to the highest powers to defend ones marriage, including the Rota.
Often Tribunals fear the Signatura more, which is the supreme court for procedural matters.  A Tribunal who is not following procedural law correctly, and not extending the rights they must to the respondent, is really loathe to be found out, and so such a threat might produce much good. 

2)  A respondent should also request an advocate, or hire an advocate, a canon lawyer who can help them to defend their rights and intervene in the process.  One respondent I know interviewed several of the pro bono advocates of a diocese until she found one that she liked.  This is possible.  An advocate can examine the case often during a case, and give good advice to a party to the case.

3) A respondent should make sure to exercise the right to inspect the acts of the case.  This takes place at the end of the evidence gathering and is called the “publication of the acts.”   Canon Law insists that the respondent be able to see the acts of the case at the Tribunal, so he can defend   himself.  Only in the case of serious aggravation, for instance, fear of bodily harm, can a judge declare a specific testimony confidential.  A respondent might, at the beginning of a  case, announce his plans to inspect the acts at the end of a case, and this, also could bring fear into the hearts of those who are proceeding with the case. 

4)  Above all, I would remind respondents to conduct themselves in a dignified and respectful manner.  Someone who appears raving in a  letter or several letters might also appear raving to the appeal court, or to the Holy See.  Someone who briefly and respectfully addresses the judge or court officers, while opposing the procedure or insisting on his rights, does good for his own case.  The person may not feel very respectful, but should nonetheless conduct himself properly.