The background check only ensure they are not HIRING a pedophile. It cannot insulate the church from its own knowledge of multiple child victims. That is the knowledge that is driving the various fraudulent concealment arguments.
Marci
I mean, if fraud is premised upon guilty knowledge, then
Tom Berg's prior post is correct. Alleged fraud claims against a Chapter 11 bankruptcy estateare dischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. 1141(d), provided the diocese is reorganizing and not liquidating. The exceptions to dischargein 11 U.S.C. 523(a) apply only to "an individual debtor", and
Steve,
I don't disagree with your analysis of the law on fraud and fraudulent concealment. (My practice is in commercial litigation and bankruptcy, so I'm dealing with fraud claimsand Chapter 11 debtorson aregular basis - one of the reasons I find this thread of interest). The problem I'm having
On Friday, July 9, 2004, at 12:03 PM, Will Esser wrote:
I assume that virtually none of these fraud claims are based on an alleged explicit representation by the Diocese (i.e. As the bishop, I certify that this priest has never been involved in pedophilic activity). That leaves us with
In a message dated 7/9/2004 12:04:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess
it would be possible to construct a facially neutral secular law on this point
(i.e. any organization which knows that its representatives / employees will
work with children, impliedly
Granting of insurance by an insurance company has never been relevant in any case I ever heard of -- car, house, commercial, specialty lines, etc.
And insurance doesn't normally protect against fraud does it?
On Friday, July 9, 2004, at 12:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Churches find it
Steven,
I didn't mean for the insurance consideration to be a dodge to fraud.
The question is I am raising has to do with whether an implied misrepresentation
could fairly be charged to a church in today's litigation-heady clime, in which
insurance is conditioned on such programs of serious
Steve,
But what then is the implied representation that the diocese is making? That the priest will not perform pedophilic acts in the future? Such an alleged representation wouldfail as a matter of lawsince representations which are promises, or deal with future events, are not misrepresented
In a message dated 7/9/2004 12:04:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I assume that virtually none of these fraud claims are based on an alleged "explicit" representation by the Diocese (i.e. "As the bishop, I certify that this priest has never been involved in pedophilic
As many of you already know, Bob Tuttle and I have written a paper
about entity liability and supervisory liability in cases of clergy sexual
abuse. The paper (entitled Sexual Misconduct and ecclesiastical
Immunity) is forthcoming in a Symposium on Church Autonomy in
the BYU Law Review, and
Marci,
To the contrary. In the context of an alleged fraud claim, one of the elements which the plaintiff must prove is the intent to deceive. If the diocese firmly believes that the priest is repentant and will not do such acts again (as I understand was the case with many dioceses who believed
Chip, of course, is right about this, but not because the fraud theory has no teeth. There has never been a known organization that did what the Catholic Church has done here--a pattern of coverup, obstruction, and lies to members of their own churches. The claims Chip refers to involve
At 03:59 PM 7/7/2004, Steven Jamar wrote:
Let us not forget that it was the church's actions that brought about the
problems for which it is finally being held accountable. It should pay
for its malfeasance.
Not only will it pay in terms of court interference, it may find itself
paying in ways
In a message dated 7/8/2004 8:39:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many of
the abuse cases allege that the church fraudulently concealed priests'
predatory bent when assigning them to new
parishes.
I understand how we might find some kind of scienter in the
I'm a little puzzled as to how the alleged homosexuality of the
priests (or, if you prefer, the homosexual nature of their pedophilia)
makes a difference to the legal issues here. As I understand it from
press accounts, actually, some of the plaintiffs who allege they were
molested in
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 12:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: Interesting question: Portland Archdiocese Filing Chapter
11
At 11:47 AM 7/8/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, help me understand the application of fraud
I am posting some responses to the questions below from my colleague Jason
Kilborn. His answers are in all caps.
Christine Corcos
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty Graduate Studies Program Supervisor
Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
Ok, here is an interesting one
thanks,
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christine A Corcos
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 8:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: Interesting question: Portland Archdiocese
Filing Chapter 11
I
y 07, 2004 11:05
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: FW:
Interesting question: Portland Archdiocese Filing Chapter
11
In response to Von's posting below, I would say that the so-called
"autonomy" doctrine is considerably narrower than Von's characterization.
The courts h
I doubt a court would tell a church to fire priests. But it could conceivably set limits on various line items in the budget, including total salaries for priests, physical plant budget, etc. Indeed, it seems it would need to so something like that. The church sought the protection of
20 matches
Mail list logo
