Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

300 victims. That's gotta be a record and of course the diocese is now bankrupt, financially and morally.

Fairbanks Diocese has agreed to a settlement of $10 million for almost 300 alleged victims of clergy abuse.

D1B wrote:300 victims. That's gotta be a record and of course the diocese is now bankrupt, financially and morally.

Fairbanks Diocese has agreed to a settlement of $10 million for almost 300 alleged victims of clergy abuse.

1) It was a 50 million dollar settlement
2) it was in February of 2008
3) it was 140 or so victims
4) it was over 30 years of claims (not saying that makes it better but since you left out every fact imaginable I figured I'd interject)
5) just thought I'd get that out there
6) D1B is a Catholic

7) how long has this thing been going on for and why did the second article I looked at have D's facts and not mine
8) my bad D

wideright82 wrote:7) how long has this thing been going on for and why did the second article I looked at have D's facts and not mine
8) my bad D

Not a problem, Joltin Joe.

Just walk away slowly with your tail between your legs, Wide.

While it is proper that the diocese should compensate these victims, this fixation with the Catholic Church on the part of the media, attorneys, and anti-Catholic zealots concerning issues of child abuse is misplaced.

A Catholic priest is actually statistically less likely to be a child abuser than the average married man, as per the research of Philip Jenkins, a Penn State professor of humanities and the principal author of an authoritative study published by the Oxford University Press, Priests and Pedophiles. (Jenkins is not Catholic, by the way).

Children are abused by adults, teachers, civic leaders, and these incidents gather little or no attention because there is no deep pocket to sue, like a Catholic diocese.

Grizalltheway wrote:Just walk away slowly with your tail between your legs, Wide.

at least I didn't just edit the post like I could have. There's something to be said for that.... I think

JoltinJoe wrote:While it is proper that the diocese should compensate these victims, this fixation with the Catholic Church on the part of the media, attorneys, and anti-Catholic zealots concerning issues of child abuse is misplaced.

A Catholic priest is actually statistically less likely to be a child abuser than the average married man, as per the research of Philip Jenkins, a Penn State professor of humanities and the principal author of an authoritative study published by the Oxford University Press, Priests and Pedophiles. (Jenkins is not Catholic, by the way).

Children are abused by adults, teachers, civic leaders, and these incidents gather little or no attention because there is no deep pocket to sue, like a Catholic diocese.

Men of the cloth are held to a higher standard. The level of trust placed in their hands was immense, hence their actions are percieved as more heinus. Also, while the average married man may only abuse one or two kids in a lifetime, catholic priests, because they were protected by the church, are Olympic Caliber Pedophiles - often raping dozens of children during their tenure as men of God.

Joe, you also fail to mention that the industrial scale rape of children by catholic priests has been goin on in America for 200 years and world wide since 1ad. What we're seeing is just the tip of the iceberg.

Yeah, the government, school districts and politicians don't have money.

wideright82 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Just walk away slowly with your tail between your legs, Wide.

at least I didn't just edit the post like I could have. There's something to be said for that.... I think

You did good. Joltin Joe would have lied his way out or worse. Gil Droopy would have posted a lame reference to Jim Jones or Obama.

I for one, have always had a penchant for Catholic girls.

Wedgebuster wrote:I for one, have always had a penchant for Catholic girls.

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:While it is proper that the diocese should compensate these victims, this fixation with the Catholic Church on the part of the media, attorneys, and anti-Catholic zealots concerning issues of child abuse is misplaced.

A Catholic priest is actually statistically less likely to be a child abuser than the average married man, as per the research of Philip Jenkins, a Penn State professor of humanities and the principal author of an authoritative study published by the Oxford University Press, Priests and Pedophiles. (Jenkins is not Catholic, by the way).

Children are abused by adults, teachers, civic leaders, and these incidents gather little or no attention because there is no deep pocket to sue, like a Catholic diocese.

Yeah, the government, school districts and politicians don't have money.

No, you simply cannot sue the government unless the government consents, and you follow burdensome and short notice requirements in a timely fashion.

California, for example, has some of the tightest tort claims act deadlines in the nation; but its legislature essentially wiped out all statute of limitations defenses for others a few years back.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:
Yeah, the government, school districts and politicians don't have money.

No, you simply cannot sue the government unless the government consents, and you follow burdensome and short notice requirements in a timely fashion.

California, for example, has some of the tightest tort claims act deadlines in the nation; but its legislature essentially wiped out all statute of limitations defenses for others a few years back.

People successfully sue the government/school districts all the time.

JoltinJoe wrote:While it is proper that the diocese should compensate these victims, this fixation with the Catholic Church on the part of the media, attorneys, and anti-Catholic zealots concerning issues of child abuse is misplaced.

A Catholic priest is actually statistically less likely to be a child abuser than the average married man, as per the research of Philip Jenkins, a Penn State professor of humanities and the principal author of an authoritative study published by the Oxford University Press, Priests and Pedophiles. (Jenkins is not Catholic, by the way).

Children are abused by adults, teachers, civic leaders, and these incidents gather little or no attention because there is no deep pocket to sue, like a Catholic diocese.

With some 98% percent of people claiming to be religious and or christian - boy that's alot of rapist and pedophiles. I guest "the insignificant 2%" may be morally superior.

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
No, you simply cannot sue the government unless the government consents, and you follow burdensome and short notice requirements in a timely fashion.

California, for example, has some of the tightest tort claims act deadlines in the nation; but its legislature essentially wiped out all statute of limitations defenses for others a few years back.

People successfully sue the government/school districts all the time.

Read up on the concept of sovereign immunity -- which is still essentially the law in the United States today, except as waived by the states by their tort claims act statutes. Then will chat about this. People do not successfully sue school districts nearly as often as you think they do.

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
No, you simply cannot sue the government unless the government consents, and you follow burdensome and short notice requirements in a timely fashion.

California, for example, has some of the tightest tort claims act deadlines in the nation; but its legislature essentially wiped out all statute of limitations defenses for others a few years back.

People successfully sue the government/school districts all the time.

Bullshit.

Joe's right.

The CA Civil/Administrative/Evidence Codes are a farce. Generally, a plaintiff filing against a govt. agency is given 1/10th the time to respond to deadlines as the govt.(respondent). Furthermore, the govt. can respond with terse, unsupported denials, and the courts ASSUME the govt's. response beyond challenge. It's really a big joke.
I've been both plaintiff and respondent in torts in CA, and I affirm what Joe stated: As a rule, you will not succeed in a damages claim against a governmental agency in CA unless the agency agrees to a settlement.

And yes, two of the litigations involved school districts as respondent. We never saw one cent.

D1B wrote: You did good. Joltin Joe would have lied his way out or worse.

Always the sign that you've lost the debate: the accusations of "being a lawyer" or "lying."

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote: You did good. Joltin Joe would have lied his way out or worse.

Always the sign that you've lost the debate: the accusations of "being a lawyer" or "lying."

Joe, you do lie.

travelinman67 wrote:

D1B wrote:

People successfully sue the government/school districts all the time.

Bullshit.

Joe's right.

The CA Civil/Administrative/Evidence Codes are a farce. Generally, a plaintiff filing against a govt. agency is given 1/10th the time to respond to deadlines as the govt.(respondent). Furthermore, the govt. can respond with terse, unsupported denials, and the courts ASSUME the govt's. response beyond challenge. It's really a big joke.
I've been both plaintiff and respondent in torts in CA, and I affirm what Joe stated: As a rule, you will not succeed in a damages claim against a governmental agency in CA unless the agency agrees to a settlement.

And yes, two of the litigations involved school districts as respondent. We never saw one cent.

Peter, remember we torched your ass a while back by reminding you that California aint the world? Remember? It still aint.

People successfully sue goverment and school districts all the time. Fact.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote: You did good. Joltin Joe would have lied his way out or worse.

Always the sign that you've lost the debate: the accusations of "being a lawyer" or "lying."

Joe, when you resort to "being a lawyer" it typically means you lost the debate through poisoning the well, employing smokescreens and red herrings and claiming support from the peanut gallery.

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Always the sign that you've lost the debate: the accusations of "being a lawyer" or "lying."

Joe, you do lie.

So you're losing this argument too?

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:

Joe, you do lie.

So you're losing this argument too?

We're arguing?

I

travelinman67 wrote:

D1B wrote:

People successfully sue the government/school districts all the time.

Bullshit.

Joe's right.

The CA Civil/Administrative/Evidence Codes are a farce. Generally, a plaintiff filing against a govt. agency is given 1/10th the time to respond to deadlines as the govt.(respondent). Furthermore, the govt. can respond with terse, unsupported denials, and the courts ASSUME the govt's. response beyond challenge. It's really a big joke.
I've been both plaintiff and respondent in torts in CA, and I affirm what Joe stated: As a rule, you will not succeed in a damages claim against a governmental agency in CA unless the agency agrees to a settlement.

And yes, two of the litigations involved school districts as respondent. We never saw one cent.

It's instructive to compare the success rates of suits against the Catholic dioceses and the suits against school districts. The Catholic dioceses, among other things, essentially operate school districts, which has resulted in many tort claims against them. The public school districts, protected by the limited waivers to suit of the tort claims acts, face but a fraction of suits that the Catholic dioceses do.

On the other hand, if you could sue the public school districts easily as you could sue the Catholic dioceses, our local property taxes would be through the roof.

There use to be a widely accepted concept of charitable immunity which protetced charities much the way that sovereign immunity protects the government. But that concept has been largely abandoned. Sovereign immunity, however, continues. We no longer have a king, but he can still do little wrong.

wideright82 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Just walk away slowly with your tail between your legs, Wide.

at least I didn't just edit the post like I could have. There's something to be said for that.... I think

aplogy accepted.

JoltinJoe wrote:While it is proper that the diocese should compensate these victims, this fixation with the Catholic Church on the part of the media, attorneys, and anti-Catholic zealots concerning issues of child abuse is misplaced.

A Catholic priest is actually statistically less likely to be a child abuser than the average married man, as per the research of Philip Jenkins, a Penn State professor of humanities and the principal author of an authoritative study published by the Oxford University Press, Priests and Pedophiles. (Jenkins is not Catholic, by the way).

Children are abused by adults, teachers, civic leaders, and these incidents gather little or no attention because there is no deep pocket to sue, like a Catholic diocese.

rationalization

justification