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

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:Saying they are independent contractors may pass the test. In general you can tell an indy what they are supposed to accomplish what materials they should use, and so on. If the day to day activities are up to the individual priests in completing their tasks then they probably have that definition right.

I don't know how that would preclude the Pope from testifying though. If the owner of a home were to sue a general and it was the fault of a sub then the General would still have some input of value on the subject at hand. His opinion of how & why the project has this fault should at least be heard.

andy7171 wrote:Two things.
1- Thank you for putting this here.

2- Wouldn't the Pope from the 50's, 60's and 70's be the one to testify?

D1B wrote:Yes, but those fucks are rotting in hell with Hitler, Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell.

D1B wrote:Ratzinger is a classic piece of shit. Like Jolt, a life-long conservative, catholic fetishist apparatchnik who masterminded the current cover up of the child abuse scandal. His name is all over the recipe (when was cardinal).

JoltinJoe wrote:We interrupt these rants to bring you a rational point.

Since people have responded to this, let me say the following about this case. Anyone with legal training knows this case is frivolous. To put things in perspective (which the media fail to do), the plaintiffs filed a sweeping complaint, in 2004 asserting numerous theories of liabiliity. The court presiding over the case has never required the Holy See to file an Answer. That's right. The case is six years old and the Court still has not required the defendant to file an Answer.

Instead, through a series of motions addressing the numerous legal problems with the case, the Court has systematically dismissed the entirety of the plaintiff's complaint, but for one claim, a state law claim for what is called respondeat superior -- or "let the master answer" for the tort of his servant. At a February hearing in the case, the court expressed serious reservations about whether even this is a viable theory. It set a May 17 filing date for a motion to dismiss that aspect of the case. The plaintiff must file opposition in July, with the defendant's reply due in August. This case is likely to be dismissed before the end of this year.

We now return you to your regular rants.

andy7171 wrote:

D1B wrote:Yes, but those fucks are rotting in hell with Hitler, Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell.

Well if they had a hand in the cover up, I'll agree. Though I'm not quite sure what Reagan did.

D1B wrote:Ratzinger is a classic piece of shit. Like Jolt, a life-long conservative, catholic fetishist apparatchnik who masterminded the current cover up of the child abuse scandal. His name is all over the recipe (when was cardinal).

But as a Cardinal, in Germany I think, what did he have to do with all these American cases?

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:We interrupt these rants to bring you a rational point.

Since people have responded to this, let me say the following about this case. Anyone with legal training knows this case is frivolous. To put things in perspective (which the media fail to do), the plaintiffs filed a sweeping complaint, in 2004 asserting numerous theories of liabiliity. The court presiding over the case has never required the Holy See to file an Answer. That's right. The case is six years old and the Court still has not required the defendant to file an Answer.

Instead, through a series of motions addressing the numerous legal problems with the case, the Court has systematically dismissed the entirety of the plaintiff's complaint, but for one claim, a state law claim for what is called respondeat superior -- or "let the master answer" for the tort of his servant. At a February hearing in the case, the court expressed serious reservations about whether even this is a viable theory. It set a May 17 filing date for a motion to dismiss that aspect of the case. The plaintiff must file opposition in July, with the defendant's reply due in August. This case is likely to be dismissed before the end of this year.

We now return you to your regular rants.

No one respects or trusts you anymore. Links and sources please. Thanks!

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:

No one respects or trusts you anymore. Links and sources please. Thanks!

If you wade through it, here's the motion to dismiss filed yesterday. It's all in there, if you can understand it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31519373/Vat ... urn false;

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:

No one respects or trusts you anymore. Links and sources please. Thanks!

If you wade through it, here's the motion to dismiss filed yesterday. It's all in there, if you can understand it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31519373/Vat ... urn false;

JoltinJoe wrote:We interrupt these rants to bring you a rational point.

Since people have responded to this, let me say the following about this case. Anyone with legal training knows this case is frivolous. To put things in perspective (which the media fail to do), the plaintiffs filed a sweeping complaint, in 2004 asserting numerous theories of liabiliity. The court presiding over the case has never required the Holy See to file an Answer. That's right. The case is six years old and the Court still has not required the defendant to file an Answer.

Instead, through a series of motions addressing the numerous legal problems with the case, the Court has systematically dismissed the entirety of the plaintiff's complaint, but for one claim, a state law claim for what is called respondeat superior -- or "let the master answer" for the tort of his servant. At a February hearing in the case, the court expressed serious reservations about whether even this is a viable theory. It set a May 17 filing date for a motion to dismiss that aspect of the case. The plaintiff must file opposition in July, with the defendant's reply due in August. This case is likely to be dismissed before the end of this year.

We now return you to your regular rants.

D1B wrote:Joe, all this mumbo jumbo aside, why doesn't the pope just come out and address this stuff rather than hide behind his battery of high priced lawyers. You know, clear his, and the church's good name? Kids WERE molested by his employees (or subcontractors) - fact.

andy7171 wrote:

D1B wrote:Joe, all this mumbo jumbo aside, why doesn't the pope just come out and address this stuff rather than hide behind his battery of high priced lawyers. You know, clear his, and the church's good name? Kids WERE molested by his employees (or subcontractors) - fact.

You mean like this?

On a flight to Portugal, Benedict told reporters “the greatest persecution of the church does not come from the enemies outside, but is born from sin inside the church... the church has a profound need to relearn penance, to accept purification, to learn on the one hand forgiveness but also the necessity of justice."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100511/wl_csm/299903_1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:We interrupt these rants to bring you a rational point.

Since people have responded to this, let me say the following about this case. Anyone with legal training knows this case is frivolous. To put things in perspective (which the media fail to do), the plaintiffs filed a sweeping complaint, in 2004 asserting numerous theories of liabiliity. The court presiding over the case has never required the Holy See to file an Answer. That's right. The case is six years old and the Court still has not required the defendant to file an Answer.

Instead, through a series of motions addressing the numerous legal problems with the case, the Court has systematically dismissed the entirety of the plaintiff's complaint, but for one claim, a state law claim for what is called respondeat superior -- or "let the master answer" for the tort of his servant. At a February hearing in the case, the court expressed serious reservations about whether even this is a viable theory. It set a May 17 filing date for a motion to dismiss that aspect of the case. The plaintiff must file opposition in July, with the defendant's reply due in August. This case is likely to be dismissed before the end of this year.

We now return you to your regular rants.

Joe, all this mumbo jumbo aside, why doesn't the pope just come out and address this stuff rather than hide behind his battery of high priced lawyers. You know, clear his, and the church's good name? Kids WERE molested by his employees (or subcontractors) - fact.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:

Joe, all this mumbo jumbo aside, why doesn't the pope just come out and address this stuff rather than hide behind his battery of high priced lawyers. You know, clear his, and the church's good name? Kids WERE molested by his employees (or subcontractors) - fact.

To make a long story short, the Church has already settled these claims back in the 2002-2004 timeframe. Some dioceses had so much exposure that they were forced into bankruptcy. So be it. You broke it, you fix it. The dioceses paid out over a billion dollars to fix it.

To come back and sue the Vatican over the same claims is now just over-lawyering. This has now become making the attorneys rich (although it is shocking that the lawyers don't grasp that they would never collect a judgment against the Vatican, but that's an issue for another day. Maybe they think they can get a pay day simply by trying to make the Vatican look bad).

There really isn't any valid legal theory against the Vatican either. In any other context, attorneys would be sanctioned for filing blaatantly frivolous claims like the ones being asserted now.

Also, you remember when you scoffed when I said that the canonical secrecy requirements during a canon trial were comparable to the same secrecy reqirements imposed by the US grand jury system? On Monday, in connection with its motion to dismiss, the Vatican filed an interesting statement by Thomas Doyle. Doyle, you may recall is the former priest and canon lawyer who has served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in many of these cases -- including the pending case you are discussing. I am amazed (actually not so amazed) that the media have not focused at all on this statement, in which Doyle has the following observations about the 1962 document:

August 10, 2003
The recently revealed Vatican document outlining the procedures for
dealing with cases of solicitation of sex by priest-confessors has caused a swell
of alarm and surprise on the part of survivors, attorneys and others. Since my
name has been associated with the news reports I wish to state that I did not
translate the document. I am aware of at least two separate English
translations, both of which are private and unofficial. I was asked by an
attorney if I could provide a copy of the document which had been cited in the
May 18, 2001 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on
handling cases of certain grave canonical offenses. I was not aware that the
1962 document would be circulated to the media and to other attorneys. Had I
been told this I would have insisted that a commentary and explanation by a
competent canonist accompany the text. Failure to do so has led to some
degree of misunderstanding of the historical role of the document and its
relevance to the contemporary sexual abuse crisis in the church.
*********************

The imposition of the “Secret of the Holy Office” on all involved in the
processing of a case is not unusual. In fact, this represents the highest degree
of Vatican secrecy and is imposed on a variety of processes and situations. It
is certainly not unique to this document nor to the sexual crimes mentioned
therein. The secrecy that was (and still is) imposed on parties and witnesses in
canonical proceedings is intended to assure witnesses that they can speak
freely. It is also intended to protect the reputations of the accused and accuser
until guilt or innocence is determined. In the case of this document the
seemingly excessive reference to secrecy and the dire consequences for those
who violate it is primarily rooted in the fact that deals with the sacrament of
penance to which is attached inviolable secrecy. Reading through the
document one finds that the greatest pains are taken to protect the
confessional secrecy.
*********************************
According to the document, accusers and witnesses are bound by the
secrecy obligation during and after the process but certainly not prior to the
initiation of the process. It seems to be stretching a bit too far to conclude that
this process is a substitute for civil law action or is an attempt to coddle or
hide clergy who perpetrate sex crimes.
***********************************