\”Kosnoff said suing parishes is not a bully tactic, but rather the legal path pointed to by Quackenbush\’s ruling that parishes were independent of the diocese.\”
So now a bureaucrat is deciding that parishes are independent of their dioceses. If the Church thought that this was the case, Q would not have issued his ruling. I am sure that the bishops of these diocese would find it news to them that their parishes are independent.
If a Roman Catholic parish decided e.g. to join the Presbyterian Church lock, stock, and barrel, you can bet that the bishop would step in and say that you can\’t take your buildings, endowments, etc, as is happening with Episcopal parishes that want to leave the Epsicopal Church over its apostasy.
Oh and by the way, ten years or so ago the Am. Bar Assoc. held a seminar at its convention about how to go after local parishes for $$$ in liability cases.
Not to exhonorate the pervo priests at all, but this is a slippery slope.
Why should parishioners be asked by ANYONE, plaintiff lawyers or diocesan chancellors, to contribute ANYTHING?
Instead, Parish Councils should get together and compute a funding level that operates the parish without a dime of \”fat\”, and convey that amount to parishoners in seeking \”an acceptable sacrifice\”.
\”Render unto the plaintiffs that which is the plaintiffs\’…\”
Let\’s see…at 30% contingency and a $30 Million expectation, the magnanamous attorneys should be able to contribute approximately $8.5 Million to the victims themselves. I would think they can live on $500,000 until their next big case hits. And just think how grateful the victims would feel!
The plaintiff attorneys should stop wasting time and take less contigency fee so everyone can get their money, and everyone parishoners, students, victims etc can get on with life. Or maybe send a bill to Pope Bendict for the funds ! Hard to imagine the devoutest Catholic wanting to chip in for this mess.
What a RIP OFF!!! Both by the attorneys and the so called victims. It seems hard to believe that the victims will be any more satisfied with \”money\” than without. The only way for them to get any permanent relief on this earth is to contribute back to the parishes involved after they have received their 40% to 60% (maybe) of the settlements. You can bet that the attorneys involved have no intention on contributing to the parishes as they do NOT teach this in law school or the specific seminars they attend to learn how to collectively get into any DEEP pockets available!!!!!!!!!!
By this same logic, we are are financially responsible for the actions of any group we are members of. Be that a resident of a City that goes B.K. or your employer. Why aren\’t all Enron employees being forced to contribute to a settlement with investors?
So when the big insurance company\’s settle because one or two people did something we all know is wrong, their innocent followers (independent agents) who are in no way involved with Spitzer or his search for the governor\’s mansion should contribute to the hefty fines(meaning no contingent commissions)? Isn\’t this the same thing?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
How about the Attorneys contribute some of their contingency fee to these victims?
\”Kosnoff said suing parishes is not a bully tactic, but rather the legal path pointed to by Quackenbush\’s ruling that parishes were independent of the diocese.\”
So now a bureaucrat is deciding that parishes are independent of their dioceses. If the Church thought that this was the case, Q would not have issued his ruling. I am sure that the bishops of these diocese would find it news to them that their parishes are independent.
If a Roman Catholic parish decided e.g. to join the Presbyterian Church lock, stock, and barrel, you can bet that the bishop would step in and say that you can\’t take your buildings, endowments, etc, as is happening with Episcopal parishes that want to leave the Epsicopal Church over its apostasy.
Oh and by the way, ten years or so ago the Am. Bar Assoc. held a seminar at its convention about how to go after local parishes for $$$ in liability cases.
Not to exhonorate the pervo priests at all, but this is a slippery slope.
Why should parishioners be asked by ANYONE, plaintiff lawyers or diocesan chancellors, to contribute ANYTHING?
Instead, Parish Councils should get together and compute a funding level that operates the parish without a dime of \”fat\”, and convey that amount to parishoners in seeking \”an acceptable sacrifice\”.
\”Render unto the plaintiffs that which is the plaintiffs\’…\”
Let\’s see…at 30% contingency and a $30 Million expectation, the magnanamous attorneys should be able to contribute approximately $8.5 Million to the victims themselves. I would think they can live on $500,000 until their next big case hits. And just think how grateful the victims would feel!
The plaintiff attorneys should stop wasting time and take less contigency fee so everyone can get their money, and everyone parishoners, students, victims etc can get on with life. Or maybe send a bill to Pope Bendict for the funds ! Hard to imagine the devoutest Catholic wanting to chip in for this mess.
What a RIP OFF!!! Both by the attorneys and the so called victims. It seems hard to believe that the victims will be any more satisfied with \”money\” than without. The only way for them to get any permanent relief on this earth is to contribute back to the parishes involved after they have received their 40% to 60% (maybe) of the settlements. You can bet that the attorneys involved have no intention on contributing to the parishes as they do NOT teach this in law school or the specific seminars they attend to learn how to collectively get into any DEEP pockets available!!!!!!!!!!
By this same logic, we are are financially responsible for the actions of any group we are members of. Be that a resident of a City that goes B.K. or your employer. Why aren\’t all Enron employees being forced to contribute to a settlement with investors?
So when the big insurance company\’s settle because one or two people did something we all know is wrong, their innocent followers (independent agents) who are in no way involved with Spitzer or his search for the governor\’s mansion should contribute to the hefty fines(meaning no contingent commissions)? Isn\’t this the same thing?