|
Post by Isapop on Dec 5, 2019 13:55:00 GMT
"... thanks to rules enacted in 15 states that extend or suspend the statute of limitations to allow claims stretching back decades. Associated Press reporting found the deluge of suits could surpass anything the nation’s clergy sexual abuse crisis has seen before, with potentially more than 5,000 new cases and payouts topping $4 billion." "Church leaders who lobbied statehouses for years against loosening statute-of-limitations laws say this is exactly the kind of feeding frenzy they were worried about." apnews.com/621efb9528384f278c71a97308404531
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Dec 5, 2019 17:44:19 GMT
That's a Supreme Court case just waiting to happen. You can't make laws retroactive. Suppose the Statute of Limitations was extended from 5 years to 15 years. Any crime committed after today would have a 15 year window to bring to justice, but a crime committed more than five years ago could not be prosecuted. Any crime committed within the past five years is debatable.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Dec 5, 2019 18:41:19 GMT
Sadly, ill bet some of those claims are flat out lies, or greatly exaggerated, as people abusing it just to get free $.
p.s. I don't have a problem for legitimate abuse claims.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 5, 2019 20:04:19 GMT
That's a Supreme Court case just waiting to happen. You can't make laws retroactive. Suppose the Statute of Limitations was extended from 5 years to 15 years. Any crime committed after today would have a 15 year window to bring to justice, but a crime committed more than five years ago could not be prosecuted. Any crime committed within the past five years is debatable. Since this is about civil lawsuits and not criminal prosecutions, it's not really an issue here. "In general, legislation reviving the statute of limitations on civil claims has been held not to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or other federal constitutional guarantees, unless the legislation can be deemed punitive in nature." www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=eb5e8863-d956-496f-8034-6efaddc62156
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 5, 2019 20:13:04 GMT
Sadly, ill bet some of those claims are flat out lies, or greatly exaggerated, as people abusing it just to get free $. p.s. I don't have a problem for legitimate abuse claims. Paying out on any false claims would be an injustice that the Church has only brought upon itself. (And considering the massive injustice the Church was perpetrating here for who knows how long, there would be a certain poetic justice in that. The predator finds itself the prey.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2019 20:31:52 GMT
Sadly, ill bet some of those claims are flat out lies, or greatly exaggerated, as people abusing it just to get free $. Well, you open yourself to that when you accept (and encourage) the idea that your employees will go around abusing children. I only wish this would bankrupt them, though I don't expect it to.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 5, 2019 20:33:58 GMT
Their net worth is $30 billion so they could certainly afford to pay it, though that net worth isn't all in money (a lot of it is the net worth of churches and schools). They would almost certainly have to sell off a bunch off a bunch of properties. I wouldn't be surprised if they started a GoFundMe to help pay it off.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 5, 2019 20:38:34 GMT
Sadly, ill bet some of those claims are flat out lies, or greatly exaggerated, as people abusing it just to get free $. p.s. I don't have a problem for legitimate abuse claims. Yes, flat out lies that could have been avoided if the issue was addressed sooner instead of the church trying to cover it up for decades.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 6, 2019 2:08:56 GMT
So to them, a penny in the donation bucket?
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Dec 6, 2019 2:55:49 GMT
Time to sell off some of those Raphaels and Michelangelos.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 6, 2019 11:53:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 6, 2019 13:32:27 GMT
Your own link says they do: "They can file civil suits against both their alleged abusers such as priests and the church or other institutions where they worked." You think lawmakers pass a bill that says, "The statute of limitations to file a lawsuit for child sexual abuse is lifted, but only as long as your abuser was a Catholic priest"? Right. Victims should just continue to make it easy on the institutions that that protected their abusers so as not to cause them any hassle. Hassle must at all costs be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 6, 2019 14:14:08 GMT
Your own link says they do: "They can file civil suits against both their alleged abusers such as priests and the church or other institutions where they worked." You think lawmakers pass a bill that says, "The statute of limitations to file a lawsuit for child sexual abuse is lifted, but only as long as your abuser was a Catholic priest"? Right. Victims should just continue to make it easy on the institutions that that protected their abusers so as not to cause them any hassle. Hassle must at all costs be avoided. i didn’t say my link didn’t say it. That’s why I posted it. My post would have been far more anger inducing among theophobiacs if I thought the law was only for the Catholic Church since I would have opposed it rather than merely being indifferent to it. However the majority of the news articles are about the Catholic Church and the concern would be lawyers primarily going after the more obvious whale. If you are going to have lookback laws at all there should be inclusion of everyone. For example, go after the school system that had a kiddy diddly soccer coach from 50 years back.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 6, 2019 14:34:41 GMT
Your own link says they do: "They can file civil suits against both their alleged abusers such as priests and the church or other institutions where they worked." You think lawmakers pass a bill that says, "The statute of limitations to file a lawsuit for child sexual abuse is lifted, but only as long as your abuser was a Catholic priest"?Right. Victims should just continue to make it easy on the institutions that that protected their abusers so as not to cause them any hassle. Hassle must at all costs be avoided.
i didn’t say my link didn’t say it. That’s why I posted it. Then here's a lesson, free of charge, on what it means when you begin a clause with the word "hopefully". "Hopefully" means that you are hoping that what follows is the case, but you don't know that it's the case. Example: "Hopefully, you understand what I'm saying."
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Dec 8, 2019 16:13:36 GMT
Their net worth is $30 billion so they could certainly afford to pay it, though that net worth isn't all in money (a lot of it is the net worth of churches and schools). They would almost certainly have to sell off a bunch off a bunch of properties. I wouldn't be surprised if they started a GoFundMe to help pay it off. they've been operating a gofundme for two thousand years.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 8, 2019 16:16:20 GMT
Their net worth is $30 billion so they could certainly afford to pay it, though that net worth isn't all in money (a lot of it is the net worth of churches and schools). They would almost certainly have to sell off a bunch off a bunch of properties. I wouldn't be surprised if they started a GoFundMe to help pay it off. they've been operating a gofundme for two thousand years. True
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 8, 2019 17:15:39 GMT
i didn’t say my link didn’t say it. That’s why I posted it. Then here's a lesson, free of charge, on what it means when you begin a clause with the word "hopefully". "Hopefully" means that you are hoping that what follows is the case, but you don't know that it's the case. Example: "Hopefully, you understand what I'm saying."
Quit being a whiny little punk. Your advice is worth exactly the price of free. Hope is the right word since, based on the news articles and my linked one, no one seems to care about the other options. Did you find a lot of evidence of other institutions being sued for abuse? That certainly didn;t seem to be the point of your initial post. Plus I didn't read each state law, so I wasn't going to apply a universal statement on something that, from my article, clearly varies state to state.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 8, 2019 17:25:25 GMT
i didn’t say my link didn’t say it. That’s why I posted it. My post would have been far more anger inducing among theophobiacs if I thought the law was only for the Catholic Church since I would have opposed it rather than merely being indifferent to it. However the majority of the news articles are about the Catholic Church and the concern would be lawyers primarily going after the more obvious whale. If you are going to have lookback laws at all there should be inclusion of everyone. For example, go after the school system that had a kiddy diddly soccer coach from 50 years back. Yes. This puts major Trump attack dog Ex-Ohio State Wrestling Coach Jim Jordan (R) in line for being sued for negligence for not reporting the rampant sex abuse by team doctor Richard Strauss and witness intimidation of one student who reported it to the authorities. I think it should include anyone....If one thinks lookback laws are a good idea. I'm skeptical. Otherwise, from Uncle Bubba to the US military to the Catholic Church, they're all fair game. I think they are largely going to be a waste of time that will either cost a lot of money with little evidence, which will likely make some people happy regardless, or result in a lot of losses for the victims due to scant evidence, causing religion haters to think the system is rigged when it actually could be working. Then again, maybe the right lookback law will get me some reparations!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 8, 2019 17:52:02 GMT
I think it should include anyone....If one thinks lookback laws are a good idea. I'm skeptical. Otherwise, from Uncle Bubba to the US military to the Catholic Church, they're all fair game. I think they are largely going to be a waste of time that will either cost a lot of money with little evidence, which will likely make some people happy regardless, or result in a lot of losses for the victims due to scant evidence, causing religion haters to think the system is rigged when it actually could be working. Then again, maybe the right lookback law will get me some reparations! So, let the bishops, scout masters, wrestling coaches, etc, off the hook. In the meantime, sexual predators and their enablers continue. They're already off the hook....or dead. This is for civil suits and has little to nothing to do with the individual although the laws seem to allow for it to be about them. But honestly, who is going to sue a person under a vow of poverty? You go where the money is and regardless of any changes. If the accusations are true and the the money is paid out, then great. As I said, I'm indifferent. It's just that it won't happen that way or if it does, probably not in the way justice is meant to be played out. How many semen stained choir boy robes are out there exactly? You stop predators and crime in the present. You, including institutions, encourage people to report crimes as soon as they happen. If the church is still not doing that now, they still lose the same amount of money up to billions of dollars.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 11, 2019 17:28:59 GMT
They're already off the hook....or dead. This is for civil suits and has little to nothing to do with the individual although the laws seem to allow for it to be about them. But honestly, who is going to sue a person under a vow of poverty? You go where the money is and regardless of any changes. If the accusations are true and the the money is paid out, then great. As I said, I'm indifferent. It's just that it won't happen that way or if it does, probably not in the way justice is meant to be played out. How many semen stained choir boy robes are out there exactly? You stop predators and crime in the present. You, including institutions, encourage people to report crimes as soon as they happen. If the church is still not doing that now, they still lose the same amount of money up to billions of dollars. And let those the most responsible just never pay up. Got it. It’s good to be a king. Point missed but that’s ok.
|
|