San Diego diocese files Chapter 11

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection a few hours before it was to go to trial Wednesday in the first of more than 140 lawsuits accusing priests of sexual abuse.

The bankruptcy filing, put in at five minutes to midnight, automatically halted the court proceedings.

In a letter posted on the diocese's Web site, Bishop Robert H. Brom said the diocese made its decision because any damage awards in the earlier trials could deplete "diocesan and insurance resources" and leave nothing for other victims.

The diocese claimed in the filing late Tuesday $95.7 million in property holdings and another $60.4 million in liquid assets, including stocks, bonds and operating accounts.

San Diego is the fifth diocese in the nation to file for bankruptcy protection."

http://www.miamiherald.com/889/story/26150.html

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Evil doers." - republicon christofascist deviant hypocrites

"When it comes to deviancy, they should have checked with the experts: us."

- republicon christofascist deviant hypocrites

[reprobate]

2. Shall we take it from your post you have a rather low opinion of them?

[Ian David]

10. What you need to do is file a complaint to revoke their corporate charter

That would deny them the right to operate as a charity or a business in the state.

See prior thread:

Revoking the Corporate Charter of the Boston Archdiocese
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=226x1599

[Cerridwen]

3. Is the Church of Rome the parent company of these dioceses?

Perhaps it's time to go after the parent company. This is not an anti-Catholic rant or slam. This is an anti-corporate manipulation rant/slam.

Are not these dioceses using protections offered to corporations in order to subvert the rule of law? Are they not part of the universal Roman Catholic Church? Is not the Roman Catholic Church the parent or holding corporation for the dioceses? Is there not some way to consolidate the claims and sue the parent company?

I also have some thoughts about the RICO act running through my head at this time.

Legal eagles on DU - a little help here, please.

[BayCityProgressive]

4. 5 down

how many more to go?

[Cerridwen]

5. There are about 194 or 195 in the U.S. of which some are Eastern

So, it would depend on how many are facing lawsuits and how many of the Eastern Tradition are included in the suits.

*sigh*

The "religious" version of Enron is all I keep thinking. Though this has been of a longer duration and is wider spread.



:grr:

[happyslug]

12. These are the Worse cases, you have another 5 or so that may go

People tend to forget the problem first appeared in 1985 when you had the first big case to come out of the Courts of Louisiana. After that jury Verdict, most Dioceses started to implant rules to cut back on such cases. Rules that had been relaxed during Vatican II were reinstalled (I.e. A priest can NOT take someone into the bed room sections of the Parish house, a rule abolished in most Diocese in the 1960s and re-implemented in the 1990s). Dioceses became more aggressive at removing problem priests from being near Children. Other reforms were also Adopted (The recent Rule that Homosexuals could NOT become Priests unless they were two years celebrate is part of the reform).

These rules were further Strengthen in the mid-1990s with the adoption of very Strict rules when it came to accusations of sex with children. These Rules are so strict that the Vatican had concerns that the burden of proof had gone from the accuser to the accused that he did NOT have sex with the accuser (i.e. the Accuser did NOT have to prove or provide any evidence of having sex, but the accused had to show no sex occurred which brings up the concept of how do you prove a negative). After expressing their concerns from a due process point of view the rules were agreed to by the Vatican.

Now you must remember when independent investigations occurred, the ages of most victims, when victimized, tend to be from 10 to 14. Very few at 10 and few more at 11, then a whole rash as 12-14. You have none for Children younger than 10, and in most states once you turn 15-16 you are of the age of Consent. Thus the problem years is between 12-15. The Statute of Limitation starts to run when a minor turns 18 in most states and is only 4 years long. Thus if a Diocese adopted the rules being recommended in the late 1980s, most victims would find the Statute of Limitations barring them from winning a lawsuit by 2000. The Present Rules adopted in the mid-1990s would end most accusations by 2007. Some of these cases are still in litigation, but most of the suits with merit are out of time as far as the Statute of Limitation goes. Thus the comment that may you have reached the limit of the Dioceses that are incapable of paying off any Judgments against them.

Please note, the Five Dioceses that have declared Bankruptcy had a history of Bishops refusing to crack down on their own priests. In most other Diocese the Bishops did try to discipline their priests when such accusation occurred. Thus I believe we have peaked as to lawsuits against the Catholic Church in regards to cases involving the cover up of Priests that had sex with children.

[happyslug]

11. Since Roman times Diocese have been independent of Rome

Each Bishop is viewed as the "lord" of his Diocese. People can appeal to the papacy on certain actions, but as a whole the Bishop is the person who makes the decision locally. The pope can NOT even remove a Bishop even through the Pope appoints them (Thus the long tradition of promoting Bishops to Rome when they screw up, the bishops are offered a promotion to a place he can NOT do any more harm, throw in a Cardinal-ship any Bishops will take the move, several American Bishops made Cardinal by this means).

While the Pope can NOT remove a Bishop, he can put bans on the Diocese and even declare them to be no longer in Communion with Rome (This is what Rome did to the Orthodox in 1054, rescinded in 1967, and to the Lutheran Bishops in the 1500s). These action are only done is extreme cases, "kicking someone upstairs" is the preferred way if the Bishops does NOT resign himself (For example when a Bishop killed a person while Driving DUI in the Southwest, the Bishop resigned his post and the pope appointed a new Bishop).

Given the lack of control over the local Bishops, the Church in Rome has Never been held legally liable for the actions of any Bishop. If you do NOT have the right to remove or undo what a Bishops does, one can NOT be held to be liable for the bishops actions. Thus each Diocese is on its own.

A few Comments on Chapter 11. While the Bishop will stay in control of the Diocese, he will be subject to the review of the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Judge for that area. Under Chapter 11 Debts can NOT be discharged. the debts MUST be paid off OR may be reduced to make sure ALL debtors are paid. If the Diocese has any property Mortgaged, who ever holds the Mortgage gets paid up to the value of the debt OR the property Mortgaged (Whichever is less). All other money MUST first go to keep up the corporation and any remaining money MUST go to any unsecured Creditors (Such as these alleged victims, I used alleged for the alleged actions have NOT been proved in court, but I do NOT think that is much of an issue, the real issue is how to make each victim whole and how to make sure each victim gets at least SOME of the money needed to make them whole).

People tend to forget that Bankruptcy is a Creditor remedy. In Chapter 7 the Debtor get a discharge of debt to encourage him or her to cooperate with the Creditors in turning over all of his or her assets to the Creditors. In Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the Court views the Corporation as something that will survive and be profitable except for the fact it has excess debts. If the Bankruptcy Judge determines that the assets of the Corporation and the prospects of future revenues is NOT enough to keep the corporation in business the Judge will order the Corporation dissolved and the assets sold to pay the Debtors.

On the other hand if the Judge determines that the Corporation will make money in the future and it is worth more as an ongoing business, the Corporation will be kept as a whole with the Debtors getting any equity in the Corporation. Now often Creditors do NOT get what is owned to them, only get part of what is owed to them. Whatever the Judge decides the Corporation can pay and still say in business the Corporation will be forced to pay.

Now when it comes to a Non-profit like the Church, the Court has to work around several factors. First revenue is the donation to the Church and how it is coming in. People will NOT donate if the money is NOT going to the Church. Most of the property of the Church is in real property that is not readily converted to other uses (Churches can be converted but it takes time and money) AND any such conversion has the problem of reducing donation. Second, to keep the donation coming in you have to keep the priests on the payroll, thus paying the Priests has to be done. Third, any part of the Diocese that is NOT Church related but is revenue producing is taxable property, such taxes MUST be paid.

Thus it looks like the Diocese has the revenue, assets and funds to pay for the harm the Diocese did by NOT cracking down on its own Priest. The issue for the Bankruptcy Judge is to make sure ALL of the Victims of the Diocese are paid, not necessarily in full, but as much as possible while keeping the revenue stream of the Diocese intact. Now how this is to be done is up to the Diocese, as Debtor in Possession. The Diocese MUST report what revenue it has coming in, its assets, its Expenses to the Court. Any Creditor will be able to look at those records. Meetings of Creditors will be held to make sure a good faith effort is being made by the Diocese to pay off the Creditors. If any Creditor believes no such good faith effort is bring made, that creditor may petition bankruptcy court on that matter and request a master be appointed to rn the Corporation OR ask that the Corporation be dissolved and the assets sold off (Which tends to bring in less money to the Creditors then if they just leave the Corporation run itself as an ongoing business).

One last Comment, the Bankruptcy Judge may permit the Action in the California Court to resume if the Bankruptcy Judge believes that is the best way to resolve the issue. The Bankruptcy Judge may make any ruling on what is own himself (Remember Anna Nicole Smith, she won in Southern California Bankruptcy Court what she lost in Texas Probate Court).

The filing is just the first step in the long process of determine how much each victim will get and what the Diocese can retain. Both sides must be willing to work together to resolve the disputes (Bankruptcy is a Court of Equity and as such both sides must be willing to do equity to get equity). I do NOT see the Diocese retaining all of its Assets, but the Victims will get something, maybe not ALL what they hope but something.

[Cerridwen]

14. Thank you for responding.

You did a great job of explaining to this non-lawyer person in such a way that I understand. :D

I still have some ideas floating around in my head but I'll save them for another time as I'm not sure I can articulate them at this time.

Thanks, again.



:hi:

[hedgehog]

6. A lot of bishops have the gall to blame trial lawyers for their problems!

If they had responded properly in the first place, there would be no need for law suits. I can forgive them once for being caught short back in the 1980s when all this stuff came out the first time. We were all a lot more ignorant then about sexual abuse. Even the parents of the children involved called the bishop instead of the police! There is no excuse whatsoever of continuing the practice of cover-up and denial. I am ashamed and enraged that my Church is being held hostage by a group of old men who can think of nothing better to do than circle the wagons to protect the clergy.

Here is what really enrages me: For the last forty years, men were banished from the priesthood if they wanted to join a woman in the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony. Meanwhile, rapists were kept on and even promoted!

[happyslug]

13. You nailed it, the problem was how the Bishops handled the situation

You will have Cases of Pedophilia in any origination. The issue is NOT that such things occurred, but what did the leadership do when told of such crimes. Thus no court has ruled the Church liable for any ONE case of Pedophilia, but has ruled the Church Liable whenever the Bishops just kept moving a problem priest around.

People tend to forget it is HARD to prove that someone had sex with another (Assuming no one became pregnant). You rarely have any signs and most of the young people assaulted are so confused by the assault they do NOT inform anyone till much later when any evidence of such an assault is long gone. Thus it become a "she say he say" argument. Who do you believe? If you are going to punished someone our concept of Due Process mean the burden of proof is on the accuser, if the accuser has no evidence the accused must be ruled NOT guilty. Thus in any ONE case of Pedophilia that is the result.

Now in the case of the Dioceses most bishops to minimize conflict among church member will transfer the Priest. This is where the Bishops got into trouble. If a transferred occurred an NO accusation followed, the Bishops can say the accusation was false, but if after the transfer new accusation are made against that priest, these second accusation is evidence that the priest had had sex with the first accuser. At that point the Bishops in most dioceses assigned the Priest to sites without access to Children, but in the Dioceses where the huge lawsuits have occurred the bishops just kept moving the Priest around. It is this movement AFTER it was clear the Priest was a problem Priest that the Church is being sued and being held liable by the Courts.

Fortunately reforms in the mid-1990s (If followed by the Bishops) should end such constant movement of Priests and these lawsuits should slowing work they way through the court system by the end of this decade.

[Howardx]

7. make them sell property

thay have a lot of it, sell some and pay your debts.

[hedgehog]

8. That's the problem - the property doesn't morally belong to the

bishops, they're supposed to be stewards. As is is now, the bishops have taken over all control, but the CHurch is made to suffer for their mismanagement. Has a single bishop done a single hour jail time for concealing knowledge of criminal activity, not to mention aiding and abetting?

[Sin]

9. I'm quite sure.

If they pray hard enough for repentance that their God will make some Legal tender appear in the middle of there churches. ... No... O I got it
O yea thats right It's to busy growing back the arms and legs of the war wounded. ...No again I see It's really busy making Blobs appear on baking pans that sort of look like a out line of a made of Image of a supposed 2000 year old Jewish lady.

well if they don't pay up I'm sure the rat has a few vaults In Vatican city hes swimming around in right now like Scrooge Mc Duck.
Lets start emptying them out.