Curious George
Veteran Member
All the possible assumptions you want to avoid and then you make this.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Church offers lower payouts to black abuse victims
- Thread starter Epic Beard Man
- Start date
The bare facts are some guy took a deal, cashed the check, and now wants to renegotiate the deal.
You're the one accepting the propaganda. RCC smart and greedy. Black people dumb and incompetent victims.
Tom
It's not an assumption, it's a fact.
Tom
Curious George
Veteran Member
Are you aware of how often race is used in calculating settlement offers?
There's also the bare facts of the abuse, but you don't care about that, right?
No:
- RCC: can afford lots of lawyers, has lots of experience with these sorts of negotiations, and knows the amounts of every payout they've ever made to abuse victims.
- this family: can't afford any lawyers, has no experience negotiating an abuse claim, had no information - or were given false information - on typical settlement payouts.
None of this suggests that the victim or his family are dumb or incompetent... just that they didn't have the power in this situation.
I look in on this thread, only to find such pointless bickering over nothing.
Let's change things up.
I declare that black folk tend to be victims, dumb, & poor bargainers.
And this is always someone else's fault.
Let's change things up.
I declare that black folk tend to be victims, dumb, & poor bargainers.
And this is always someone else's fault.
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
Most "frivolous" suits are dismissed
We're not talking about all settlement offers.
We are talking specifically about RCC settlement offers to people accusing them of sex abuse.
Tom
Curious George
Veteran Member
And you think the RCC wouldn't engage in such valuations?
Leaving the victim the pay their lawyers, while the accuser just wanders off.
That happens a lot in this litigious US society.
It's happened to more than one person I know. Someone comes up with a vague unsupported accusation against someone with deep pockets. A lawyer takes the case, hoping to get a cut of the judgement.
They lose, and the victim(the accused) is stuck paying off their lawyers.
Tom
Curious George
Veteran Member
It doesn't cost too much to write a single motion. Certainly not 15k. I think you are mistaken and have been listening to @Revoltingest too long.
@columbus - BTW: even the Cathoic Church believes the victims:
In Mississippi Delta, Catholic abuse cases settled on cheap | The Star
A single motion can be far less.
It can also be much more when there are complexities to research & address.
But one cannot judge total expense by the cost of an individual motion.
One must look at the entire conflict.
And there's the cost of some other details, eg, the trial, hearings, mediation.
Frivolous cases do often go all the way to trial.
But as a big fan of lawyers & the Justice Industrial Complex,
I'm not surprised that you're sanguine & even in denial about it.
It doesn't cost anything to make an accusation. It doesn't even cost anything to file a lawsuit, if a lawyer is willing to take your case on contingency.
This happens a lot, especially in the sex crimes litigation industry.
Tom
Curious George
Veteran Member
Oh please, and I imagine the diocese has lawyers on retainer. Let us not pretend like this would have cost the RCC an arm an a leg to get the case dismissed if it was really "frivolous."
Curious George
Veteran Member
Most cases don't go to trial, let alone frivolous ones. Your bias is, as always, apparent.
You must never have had to hire a defense lawyer in a sexual abuse case.
A friend of mine got accused of that. It cost him $20k to prove he was innocent. And he had to pay it all. The accuser never had to pay anything.
And that was after the local paper ran a front page headline, with his picture, about him as an "alleged" child molester. It was a big story for a week.
When the case was dismissed, it was covered by two sentences in the court news section towards the back. Nobody noticed.
His life in small town Indiana was trashed. He lost his job. He had been in public relations with a local historical society. What do you do with that when you're best known for molesting a 14 year-old boy? Try to come up with $20K for the lawyers and survive in a town you're lucky to get a job pumping gas.
Sorry dude, the whole "guilty until proven innocent" b.s. makes me kinda angry. And that's how it works in the litigation lottery world we live in. You are contributing to it with all your assumptions about the black guys and the RCC.
Tom
Bias based upon experience is cromulent.
Your bias in favor of a corrupt inefficient system is not.
Curious George
Veteran Member
It is not "guilty until proven innocent" b.s. Rather, it is an understanding that civil proceedings are most often determined by a preponderance of the evidence and cases that are well plead are more than likely going to last. It sounds like this is somewhat personal to you.
A) how the media handles accused is a separate issue.
B) if the case cost 20k then it wasn't frivolous.
C) are you suggesting that if a case is he said she said it should be dismissed out of hand?
Curious George
Veteran Member
Experience without understanding is meaningless.