The Catholic Church Must Go
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2015, 09:02 AM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2015 03:11 PM by pablo.)
The Catholic Church Must Go
Apparently the Milwaukee Archdiocese buried their money to avoid paying the victims of their preists child molestation.

Scumbag Weasels
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
12-03-2015, 09:04 AM
RE: The Catholic Church Must Go
(12-03-2015 09:02 AM)pablo Wrote:  Apparently the Milwaukee Archdiocese hid their money to avoid paying the victims of their preists child molestation.

Scumbag Weasels

they flaunt their wealth when their safe and pleads for bankruptcy when they have to give it to others Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 09:14 AM
RE: The Catholic Church Must Go
They should just be sued and sued and sued until they even have to sell the fucking vatican. They should not be allowed to get away with this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 09:22 AM
RE: The Catholic Church Must Go
This type of thing is exactly why I believe many clergy (and I the number is probably huge) don't believe the crap they preach. If they seriously believe God is watching, how could they do this and not expect to rot in hell?

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
12-03-2015, 09:26 AM
RE: The Catholic Church Must Go
(12-03-2015 09:02 AM)pablo Wrote:  Apparently the Milwaukee Archdiocese hid their money to avoid paying the victims of their preists child molestation.

Scumbag Weasels

I skimmed over the legalese but I don’t understand what the conclusion implies, help.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE IN PART the judgment of the district court and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Circuit Rule 36 shall apply on remand.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: The Catholic Church Must Go
(12-03-2015 09:04 AM)Ace Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 09:02 AM)pablo Wrote:  Apparently the Milwaukee Archdiocese hid their money to avoid paying the victims of their preists child molestation.

Scumbag Weasels

they flaunt their wealth when their safe and pleads for bankruptcy when they have to give it to others Dodgy

Well, they didn't "hide" it, they transferred it to the cemetary fund. On a lighter note, the Minneapolis diocese is selling their primo office location, and building. Smile

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
12-03-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: The Catholic Church Must Go
(12-03-2015 10:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 09:04 AM)Ace Wrote:  they flaunt their wealth when their safe and pleads for bankruptcy when they have to give it to others Dodgy

Well, they didn't "hide" it, they transferred it to the cemetary fund. On a lighter note, the Minneapolis diocese is selling their primo office location, and building. Smile

The cemetary fund didn't exist until after they found out they have to pay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: The Catholic Church Must Go
(12-03-2015 09:26 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 09:02 AM)pablo Wrote:  Apparently the Milwaukee Archdiocese hid their money to avoid paying the victims of their preists child molestation.

Scumbag Weasels

I skimmed over the legalese but I don’t understand what the conclusion implies, help.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE IN PART the judgment of the district court and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Circuit Rule 36 shall apply on remand.

I'd like to know the full context, was that in the article or in a link from the article?

It sounds like a judge initially accepted the deal (creation of a trust to protect cemeteries), and that was reversed on appeal. Meaning they can't use it to hide everything.

Basically the idea is they can put money into a trust for cemetery upkeep, but that doesn't shield them from creditors.

But I'm just going those few words you wrote and didn't read the actual court decision.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 10:34 AM
RE: The Catholic Church Must Go
(12-03-2015 10:26 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 09:26 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I skimmed over the legalese but I don’t understand what the conclusion implies, help.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE IN PART the judgment of the district court and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Circuit Rule 36 shall apply on remand.

I'd like to know the full context, was that in the article or in a link from the article?

It sounds like a judge initially accepted the deal (creation of a trust to protect cemeteries), and that was reversed on appeal. Meaning they can't use it to hide everything.

Basically the idea is they can put money into a trust for cemetery upkeep, but that doesn't shield them from creditors.

But I'm just going those few words you wrote and didn't read the actual court decision.

It's a red link near the end of the article.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
12-03-2015, 12:11 PM
RE: The Catholic Church Must Go
(12-03-2015 10:34 AM)pablo Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 10:26 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I'd like to know the full context, was that in the article or in a link from the article?

It sounds like a judge initially accepted the deal (creation of a trust to protect cemeteries), and that was reversed on appeal. Meaning they can't use it to hide everything.

Basically the idea is they can put money into a trust for cemetery upkeep, but that doesn't shield them from creditors.

But I'm just going those few words you wrote and didn't read the actual court decision.

It's a red link near the end of the article.

This analysis isn't complete, I would have to go through and read each court case sited, and no, just no, unless I'm being paid.

Basically the court found that some of the provisions of appeal were overreaching and overturned, remanded them back to court. Other parts involving the archdiocese were upheld, and a third or fourth depending how you read it, made no determinations.

Basically, the main issues were Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), the First Amendment, the bankruptcy code and if a judge had an "interest" in what happened.

The appeals court decided the archdiocese were not entitled to to use RFRA, because they aren't involved in a suit with the government, nor did they successfully argue their creditors were "government". The appeals court did affirm the fact the archdiocese does have protections under the first admendment. However the RFRA claim was what the archdiocese used to say they could move the money to begin with. Originally the bankruptcy court said they (archdiocese) shouldn't be allowed to move money into the trust, then decided yes.

The issue surrounding the judge refusing to recuse themselves from the litigation, the court found the Judge in that case should have recused themselves (they had family buried in very cemeteries) so their conflict was pretty evident.

The court made no determination on the bankruptcy part -- except that part or the archdiocese's argument was invalid (RFRA parts), but it's unclear what will be done about it. The judge's unwillingness to recuse themselves might be enough reason to require the archdiocese to reallocate some funds from the trust.

So half was tossed out, and the rest remanded to a new judge (who presumably won't have a blantent conflict) and biggest issue seems is kinda unresolved.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: