FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: False accusations against priests common, lawyer says
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/head...oryid=8787
Quote:False abuse accusations against priests common, lawyer argues
January 03, 2011
A veteran attorney has warned a California court of rampant fraud in sex-abuse claims against Catholic priests.

Donald Steier has submitted a statement to Los Angeles County Superior Court saying that many claims against priests have been “either entirely false or so greatly exaggerated that the truth would not have supported a prosecutable claim.”

Steier reported that many plaintiffs have reported abuse only after hearing of other plaintiffs who received a lucrative financial settlement for an abuse claim. Plaintiffs have changed their stories over time, he said. Moreover, Steir revealed, in a number of cases an accused priest who denies wrongdoing has successfully passed a lie-detector test, while his accuser has refused to submit to the test.

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) has denounced Steier’s report, and demanded that Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney distance himself from the arguments. SNAP has not directly challenged the content of Steier’s arguments.
One of many problems with Class Action Lawsuits, its like bundled mortgage investment vehicles, were you have legitmate and junk mixed together. My own diocese's turn in the lawsuit ring including 5 or 6 people. As far anybody could tell, only one or two of those even remotely seemed legitimate. One was clearly not a valid case, but the guy joined as an act of solidarity with others and got 1.3 million out of the deal.

Anybody else notice that all the US lawsuits are being filed by the same few law firms?
He's hardly an unbiased party.

In recently covering the legal maneuverings of pedo-priest Denis Lyons, the name of his attorney kept bugging me. Donald Steier...where had I heard that name before? Gracias to the magic of Google, I quickly found out who he was: the defense attorney du jour for pedo-priests in Southern California. Steier's short list of previous clients reads like a who's who of child molesters: Michael Stephen Baker, Michael Wempe, Lynn Caffoe, George Neville Rucker, and the first two got criminally convicted for their crimes (Google their names to read about the horror stories those demons inflicted on innocents). In the past, news accounts have reported Archdiocese of Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony has paid Steier to defend his pedo-princes from the law with nary a denial from either party; given that Steier is trying to argue that Lyons is too poor to pay most of the bills in the latest lawsuit against him, wonder who's paying Steier this time?
If one puts out a call for people to come forward about a priest who supposedly did bad things in the past, I'm sure you'd get people swearing to be victims, even if that priest never existed.

This is the thing about civil cases...the burden of proof is low and the payout quiet large. If one can get a judge to hear the case, and a jury to be sympathetic, then one can make a lot of money. It is relatively rare in the USA, despite high profile stories, but I'd be suspicious of anyone who went for civil suits before criminal in criminal cases.

Lie for money? No, people don't do that...
Ggreg might tell us more, but the British system is better, if you lose you pay. It stops frivolous law suites.
tim
Hang them all by their willies, I'd say. If the willies tear off and they survive the fall, then God showed them mercy. The hierarchy is so defensive of their molesters that they'd sacrifice honor and defy even common sense to keep them employed. Sometimes you need to cut the arm off to save the body.

I'm sure there are plenty of false reports, but.... meh. Can't say I feel sorry for anyone. More fruits of Vatican II (or perhaps also Vatican I, or episcopal stupidity in general).
(01-07-2011, 09:58 AM)timoose Wrote: [ -> ]Ggreg might tell us more, but the British system is better, if you lose you pay. It stops frivolous law suites.
tim

So, people who cannot convince the system they were wronged get a penalty? What is the standard of proof in the British system?

I think the British system is more like "If you hurt an armed assailant in attempts to save yourself, you have to pay for his injuries and his mental stress".
I'm gonna have to work on my headline skills. I posted the same story a few days ago and it sank like a rock. http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...327.0.html
(01-07-2011, 05:14 AM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]He's hardly an unbiased party.

In recently covering the legal maneuverings of pedo-priest Denis Lyons, the name of his attorney kept bugging me. Donald Steier...where had I heard that name before? Gracias to the magic of Google, I quickly found out who he was: the defense attorney du jour for pedo-priests in Southern California. Steier's short list of previous clients reads like a who's who of child molesters: Michael Stephen Baker, Michael Wempe, Lynn Caffoe, George Neville Rucker, and the first two got criminally convicted for their crimes (Google their names to read about the horror stories those demons inflicted on innocents). In the past, news accounts have reported Archdiocese of Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony has paid Steier to defend his pedo-princes from the law with nary a denial from either party; given that Steier is trying to argue that Lyons is too poor to pay most of the bills in the latest lawsuit against him, wonder who's paying Steier this time?
Excellent post and point(s). Thank you
(01-07-2011, 05:14 AM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]He's hardly an unbiased party.

In recently covering the legal maneuverings of pedo-priest Denis Lyons, the name of his attorney kept bugging me. Donald Steier...where had I heard that name before? Gracias to the magic of Google, I quickly found out who he was: the defense attorney du jour for pedo-priests in Southern California. Steier's short list of previous clients reads like a who's who of child molesters: Michael Stephen Baker, Michael Wempe, Lynn Caffoe, George Neville Rucker, and the first two got criminally convicted for their crimes (Google their names to read about the horror stories those demons inflicted on innocents). In the past, news accounts have reported Archdiocese of Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony has paid Steier to defend his pedo-princes from the law with nary a denial from either party; given that Steier is trying to argue that Lyons is too poor to pay most of the bills in the latest lawsuit against him, wonder who's paying Steier this time?

So let's see ... if I choose a lawyer to defend me, I can't use one who's experienced in whatever particular crime I'm accused of?  And the fact that he defended clients who turned out to be guilty means ... what?  That I'm NOT innocent?  The conclusions you're drawing seem lacking in logic to me. 

So what if he defended some that turned out to be guilty?  He's not saying that ALL the accusations were false.  He's saying that many of them were, which anyone with a brain probably figured out.  He's saying that there isn't evidence to uphold many, many accusations.
Pages: 1 2