|
Post by Amadan on Nov 16, 2017 12:32:32 GMT -5
There are unscrupulous people out there. So if someone comes into the church and says get out your check book because Father Fussy did this when I was 12? I'd wonder. The Church has no credibility here. Do I think that's where these allegations came from? No. Do I think it's possible that when the scandal exploded, some people decided to sue? Sure. If someone comes into the church and says "Get out your check book," yes, I'd wonder. I don't think that's usually how these things go, however. Are there opportunists? Sure. But you seem to be reaching to imply that the Church has been victimized by greedy opportunists while not quite saying that we should suspect victims of child molestation of being greedy opportunists.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2017 12:38:13 GMT -5
1) Entities like the Church that have massive resources are a target in a litigious society/world. A class action lawsuit was filed against Starbucks for putting too much ice in their iced drinks, for Pete's sake. No one is doing that with Murray's Coffee Shop down the street. Doesn't mean an accuser should lose credibility, to be sure, but there are people willing to play the victim and lie for a payday. Always have been. Of course that article references the fucking McDonald's coffee lawsuit; the idea that that was a "ridiculous" lawsuit and an example of litigiousness and greedy people going after deep pockets has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly. I disagree that it's been "debunked." But regardless, the point was that large orgs--or ones with a lot of resources-- are targets. A $5 million lawsuit against Starbucks for using too much ice is evidence of that, I think. Do you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 16, 2017 12:40:06 GMT -5
Of course that article references the fucking McDonald's coffee lawsuit; the idea that that was a "ridiculous" lawsuit and an example of litigiousness and greedy people going after deep pockets has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly. I disagree that it's been "debunked." Really? So which facts do you dispute? Sure. On the face of it, this Starbucks suit looks ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 16, 2017 12:49:44 GMT -5
There are unscrupulous people out there. So if someone comes into the church and says get out your check book because Father Fussy did this when I was 12? I'd wonder. The Church has no credibility here. Do I think that's where these allegations came from? No. Do I think it's possible that when the scandal exploded, some people decided to sue? Sure. If someone comes into the church and says "Get out your check book," yes, I'd wonder. I don't think that's usually how these things go, however. Are there opportunists? Sure. But you seem to be reaching to imply that the Church has been victimized by greedy opportunists while not quite saying that we should suspect victims of child molestation of being greedy opportunists. That's not what I'm saying. I'm not implying anything, I'm saying whenever you have someone with deep pockets and add in a scandal, you have that possibility. Each case has to be decided on it's own merits. I don't think victims of molestation are doing this at all. Is it possible that there have been 1 or 2 people who were not victims doing this? Yes. Possible. Not certain by a long shot.
The same way people might accuse Bill Clinton of rape because of political motives. Or Money.
If there is a motive, some people will see it as an opportunity. Make no mistake, the scandal of the church was entirely their own fault.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 13:40:12 GMT -5
Sigh. The Starbucks ice suit was dismissed with prejudice (and, I read, with a lecture from the judge). As I (and every lawyer I know) predicted it would be. Oh, and defendant's were awarded their costs. docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2016cv03830/649314/23 The McDonalds case won because it should have won. If you bring a lawsuit, it needs to get past a "oh ffs come on". ETA: More on the alleged plague of "frivolous" lawsuits against corporations and the hot coffee suit in particular. www.dolmanlaw.com/frivolous-lawsuits/(Yes, the piece was written by a personal injury law firm, but I think it makes some excellent points.)
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 16, 2017 14:22:30 GMT -5
Okay. And water is wet.
No one said every single accusation of abuse by a priest is automatically true and the Church should pay for all of them. So why are you pointing out the obvious?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2017 14:46:44 GMT -5
Really? So which facts do you dispute? None of them. I don't need to in order to see the lawsuit as an example of litigiousness. Hell, I can even accept that the final judgment was fair, given all of the specifics of the case. Nonetheless, no one is getting millions of dollar's from Fred's Coffee Corner for having coffee that is to hot. And you're all wound up about it, but the CNN Money piece only said this: Oh my! How outrageous! On the face of it, on the bottom of it, and everywhere in between, imo. Which is why I chose it as an example, because it's such an obvious case of someone looking for an easy pay day from an org with deep pockets. There's continuum to be sure, imo. We might see the Starbucks case on one end--complete bs--and the McDonald's case on the other--valid and exacerbated by the stupidity of the company's response--but the common thread is the resource level of the target. You tell Vince that "water is wet," yet you seem to think that sometimes it's dry. Why are you arguing with the obvious?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 15:06:34 GMT -5
and, contrary to popular belief, the cases with no law and/or facts to adequately support them tend to be given the pffft by courts at the motion to dismiss stage, as the Starbucks case was.
Speaking as a lawyer, everything Amadan has said here stacks up.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 16, 2017 15:12:11 GMT -5
None of them. I don't need to in order to see the lawsuit as an example of litigiousness. Hell, I can even accept that the final judgment was fair, given all of the specifics of the case. Nonetheless, no one is getting millions of dollar's from Fred's Coffee Corner for having coffee that is to hot. And you're all wound up about it, but the CNN Money piece only said this: Oh my! How outrageous! I'm not worked up about it. I just don't understand what your position is since you're deriding the "litigiousness" that caused it, yet you think the judgment was fair? Yes, McDonald's got sued for millions of dollars when Fred's Coffee Corner would not have been, because Fred's Coffee Corner wouldn't have had a corporate policy that had resulted in 700 similar complaints prior to the "infamous" verdict - which, note, resulted only because McDonald's turned down the plaintiff's initial request for $2000. Hardly an example of someone going "Ouch!" from hot coffee and then looking at McDonald's and thinking "Ka-ching!" If McDonalds had only ever had a single unfortunate incident of a woman getting third degree burns from their coffee, or if they had agreed to pay her medical expenses as she asked, it's very unlikely that the case would have made legal notoriety. Your comparison is invalid, as is your metaphor.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2017 15:29:00 GMT -5
I'm not worked up about it. I just don't understand what your position is since you're deriding the "litigiousness" that caused it, yet you think the judgment was fair? Well look, incentives are a thing in the legal world, just as they are in the economic world. Question: does the fact that someone got a multi-million award from a large corporation because they got burned by too-hot coffee incentivize or de-incentivize (or neither, I guess) lawsuits asking for millions of dollars from large corporations? Common sense works here, I think. Of course it incentivizes such actions. Does that mean that all such lawsuits will be bullshit? Of course not; it's perfectly reasonable to allow that many will be justified and fair. But that doesn't mean such lawsuits don't contribute to the idea of an overly-litigious society, because they most certainly do, imo. These things don't occur in a vacuum. And--again--the common, the necessary thread here is the existence of entities with deep pockets who can cough up huge sums of money. That's my primary point, which you seem to accept as obvious, so I'm not sure what the point of this tangent was, aside from allowing you and Cass to rail against all of the imbeciles who didn't understand the McDonalds lawsuit, even though the article didn't actually go there, even though no one here has gone there. But hey, job well done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 15:45:44 GMT -5
I'm not so much "railing" as noting that the instances of lawsuits unjustly persecuting the poor, poor innocent corporations just because of their deep pockets are much exaggerated.
Generally speaking, when someone points me to one, I find that it either was dismissed with prejudice (Starbucks), or else much misunderstood (McDonalds).
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 16, 2017 15:48:37 GMT -5
What does this mean: that there's an inverse relationship between an accuser's likely credibility and the wealth of the accused? (I really hope not) Or that they'll be better resource and more likely to defend vigorously (or settle)? An inverse relationship? I'm not sure what you mean by that. “Inverse relationship” - the richer the accused party, the more likely the accusation will be false. I have my opinion on that, but it appears that point has been discussed, so I’ll leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 16, 2017 16:08:13 GMT -5
An inverse relationship? I'm not sure what you mean by that. “Inverse relationship” - the richer the accused party, the more likely the accusation will be false. I have my opinion on that, but it appears that point has been discussed, so I’ll leave it at that. I don't think that I would use that terminology, but if we speak of false allegations, people say, why would someone claim to be a victim when their not. There are reasons, and money can be one. Do I think that should be the go to place? No.
And like I said, with the way my former church acted, I'm not leaning that way unless there's independent evidence in a particular case that suggests it.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 16, 2017 16:10:01 GMT -5
You said you didn’t understand what I meant. So I explained.
And, like I said, I’ll leave it at that. Okay?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 16, 2017 16:11:21 GMT -5
Well look, incentives are a thing in the legal world, just as they are in the economic world. Question: does the fact that someone got a multi-million award from a large corporation because they got burned by too-hot coffee incentivize or de-incentivize (or neither, I guess) lawsuits asking for millions of dollars from large corporations? Common sense works here, I think. Of course it incentivizes such actions. Sure. But no one disputed that large corporations are targeted for large lawsuits. That was the "water is wet" part. Only if the percentage of frivolous/specious/greedy lawsuits is disproportionate to the number of frivolous/specious/greedy lawsuits filed in other contexts. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if small claims court gets as many stupid lawsuits as you see big corporate legal departments handling. The point of the tangent was Vince suggesting that allegations of child sexual abuse by priests should be considered suspect because the Church has a lot of money. Which you and he are both trying to back up with examples of people going after deep pocket corporations. The article compared the McDonald's lawsuit to the Starbucks one. Which clearly implied that the McDonald's lawsuit was as specious as the Starbucks lawsuit. Or do you think they just randomly chose some other large corporate settlement and the common denominator was "beverages"?
|
|