Religion Pell Guilty!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maggie5 said:
Wasn't there a monetary limit initially? $50k or $75K then increased later?

Nah, their initial interest was in protecting assets and reputation not helping the individuals.
Click to expand...

That was a lump sum limit. The counselling aspect wasn't included in that.

Fair enough to conclude the MR was inadequate, but at least understand all of the components before concluding that. I thought you watched all of the Royal Commission? If you had, you would know all of this.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
That was a lump sum limit. The counselling aspect wasn't included in that.

Fair enough to conclude the MR was inadequate, but at least understand all of the components before concluding that. I thought you watched all of the Royal Commission? If you had, you would know all of this.
Click to expand...
Actually, I stopped watching after a while, too distressing.
 
sideswipe said:
With respect, you may be ignoring the fact that the MR did not, in and of itself, reduce the potential "impact of watershed cases" because parties were and are still able to launch court actions, outside of the compensation scheme.
Click to expand...
Of course it did. The whole point of offering a no-liability settlement is to incentivise a plaintiff not to take the risk of legal action.

sideswipe said:
If a party chose to take the easier and less onerous MR route rather than a court action, that may suggest plenty about the prospects of success in court?
Click to expand...
No, it says something about both parties' appetite for risk - which is influenced by a multitude of factors.

BruceFromBalnarring said:
Well it is. Because you are comparing the lump sums available with each type of scheme without including the counselling component.
Click to expand...
No I'm not.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Demosthenes said:
Of course it did. The whole point of offering a no-liability settlement is to incentivise a plaintiff not to take the risk of legal action.


No, it says something about both parties' appetite for risk - which is influenced by a multitude of factors.
Click to expand...
Fair enough - you say the MR reduced potential "watershed legal actions". Presume you are aware that over the time that the MR has been in place, there have been actions taken by survivors outside of the MR that have resulted in settlements? Wouldn't those settled matters be more likely to be where the potential "watershed" actions lay?
 
sideswipe said:
Fair enough - you say the MR reduced potential "watershed legal actions". Presume you are aware that over the time that the MR has been in place, there have been actions taken by survivors outside of the MR that have resulted in settlements? Wouldn't those settled matters be more likely to be where the potential "watershed" actions lay?
Click to expand...
This is speculation built upon speculation.
 
sideswipe said:
Fair enough - you say the MR reduced potential "watershed legal actions". Presume you are aware that over the time that the MR has been in place, there have been actions taken by survivors outside of the MR that have resulted in settlements? Wouldn't those settled matters be more likely to be where the potential "watershed" actions lay?
Click to expand...
Up until recently the Church was able to hide behind its vague corporate structure and use the Ellis Defence (which old Mate George just happened to run with) to effectively railroad victims into MR & Towards Healing. The rules have now changed and Armageddon awaits the Church and I’m at the head of the queue...
 
western royboy said:
Up until recently the Church was able to hide behind its vague corporate structure and use the Ellis Defence (which old Mate George just happened to run with) to effectively railroad victims into MR & Towards Healing. The rules have now changed and Armageddon awaits the Church and I’m at the head of the queue...
Click to expand...
I sincerely wish you any and every success in your endeavours.

However, this linking of the Ellis defence (great that it is being dismantled) to the MR and Towards Healing is flawed. The MR pre-dated the 2007 Ellis decision by about 11 years. Given Pell was made Cardinal in 2003, not sure how much of the Ellis defence he "ran with" - but happy to be corrected.
 
sideswipe said:
I sincerely wish you any and every success in your endeavours.

However, this linking of the Ellis defence (great that it is being dismantled) to the MR and Towards Healing is flawed. The MR pre-dated the 2007 Ellis decision by about 11 years. Given Pell was made Cardinal in 2003, not sure how much of the Ellis defence he "ran with" - but happy to be corrected.
Click to expand...
The church (and other organisations, religious and otherwise) have been running the Ellis Defence in this and other contexts for many years before the actual Ellis decision.
 
sideswipe said:
I sincerely wish you any and every success in your endeavours.

However, this linking of the Ellis defence (great that it is being dismantled) to the MR and Towards Healing is flawed. The MR pre-dated the 2007 Ellis decision by about 11 years. Given Pell was made Cardinal in 2003, not sure how much of the Ellis defence he "ran with" - but happy to be corrected.
Click to expand...

It's a common misconception but the Ellis case was actually NSW.
 
FredLeDeux said:
The church (and other organisations, religious and otherwise) have been running the Ellis Defence in this and other contexts for many years before the actual Ellis decision.
Click to expand...
Fair enough - call it the "failed vicarious liability defence" for want of a better term then. But this brings me to the point which I have been failing to convey - historically, it has been things this legal hurdle, along with a lack of preparedness to take action - which has stymied so many actions. The MR was established to provide an alternate avenue where those hurdles were removed. But an alternate view would be that they worked together to provide the Church with a painless solution.

And I dont think I will change any minds, so will leave it there.
 
Maggie5 said:
Wasn't there a monetary limit initially? $50k or $75K then increased later?
Click to expand...

BruceFromBalnarring said:
That was a lump sum limit. The counselling aspect wasn't included in that.
Fair enough to conclude the MR was inadequate, but at least understand all of the components before concluding that. I thought you watched all of the Royal Commission? If you had, you would know all of this.
Click to expand...
Maggie5 said:
Actually, I stopped watching after a while, too distressing.
Click to expand...

As ever, google is our friend. https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-studies/case-study-16-melbourne-response
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

western royboy said:
Pell ran the Ellis Defence - he was in charge - your ignorance is astounding
Click to expand...
It might be right up there with your lack of manners. Think you will find most legal defences will have been run by lawyers at the behest of CCI, as opposed to the Archbishop, but I did note above I was happy to be corrected on this point. Once again, good luck with your legal action. Have you seen lawyers yet?
 
Maggie5 said:
What part of 'found it too distressing' didn't you understand?
Click to expand...
You don't have to read the case studies. The section on the setup of MR and its operation will tell you how it worked with compensation and counselling which is what you were querying.. It's just a transcript.
 
sideswipe said:
It might be right up there with your lack of manners. Think you will find most legal defences will have been run by lawyers at the behest of CCI, as opposed to the Archbishop, but I did note above I was happy to be corrected on this point. Once again, good luck with your legal action. Have you seen lawyers yet?
Click to expand...
Manners - you are taking the piss - believe me I know the details - do some research and educate yourself on the subject before coming in here and writing crap - and yeah I’ve seen a lawyer...it goes to trial in August
 
I have to say the apparent “outrage” of counsel at the RC at the Ellis Defence and the refusal of the CC to “admit” offences in interlocutors documents made me want to vomit. Made for great headlines but the Royal Commissioners and Counsel Assisting should hang their heads at their hypocrisy.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I have to say the apparent “outrage” of counsel at the RC at the Ellis Defence and the refusal of the CC to “admit” offences in interlocutors documents made me want to vomit. Made for great headlines but the Royal Commissioners and Counsel Assisting should hang their heads at their hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Hypocrisy is the hallmark of the Catholic Church hierarchy in Australia and most probably throughout the world. They excel at it.
 
western royboy said:
Hypocrisy is the hallmark of the Catholic Church hierarchy in Australia and most probably throughout the world. They excel at it.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with that in many respects, not just this particular subject. But seriously Lawyers being outraged at Defendants using the identity of the Defendant as a defence? Seriously. It’s Lecture 1 in Civil Litigation. “Check they’ve sued the right entity and check that it’s an entity capable of being sued.”

OH THE HUMANITY!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top