Thursday, May 24, 2007

If there's justice here, it's bloody hard to find

The more I see of the Spokane Diocese's bankruptcy settlement with the alleged victims of pervo-priests, the more convinced I am that the whole thing is a set-up. The documents relating to the bankruptcy are here, all in evil PDF format.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I hope I can get one to look at this post (Dave or KG, perhaps?) and tell me if I'm completely off base in my analysis. Meanwhile, there are a number of things in this settlement that raise my amateur hackles.

First, the process for determining who is and is not an actual abuse victim seems to me to be awfully vague:
Proof of Abuse. Within 30 days after written request therefor from the TCR [Tort Claimant Reviewer], each holder of a Tort Claim to be determined by the TCR shall complete under oath the Questionnaire, shall produce all records and documents requested by the TCR, shall consent to and cooperate in any examinations requested by the TCR and performed by health care professionals selected by the TCR, and shall consent to and cooperate in a written and/or oral examination under oath by the TCR. The TCR also may, but shall not be required to, obtain evidence from the Debtor, the Reorganized Debtor or any other party, and shall have all of the rights and powers of the Debtor to take discovery under Part VII of the Bankruptcy Rules. The TCR’s determination shall be made expeditiously. The extent to which the Federal Rules of Evidence will be applied by the TCR in assessing the credibility and competency of evidence shall be within the sole discretion of the TCR. The Federal Rules of Evidence, to the extent determined by the TCR to be applicable, shall be liberally construed to promote justice.

So essentially, the viability of a claim is at the sole discretion of the TCR. Not just whether it meets the standard of proof, but whether the standard of proof even applies, is up to her. She doesn't even have to allow the diocese to defend itself, or to require the claimant to show any evidence whatsoever. According to the next paragraph, the claimant may request reconsideration, but the diocese may not. It's like beating up a man with his hands tied behind his back. (What do you want to bet that "liberally construed to support justice" doesn't mean justice for the accused?)

The TCR that the settlement names is Katrina "Kate" Pflaumer, a former U. S. Attorney appointed by Bill Clinton. (There's an interesting article on her here.) I'd like to assume that she's not going to be overtly biased. But it's a lot of trust to place in one individual, however honest she may be. All the power is in her hands, and she's not bound by any rules.

How about the payouts? There's a complicated method for determining who gets how much, taking into account the kind of abuse, the age of the victim, and so on. But the rock-bottom minimum amount, for a single incident of self-exposure to a teenager, carries a $15,000 payment. Hello? Conceivably, you could get that by being at the next urinal, if he stops and shakes himself off too long. But let's assume that the exposure was deliberate (which is to say, assume that the TCR decides it was, since the Church doesn't get to say otherwise). Now, I know that sexual abuse is a subjective thing, and that it's hard to quantify, but I tell you what, if I could get fifteen grand for having seen a priest's old fellow when I was 17, I'd be a happy man. And the payments only go up from there.

How galling! As a child, I was taught some things that a boy doesn't need to know. (I don't think details are really necessary.) Nobody's showing up at my door with a wad of cash. But then, I was unlucky; no priests were involved. There's nobody I can sue that would do me any good. Meanwhile, I've never really suffered much from it. It's simply something that happened in my childhood. But dang, I could be rolling in rhino if I'd just known whom to be vulnerable to!

The real kickers are in the non-monetary section, though. Let's take a look at some of the provisions:
26.1 For a period of not less than 9 years after the Effective Date, the Debtor will post on the Diocesan web site the names of ALL known Spokane diocesan clergy, religious clergy not incardinated in the Spokane diocese who nevertheless were functioning as clergy in and for the Spokane diocese, and order clergy or religious who are admitted, proven or credibly accused perpetrators. [Emphasis mine.]

Nowhere do I find a definition of "credibly accused." So if the accusation isn't totally ludicrous (say, if the accused wasn't already dead at the time), then he will be presumed guilty and put on display as such for the next nine years. What that means in practical terms is that his career is over, as no parish will ever be able to have him in active ministry again. That's a hell of a thing to do to a guy who has spent his life serving the Church, such that he has no other marketable skills and (obviously) no family. But hey, at least it makes alleged victims feel better.

Oh, and that's another thing.
26.8 Debtor, and its representatives, will not refer either verbally or in print to the Claims of Tort Claimants as “alleged” Claims.

They're not alleged anymore, they're proven. By virtue of the claimants having said so.

Here's the one that really frosts my apricots:
26.5 Bishop Skylstad will publicly support a complete elimination of all criminal statutes of limitation for child sexual abuse.

Say what, now? Can that even be legal? Forcing him to support a specific political platform against his will? Why not just stick in a requirement that he vote only for Democrats from now on?

Not to mention the glaring conflict of interest there. Nobody else is required to support legislation that would have made incriminating himself easier. I know Bp. Skylstad isn't facing criminal prosecution, but what if he did down the road? Seems to me there's a definite Fifth Amendment problem here. Even if not, you couldn't require an environmentalist to support strip mining, or an NRA member to support gun control. The First Amendment should cover that; it's political speech.

And then there's the blatant conflict of interest in the media's coverage, and the harassment by the SNAPperheads. Think this will satisfy them? Don't bet on it. Now they effectively have a conviction against any priest in the diocese. It's like handing a wino a blank check.

This whole thing stinks worse than a waterfront brothel the morning after payday.

No comments: