Not per se, no. There’s a world of detail in that “if they so desire.”
As usual Bricker give us the party line and misses out key details. Ever heard of “piercing the corporate veil” ? Its possible not only just to hold the parent company liable but to personally charge officers and “shareholders”.
Quote:
“In English criminal law there have been cases in which the courts have been prepared to pierce the veil of incorporation”. Australia follows almost exactly the same system as England / UK in criminal law.
This type of corporate law is extremely complicated and expensive to litigate but it is possible. And frankly you win no friends for the Catholic Church by this argument that it is entitled to use these kind of corporate tricks to avoid liability. In fact keep going, you’re just making them look slimier and slimier by your own words Bricker.
That’s especially true if the parent organization’s entire claimed purpose is to provide moral leadership. If you have to ignore morality and resort to lawyer tricks to defend it, isn’t it time to pause, step back, and reassess?
Yes, I have heard the phrase once or twice.
As a general rule, the necessary conditions for piercing the corporate veil are abuses of the corporate form such as dodging service of process (Comprehensive Sports Planning, Inc. v. Pleasant Valley Country Club, 341 N.Y.S.2d 914 (1973) as a good example), flimsy under-capitalization (* Minton v. Cavaney*, 364 P.2d 473 (1961), no true corporate directors (DeWitt Truck Brokers v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit CoH, and the like.
Since you mention the law, then, can you explain what specific factors here are consistent with previous court decisions to pierce the corporate veil?
I have no particular interest in convincing you of any moral issue. But from a factual standpoint, your posts have been abysmal. I intend to continue to highlight the lack of factual accuracy in your posts without the slightest worry that I am making anyone beyond you look bad. Or slimy.
You’re only succeeding in making yourself look like an anally retentive twat and the Catholic church look like some kind of dodgy pyramid scheme, in which the founders fly off to Belize leaving their underlings to face criminal charges.
Anyway, oops, today is not your day. Seems Friars from a Franciscan order (which originated as a branch of Catholicism) have just today been charged with knowingly turning a blind eye to sexual abuse. This case is the first of its kind and will no doubt set a precedent for international judiciary to refer to.
You can can bet that the Australian Royal Commission will take notice of this case in forming it’s own recommendations. As I said Bricker, there’s a first time for everything.
What portion of this case relates to piercing the corporate veil or finding the Vatican liable? The case you linked to involves three leaders of the Franciscan Friars being charged for what they did, and failed to do, with assignments given to a Franciscan order priest. What specific aspects of this case do you believe are relevant to the foregoing discussions?
Ok if you can’t make the connection then you are really an idiot instead of pretending to be one. A precedent has been set that could allow Cardinal Pell to face criminal charges for turning a blind eye to the abuse of priests who were re-assigned and shuffled around under his watch. Yes you will have some legal argument why they are not comparable, but the law is not just a series of unbending facts, its shaped by precedent which is partly political and partly social, something you seem incapable of understanding.
Oh, I see… we’ve moved back to Pell facing criminal charges.
Well, let’s talk about criminal law.
I don’t know a great amount about Australian law, but a fundamental principle in American criminal law is the prohibition against ex post facto criminal liability.
What does that mean? It means that if you commit an act of mopery in December 2014, and the people are outraged because there is no law against mopery, the legislature may well, as a result of your example, pass a law in January 2015 against mopery.
But – you can’t be charged under that law for your actions in December. Of course, should you commit mopery again in February 2015, you’re liable for criminal conviction. But the legislature cannot retroactively create a crime.
This is not a rule that I believe is in serious danger of change from “partly social,” pressure.
Do you understand so far?
I have not researched this in detail, but there also may be statute of limitations problems here. Although maybe not – the statute clock is tolled when the accused leaves the state, and all three of the accused here were living outside Pennsylvania as of 2016. I have no idea how long, though.
In any event, a grand jury indictment is not difficult to obtain.
Ok Bricker, I admit I am not a lawyer so I do not have a detailed knowledge of the exact laws that you do. However it is my understanding from reading the royal commission that Pell could face charges, I am not sure exactly which charges those are yet. The wheels of justice turn slowly but they do turn.
And here’s another useful item, a former melbourne Vicar general has claimed publically that the Melbourne diocese has secret ‘red files’ on child abuse and called on the Royal Commision to subpoena them.
Oops, another bad day for Pell.
From your link:
Pell acted illegally! We know this because … er… he acted too legalistically!
The careless way you read and comprehend is almost funny. The former vicar general didn’t say anything publicly. Ms. Last said that the former vicar general told her something which she is now repeating publicly.
But Australia is free to subpoena whatever files they wish.
Theres a bumper sticker “abstinence makes the church grow fondlers”. You want to end priest abuse? How about get rid of the requirement priests be celibate. It’s a recent (in RCC terms) requirement, it only started in the middle ages, there’s no justification for it in biblical writings.
Allow RCC priests to marry and you’ll solve the problem of declining numbers of people wanting to be priests and be less likely to attract diddlers at the same time (or be forced to tolerate them because its pretty damn hard to recruit when “never getting to have sex or have a child” is a requirement). There would still be plenty of room for voluntarily celibacy for particular devout priests or monastic orders.
My understanding is that the majority of criminal convictions in the United States for child molestation are of men that are married or in heteronormative adult sexual relationships.
Can you reconcile this fact with your belief that ending the celibacy requirement for priests will end, or meaningfully reduce, abuse by priests?
Bricker, I’ve enjoyed following your side of this discussion. I’m not ready to convert; Athe has her hooks too deep in me.
Happy Easter/Felices Pascuas!
Let us rejoice and be glad!
Bzzt. Fail. My argument was that the RCC had to tolerate pedophiles in the 70s / 80s because it was so hard to recruit people that agreed to lifelong celibacy. Open up recruitment of priests to married people and women and all of a sudden you’ll have plenty of recruits and you can bin the pedophiles without having a shortage of priests.
Do you contend this problem still exists now?
I personally believe that people with a strong Catholic background struggling with their sexuality will be attracted to the priesthood just because an asexual lifestyle will make sexuality a moot point. “Am I a monster?” is not a question you’d expect to need to face.
So if you’re a paedophile who is in denial about your inclinations, the priesthood will look pretty good: on the one hand, you get to escape facing the fact that you have unhealthy impulses, and on the other hand, you get to hang out with children unsupervised. It’s the perfect institution to attract paedophiles, actually.
Bricker, your entire Schtick is to ignore correct points people make and pounce on trivial irrelevant inaccuracies and then claim that makes the entire argument invalid. It’s a boring tedious game and I’m not interested in playing anymore. My critiques of the RCC are valid and many millions of people agree with me. Either the RCC will do genuine reform or it will continue to decline in worshipper numbers in the western world.
That’s ultimately what it all comes down to, yes. And the Church will no doubt choose a slow death over genuine reform.