TTSOML #84: Discovery of Vicarious Liability of Archdiocese

In order to know how to file my claims, and whether certain things could "stick", I had to do research. I sat in on a couple of lawsuits which Gatti and Slader had filed.

I sat in on one for David Schmidt.

David was one of the bravest men in the whole child sex abuse litigation. He dared to go forward with his name and face,
and they tried to make him pay for it too. Others who filed suit wanted to keep it on the low, which is still admirable in the fact that they still dared to make a claim and try to hold someone accountable to begin with. However, with Schmidt's claim, he, as many other plaintiffs had, listed the Archdiocese as being vicariously liable for acts taken by clergy.

I am of the opinion, from what I've seen and then going through my own research, that the plaintiff's attorneys didn't care too much for making this tort of vicarious liability stick. Which makes me wonder, in retrospect, if it was just brought forward so it could be ruled against, setting a precedent for other future cases throughout the U.S.

What was happening in Oregon was setting precedents. It could determine how cases were decided thereafter. It was a strategy employed by the Catholic church to minimize their losses, and don't tell me some of the plaintiff's attorneys weren't working "with them" so to speak. I never would have believed such a thing, until I read about the case of Carrie Bell v. the State, where a case was brought forward for this very thing, to simply set precedent. I read this case after seeing what happened in the courts with the Portland Archdiocese case and the state cases which were being litigated before they got thrown into the bankruptcy case.

My question was: Is the Archdiocese liable for actions taken by clergy outside of the direct employ of the Archdiocese? Is there a connection between the A. and the parishes, and accountability? or were they really "not responsible" and had no supervisory role over parishes, religious schools, and monasteries and those who worked for these entities?

When I was at the Lewis & Clark law library, I found books of Canon law in the stacks. I had first read the main book, put forth by the Catholic church, but then I decided to go through the interpretation, from the eyes of the Catholic church.

There is Canon law. Then there is interpretation of canon law. Who better to go to, than the Canon law, and staunchly Catholic experts themselves? In the books of interpretation, Catholic scholars and even the pope himself had written opinions and directives on how to "read" their Canon law, in practical terms, what they meant on an everyday basis.

I told Christa about my findings. This was when, I believe, I started to become a threat (well, besides discovering Mary had never "crushed the heel of the serpent, and been immaculate, but that this referred to Christ and the church had a serious "goof" on their own record and in paintings from their own monks, in a church in Turkey).

I found out, from their own writings, that the Archdiocese was liable. But you'd never know it, to this day, because they buried that responsibility under the rug, and I thought it was strange that the plaintiff's attorneys didn't put up a fight over it. I saw the "fight" with my own eyes, and it wasn't a fight. It was more like, "we'll let you have this, if we can still get paid for the actual harm caused my client".

I believe deals, spoken and unspoken, were made.

I started making copies of what I was reading, and I took notes. Based on what I read, coming from the Catholic church's own interpretations, AND the regular common law on the books, the Archdiocese WAS vicariously liable for acts committed by the monks/priests I had known, despite the fact they worked at religious schools and a monastery. The Abbot was their direct supervisor, but the Archdiocese DOES ultimately have a supervisory role over the parishes, schools, and monastery. While monasteries used to report directly to The Holy See prior to Vatican II, after Vatican II, changes were made to the structure and not only that, to the interpretation of the structure. Pope John Paul II even admitted to such in a couple of his declarations.

So, I added "vicarious liability" to my complaint, even when I saw other cases brought by other plaintiff's attorneys were being dismissed. I had photocopied documents which proved vicarious liability, that no other plaintiff's attorney was bringing forward to the judge, and so I would do it. I thought it strange that I actually GAVE some of my research to these lawyers, to "help" them, and they still didn't use it.

What proves my point, to some degree, that what I had foudn was important, was the fact that one of the main judges for the church abuse cases, was also shocked by it and got a huge grin on his face. He knew what I knew, that this proved it, and it was from the church authorities.

Everytime I tried to file this information, something major happened to prevent me from doing so. Slashed tires, fax suddenly fries, problems with my computer, you name it.