Thanks James, I knew it was a snow job being how inaccurate it was but thank you for making it clear.
I doubt you like my methods ...but is all I've got.

I'd like people to read this Sipe Report and they may realise why I choose the method I do ....I can barely pay my phone/net bill so have to do what I can to get the message out.
http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_report_XX.htm
I've already had ex-senior police come to my home and call me a liar ...and told my wife I was dillusional.
Ex senior police working for Towards Healing ...introduced himself as Ex Inspector XXXX
Is how it is done hey? Stand over/bullying is their specialty. he did ring a few weeks later to tell me he had looked into it and I was correct .....didn't help the screaming matches I'd had with my wife ..she understands later but hurts all the same. ....he never apologised to her.

Totally sick of their bullshit...they being the jerks who reckon they run things.
sorry but is how it's become.

You are right James - thanks.

But what is the relevance of a moral issue to the responses of an Archdiocese and of an Archbishop, or Cardinal who is an Archbishop, in a legal situation ?

They would argue "none at all, we have an obligation to protect the Church and its assets" and behave as though that is true - yet they purport to provide spiritual and moral leadership to the community.

Again I say "Bah Humbug!"

I'll just say again ....would somebody send Katrina Lee a copy of Chrissies book please. I've given all mine away /loaned gone.

I don't know how you would encourage her to read it ...maybe suggest she read the book from a mothers point of view and not someone reading for the bar.

If you are reading Katrina ...wouldn't hurt to read this also ...please know that I only wish you to understand.
http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=97936

If anyone believes that the administration of the property trust is completely separate from the administration of the Archdiocese, then I can sell them a slightly used “coat-hanger” bridge very cheaply.

Jim,

It is not unusual for individuals to wear two legal hats. You can own your own house and business, and at the same time be the trustee of yourlate next door neighbour's estate. If your business goes bad and you get sued by your creditors, your next door neighbour's estate does not come into it, and cannot be used to pay off your creditors.

In the same way, an Archbishop is an individual. He may be the one who as a individual appoints and supervises priests, but it also possible that the trustees of the property trust might too, thereby acquiring vicarious liability. However, there is nothing in the Roman Catholic Church Property Trust 1936 that gives them an express power to do that. Whether or not they have the power anyway under the Trustee Act is something that would require some further research, and it may well be that the Archdiocese has been advised that it can't mix the functions anyway.

That is not the real moral problem that arises under Ellis's case, because the court found as a fact that in the Sydney Archdiocese they didn't mix them. Now, assuming there was such a power to mix them, and they didn't, I suppose you could say that it was taking advantage of an opportunity of saving itself a significant sum of money arising from victim's claims.

But the real moral issue arises from the fact that no diocese has to rely on the Ellis defence, and Newcastle, to its credit, hasn't.

I will leave it up to others to judge the morality of the two positions.

Let me go through the Press Release issued by Katrina Lee

It is untrue and a serious misunderstanding of the facts to claim that Catholic bodies and officials cannot be sued by victims of sexual abuse.

No one that I know has ever suggested that individuals cannot be sued. A priest who sexually asssaults anyone can be sued in civil proceedings for damages. Assumng there is an employment relationship with the bishop, the bishop can be sued, individually, under the principles of vicarious liability.

But what does Katrina mean by "Catholic bodies"? There is no such thing as a "Catholic body" in law, unless it has been incorporated under Australian law. The law only recognizes two legal entities, individuals and corporations, which are fictional persons created by law. Even when there is a trust in place, the trustees can be sued, and they might be individuals, or they might be corporations set up under the law.

That was the whole point of the Ellis defence. There is no such thing in law as "the Archdiocese of Sydney". It is not an individual, and it is not a corporation. It doesn't exist in law, and so cannot be sued.

The Church is committed to ensuring that victims are treated justly and with compassion and respect. This is a first priority for the Archdiocese of Sydney. It is false to claim that the Church has organised its affairs to avoid its responsibilities to victims. It is false and mischievous to suggest that the Church does not respond to victims without the threat of huge financial liabilities.

The third sentence is true. The Archdiocese has not organised its affairs to avoid responsibilities to victims in these same sense as James Hardie did with the asbestos victims. It didn't have to. It was handed the opportunity on a plate by the Roman Catholic Church Property Trust Act 1936. That Act allowed the Church to hold its property under a corporate trust.

Under S.3, the trustee of the Church property is the bishop of the particular diocese and his "diocesan consultors".

Under S.4, the trustees are deemed to be a "corporation", ie a separate legal entity to the bishop and to his diocesan consultors.

The powers of the trustees are set out in S.9 and are confined to dealing with Church property. There is certainly no specific power to appoint and supervise priests, but in any event, it is clear from Ellis's case (and Katrina Lee's response) that the trustees for the Sydney Archdiocese did not do so anyway.

Any suggestion that the Archdiocese uses the property trust to avoid its responsibilities to victims is simply untrue. The facts are that the property trust, established in 1936, has no role in appointing or supervising priests.

It depends what you mean by "responsibilities". If you mean legal responsibilities, the statement is true because the Archdiocese as such cannot have legal responsibilities because at law it doesn't exist. As the Court of Appeal pointed out in Ellis's case, the "Archdiocese" is an unincorporated association that is not recognized as a separate legal entity to the indivduals involved in it. The only people who can have responsibilities are the individuals in charge at the time the assaults occurred.

Accepting that the property trust has no role in appointing priests, then who does do the appointing or supervising of priests? The bishop at the time in his personal capacity and not in his role as one of the people who make up the property trust, a separate legal entity. So he is the only one who can be sued. In the Ellis case, the bishop was Cardinal Freeman, now resting in peace in the crypt of St. Mary's Cathedral. If he had any assets, they would have been distributed a long time ago, with no recourse against his estate.

That was the whole point of the Ellis defence. Ellis had no one to sue. Bad luck, Ellis, no matter how badly he was abused, no matter how much damage he suffered as a result, and no matter how much Cardinal Freeman knew about the priest's activities.

This is not a technicality. Those responsible for appointing and supervising church workers who commit abuse can be sued, and the Archdiocese is not aware of any evidence to suggest that Church agencies or officials in Australia have ever avoided paying damages awarded against them.

Law is technical. It has to be if we are to have a rule of law. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Ellis cannot be faulted. It applied the law as it is written. But when lay people use the term "technicality", what they are really saying is that the result is grossly unfair - that the law should not be like that, and that one Archbishop, when he takes over from a predecessor, should take responsibility for the decisions made by his predecessors. The Ellis defense makes the consecration of a new bishop or Archbishop sound like it is the settlement of the sale of a business where the new owner doesn't incur the debts of the vendor.

The Archdiocese provides victims with financial assistance, often at a significant level, counselling and ongoing pastoral support. Whatever the legal position in any particular case, the Archdiocese of Sydney accepts its responsibility when victims of abuse seek damages through legal proceedings and when liability or potential liability is clear.

In situations where there is a dispute in civil society, it is an independent body, a court or an arbitrator, who decides whether liability is "clear". It is not the function of one of the parties to determine that. But this is the effect of the Ellis defence. The Archdiocese decides whether or not "liability is clear." It is really a matter for its own discretion, something that no other corporation or indivdual has in our society.

In such cases our strong preference is for proceedings to be settled, rather than requiring victims to litigate matters in the courts to final judgement, and so pay expensive lawyers. Our focus is on assisting victims and telling the truth, rather than misrepresenting the facts.

I cannot comment on the practice or otherwise of the Sydney Archdiocese in individual cases. But in 40 years of experience as a litigator and mediator, any lawyer worth his salt knows that whether through direct negotiation or through mediation, the ultimate outcome of a settlement always depends on how the lawyers representing the disputing parties see their chances of winning or losing in court. And if the complainant has no chance of winning because of the Ellis defence, then the only alternative is to go away with nothing, or accept some "go away money".

If the numbers referred to in the Shoebridge report are correct, an investment of some $700,000 in the Ellis case has saved the Church at least $60,000,000. That is a bare minimum, because it also has the effect of requiring lawyers acting for abused people to advise them that if the priest and bishop are dead, and their estates wound up, there is no chance of recovery.

See http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=103922

A final comment: Katrina Lee's media release is the sort of thing that one would expect in a press release from BHP Billeton or the Commonwealth Bank or Telstra, that have an obligation to shareholders to protect the company's assets in accordance with the law. If an Ellis type defence were available to them, they would have an obligation to the shareholders to rely on it. The Church has no such obligation. There are no shareholders.

The Diocese of Newcastle, however, seems to accept that the Church is not just a business and that a bishop who succeeds another should honour the liabilities of his departed predecessor, if such liabilities are established in court. There is no obligation on any diocese to rely on the Ellis defence, which has the effect of stopping proceedings from even commencing, rather than using the proceedings to see whether or not the allegations are well founded.

I somehow get the impression, that most fair minded Australian would see the spirit of the Nazarene wandering around Lake Macquarie much more than on Sydney Harbour.

The Sydney Archdiocese’s press release includes several items that are technically constrained representations of the situation that need further clarification:

Dispute is certainly possible regarding the statement: “Any suggestion that the Archdiocese uses the property trust to avoid its responsibilities to victims is simply untrue.”
In the Ellis case, the Archdiocese most certainly did exploit the structures of the Archdiocese to avoid any Archdiocesan responsibility. It did not establish or change those structures (“organise its affairs”) explicitly to avoid its responsibilities, but it certainly exploited the arrangement of its affairs to do so.
There could be a contention as to the Archdiocesan responsibility in cases where the abuser was not a diocesan priest, yet all clergy are directly authorised by the ordinary (Archbishop) to minister in the Archdiocese. That authorisation ought therefore include responsibility for malfeasance in the exercise of that authorised ministry.

The Archdiocese argues that the property trust has no role in appointing or supervising priests, and that “those responsible… can be sued”. However the exploitation of that separation of the church’s assets from the responsible management implies that the real controller of those assets (the Archbishop) is also completely separated from the functions of managing the clergy ministering under his authority. That is quite illogical and would be ridiculed if a similar separation were claimed or exploited by any other organisation (e.g. a tobacco or asbestos company).

To argue that “the Archdiocese is not aware of any evidence to suggest that Church agencies or officials in Australia have ever avoided paying damages awarded against them” is irrelevant.
Of course that very constrained statement is true but, by exploiting the “Ellis defense” the Sydney Archdiocese managed to avoid award of damages against them. That is the point the Archbishop, and his publicists and lawyers evade – that exploitation of a legal fiction is used to avoid the award of damages.

If anyone believes that the administration of the property trust is completely separate from the administration of the Archdiocese, then I can sell them a slightly used “coat-hanger” bridge very cheaply. The Archdiocese has plentiful resources to fund legal defenses, and Domus Australia, but cries “poor” whenever just compensation for criminal damage is mentioned. As Scrooge says well “Bah humbug!”

Hello Brian,

I am sorry to worry you but there are recent postings which I feel I must correct and as I am not a registered user I cannot post them myself however perhaps you can do this for me.

This is the only comment I will be making as I do not think it is either positive for myself or the other person involved to continue this way.

It concerns three postings this morning with the heading Katrina Lee and they have been posted by "Roy" although he told me during a telephone conversation he was name was Michael. He gave my further details but I do not think it is appropriate for me to provide those.

Michael wanted to talk about a recent media release from this office (Archdiocese of Sydney, Communications Department) and I was happy to do so. I tried to provide some background before being cut off. The release went out on Monday following requests from several media organisations after incorrect claims by a NSW MP.

"Technical" and "technicalities" were not my words but those used my Michael and I certainly have never, and would never use such a statement. The same with "No victims are missing out". I never made this comment or statement. I also don't believe I ramble or rant. I managed to ask a couple of questions, for example "Was that Victoria.." and acknowledged my listening with a "yes.."

Unfortunately Michael decided to hang up on me so the rather one-sided conversation was cut short. Nonetheless I did not find this a waste of time as unfortunately Michael obviously did.

With so much to be concerned about it is unfortunate that firstly private conversations are reported, and inaccurately, and that facts continue to be misrepresented – which was the whole point of the media release in the first place and which I produce below.

Thank you

UNTRUE AND SERIOUS MISUNDERSTANDING Of LEGAL PROCEEDINGS FOR DAMAGES BY VICTIMS OF ABUSE

It is untrue and a serious misunderstanding of the facts to claim that Catholic bodies and officials cannot be sued by victims of sexual abuse. The Church is committed to ensuring that victims are treated justly and with compassion and respect. This is a first priority for the Archdiocese of Sydney. It is false to claim that the Church has organised its affairs to avoid its responsibilities to victims. It is false and mischievous to suggest that the Church does not respond to victims without the threat of huge financial liabilities.

Any suggestion that the Archdiocese uses the property trust to avoid its responsibilities to victims is simply untrue. The facts are that the property trust, established in 1936, has no role in appointing or supervising priests. This is not a technicality. Those responsible for appointing and supervising church workers who commit abuse can be sued, and the Archdiocese is not aware of any evidence to suggest that Church agencies or officials in Australia have ever avoided paying damages awarded against them. The Archdiocese provides victims with financial assistance, often at a significant level, counselling and ongoing pastoral support.

Whatever the legal position in any particular case, the Archdiocese of Sydney accepts its responsibility when victims of abuse seek damages through legal proceedings and when liability or potential liability is clear. In such cases our strong preference is for proceedings to be settled, rather than requiring victims to litigate matters in the courts to final judgement, and so pay expensive lawyers. Our focus is on assisting victims and telling the truth, rather than misrepresenting the facts.

Those responsible for appointing and supervising church workers who commit abuse can be sued, and the Archdiocese is not aware of any evidence to suggest that Church agencies or officials in Australia have ever avoided paying damages awarded against them. The Archdiocese provides victims with financial assistance, often at a significant level, counselling and ongoing pastoral support.

She can say that again ....I informed her of my plight, which she acknowledge with 'But that is Victoria'

She may have forgotten she said in her statement
....any evidence to suggest that Church agencies or officials in Australia ....

technical point I know

Have to feel sorry for the lass, she is just as misled as my mum.
So sad that all these women are used to front their orgs etc.
I saw the same thing at the catholic CentaCare in bendigo .....all so dedicated

just add I did suggest she speaak to Chris Riley ..whom she acknowledged ....and I went on the say he cleaned up Boystown ..she ackn/ ....about him tipping out Evans ...she ackn/ .....pleaded with her to speak with Chris ...no response.
She was listening though

...ah dear, basically a waste of time .....but couldn't let it go.
Do hope Katrina finds her way ....and doesn't have her super tangled in their system.
Run your own super is my advise

the article/doc

UNTRUE AND SERIOUS MISUNDERSTANDING Of LEGAL PROCEEDINGS FOR DAMAGES BY VICTIMS OF ABUSE

It is untrue and a serious misunderstanding of the facts to claim that Catholic bodies and officials cannot be sued by victims of sexual abuse. The Church is committed to ensuring that victims are treated justly and with compassion and respect. This is a first priority for the Archdiocese of Sydney.

It is false to claim that the Church has organised its affairs to avoid its responsibilities to victims. It is false and mischievous to suggest that the Church does not respond to victims without the threat of huge financial liabilities.

Any suggestion that the Archdiocese uses the property trust to avoid its responsibilities to victims is simply untrue. The facts are that the property trust, established in 1936, has no role in appointing or supervising priests. This is not a technicality.

Those responsible for appointing and supervising church workers who commit abuse can be sued, and the Archdiocese is not aware of any evidence to suggest that Church agencies or officials in Australia have ever avoided paying damages awarded against them. The Archdiocese provides victims with financial assistance, often at a significant level, counselling and ongoing pastoral support.

Whatever the legal position in any particular case, the Archdiocese of Sydney accepts its responsibility when victims of abuse seek damages through legal proceedings and when liability or potential liability is clear.
In such cases our strong preference is for proceedings to be settled, rather than requiring victims to litigate matters in the courts to final judgement, and so pay expensive lawyers. Our focus is on assisting victims and telling the truth, rather than misrepresenting the facts.
For further information:
Katrina Lee
Director of Catholic Communications
Archdiocese of Sydney
Phone: 9390 5304
Mobile: 0403 950652
Email: katrina.lee@sydneycatholic.org

I just got through to Katrina and asked her to explain the doc

She started up about Shoebridges statements and assertions are 'technically' incorrect!

....I started to loose it about the 'technical' bullshit and told her so!
.....where is the compassion for the abused???

She foolishly tried to tell me 'No victims are missing out!'

geesus!!! So I just implored her to speak with Angela Ryan .....and to save herself future heartache, just speak with Angela.

I rang off with her rambling on about 'technical this and technical that! Another women bites the dust.

The only people who will benefit from this now are the bloody legal arseholes who set this all up in the first place!!

I can honestly say I have not used nor paid a solicitor nor barrister in this ....and proud of it!
They are the scum of the earth in my opinion.

Just rang Katrina Lee to warn her about not going down that path to destruction.
I know it's mentioned here somewhere but this will do.

Just wanted to warn her and advise her to ring Angela Ryan for some advise before she starts speaking 'fior the fathers'
...can only end in tears.

But anyway I was put on hold and then it came back I was put through to an answering machine .....so I just left her an invitation to ring Angela.
Though it only fair as these guys have screwed up too many womens lives now without adding another.

Doc Here