I find it hard to believe that there assets could be tied up so harshly. Businesses are routinely found liable. It is a cost of doing business for many/ If you are a certain size, you can expect certain liabilities. No business would survive such a move. Adequate provison must be made but I find it difficult to believe it so black and white.
I don't know the CA law. Too many arm chair analysts are jumping in with threads without doing enough research. I am not pointing to this one in particular. Don't drink the fine, rare Scotch unti the appeal is settled.
Don't think of the WT but think of any org. in the same position. There are differen ttypes of appeals, too, with different frameworks. When a CA lawyer goes on record and says it is the case in this particular case, I will believe it.
Trial judges can be wrong. It smacks of unfairness to me. Of course, it is hard to think clearly when the WT is involved b/c they are so creepy.
The Philadelphia monsignor was found guilty on one charge today. If his criminal conviction is upheld, it could be the death knell for the WT policy as we know it. This is a new area of law. Unlless a legislature acts, I expect this field will move forward in spurts and then reversals.. The RC cases are going ahead. CA is a weird state in legal circles. Only a few years ago imposing liability on a nonactor would have seemed bizarre. Society is demading liability on nonactors who cover up and create a culture that favors pedophila.
Yes, I would like to see code citations and quotes to CA legal treatises.
I am casually involved in these cases b/c of this forum. Part of me wonders, respectfully, why these matters were not researched before the fact of the verdict. It would also be nice if we only four or five threads going so there was some sense of a central place to go rather than thirty threads.
It is exciting, though. Perhaps I was a defense lawyer for too long. If it is true, the Wt has it coming in a fairness point of view.
...OUTLAW