Lawyers for New Orleans clergy abuse survivors ramp up pressure to depose archbishop
A group of attorneys representing clergy abuse survivors is ramping up pressure to get the archbishop of New Orleans, Gregory Aymond, under oath before a judge decides whether to kick the church out of bankruptcy.
Lawyers for hundreds of survivors filed a motion Wednesday to end the church's Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, a day before the fifth anniversary of a case that's paid none of about 500 survivors but has cost the archdiocese around $45m in legal and professional fees.
The survivors' request to dismiss the bankruptcy also comes a day after the federal bankruptcy judge overseeing the case, Meredith Grabill, ordered the archdiocese to appear in court on 26 June to show why she shouldn't simply end the bankruptcy.
But by filing their own motion to dismiss the case, the group of survivors trigger a 30-day deadline for an open hearing on the matter. And a smaller group of the same attorneys, representing dozens of survivors, argue in a separate filing Wednesday that a deposition of Aymond is 'both relevant and necessary' and should happen sometime in mid-to-late-May.
Aymond was scheduled to be questioned under oath about his role in the clergy abuse crisis, but his testimony was halted, along with about three dozen civil lawsuits pending against the church, when the archdiocese filed for bankruptcy protection on 1 May 2020.
The new request to put Aymond on the stand – filed by attorneys Soren Gisleson, Richard Trahant, John Denenea, Desirée Charbonnet, Craig Robinson and Frank D'Amico – alleges the archbishop mismanaged the bankruptcy and acted in bad faith to stall the case while other Catholic institutions tried, unsuccessfully, to get courts to overturn a state law that allows victims of decades-old abuse to file new lawsuits.
'Aymond's gross mismanagement of the estate and bad faith prosecution of the bankruptcy requires dismissal of the bankruptcy,' the filing alleges.
The archdiocese responded to the new court filings with a statement arguing that they didn't raise any new issues.
'We were surprised by this inflammatory pleading in light of the court's action to address this issue earlier this week,' the statement said, referring to Grabill's order Tuesday.
The church also argued that dismissing the bankruptcy would 'only serve to benefit a select few individuals represented by the lawyers seeking dismissal of this case, with any potential recovery for those individuals years away'.
If the bankruptcy is dismissed, dozens of cases filed before May 2020 would be unfrozen and more than 500 claimants from the bankruptcy case would have the option to file individual lawsuits against the church to seek larger damages than they might have gotten through a negotiated global settlement.
Any settlement would have created a scale for payments based on how much proof each claimant has of contact with a priest when they were children and the severity of the abuse they allegedly suffered.
On the other hand, a settlement might have included some payments to survivors who wouldn't otherwise be able to present enough proof in an individual civil lawsuit to be awarded a judgment against the church.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
15 hours ago
- Spectator
Henry VIII turned England upside down
Henry VIII, who was born on this day in 1509, is the only English monarch other than William the Conqueror who can claim to have destroyed a society and replaced it with a new one. Catholic apologists like Chesterton are right to see in the Henry VIII saga a sort of secular apocalypse; it was, in Chesterton's words, the 'dissolution of the whole of the old civilisation'. The new England that grew up in its place – by Henry's unwitting patronage – was alien, denatured, dislocating, and altogether more worthwhile than the one that had gone before it. The story of Henry VIII's is the story of an eccentric clique capturing society and recasting it in its own image. From 1529-47 nearly all of England's historic institutions were destroyed. All the things that had given life its shape and meaning were junked: the monasteries torn down and their assets made off with; guilds suppressed; commons enclosed (a fitful attempt by Cardinal Wolsey to reverse this notwithstanding); old customary rights stamped out; the cosmopolitan link to Europe severed. The old mediaeval learning was torn up by its roots and the universities refounded in the study of the Classics. It was England's version of Jacobinism. English society became a series of regulated games in which the prizes were glory and renown But unlike Jacobinism, Henry-ism had no popular backing to speak of. One man's ego; a handful of religious extremists; a few dodgy Giulliani-esque attorneys. These were sufficient to turn the world upside down. Everything that happened in those years happened in the face of settled custom, settled opinion, so-called common sense. The forces that would dominate English life for the next 400 years – Hellenic revival and religious radicalism – were alien ones, the preserve of this small Henrician circle. The reign of Henry VIII was about the conquest of reality by dreams. The England that it gave rise to would recognise no limits but the limits of its own whimsy. The most cherished of these whimsies was Hellenism. Henry VIII's new grammar schools and his reformed universities created a governing elite that looked more to classical Greece and Rome than to the society around them. This is something that went well beyond 'revival' – what took place after 1509 amounted to the splicing of England with the classical world. Later figures like Byron, Charles James Fox, or Alan Clark are unexplainable unless we account for the shrewd paganism that's prevailed in the national psyche since Henry's reign. Grecian stone urns in the badlands of Northumberland, Temples to Venus in Stowe: these were the physical symbols of an alien civilisation being grafted onto the old one. British people were still exclaiming the name Jove at the end of the twentieth century. There are now all kinds of debates about what Britishness really means: 'pretending to be Greek' is probably the best answer. Another cadge from ancient Greece was the spirit of agon – competition. Mediaeval English society was a web of mutual obligations in which everyone had a place. Henricianism destroyed this and replaced it with a competitive free-for-all. Much like classical Greece, English society became a series of regulated games in which the prizes were glory and renown. The England that Henry VIII created was the first to adopt school entrance exams, stock exchanges, adversarial lawyering, markets. It would also invent the Queensberry Rules, along with most of the world's sports. What all these have in common is that they're made-up conflicts regulated by intricate sets of rules and codes of honour. Westminster became the most dazzling game of all. Henry VIII's reign saw the beginning of the process by which parliament was transformed from a boring Diet of burghers into an arena for people's ambitions. As Lewis Namier tells us, by the 18th century, people came to parliament not to represent interests but to cut a figure. Westminster, too, now accepted no limit on its powers of creative invention. The middle ages, viewed one way, was a series of interminable legal disputes between kings, barons and the Church over their rights and the proper scope of authority. The Statute in Restraint of Appeals (1532) called time on all this. In establishing parliamentary sovereignty, it declared that life would no longer turn on precedent-scraping and wrangling over fixed 'rights' that seemed to come from nowhere; that we might, instead, debate and decide things on their merits, revealed to us through reason. The Statute in its full meaning was a thunderclap from the heavens: one of the great triumphs of the human spirit. The social order Henry created had to make unprecedented concessions to talent. Jacob Burkhardt tells us that the tyrants of Renaissance Italy, being illegitimate, could not rely on the church or the aristocracy to help them and had to instead turn to talented individuals of humble origin. Henry faced a similar dilemma: his claim to the English throne was shaky and the break with Rome had made him an international outlaw. It was this isolation that gave rise to 'new men' like Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Audley, Richard Rich, William Paget, and – in the reign of Elizabeth – William Cecil. What began as a temporary expedient soon became a permanent part of the social system. For the next several centuries anyone who was good at their job in England was simply ennobled and made part of the Establishment. With this act, Henry VIII set off the primordial conflict between the 'new men' and the old aristocracy that would shape the country's history for the next 300 years. After the fall of the Pittite regime – the last great flowering of the new men – the cabinet of the Earl Gray (the most blue-blooded in living memory) would pass the Reform Bill of 1832 as a means to finally flush out their old class enemy, birthing liberal democracy in Britain largely out of spite. Amid all this, Henry seems like a man out of time, eerily out of place in his own age. He appears to us as a Subjective Man of the 19th century – full of introspection, rumination, and self-reproach. In him we can see all the defining traits of a modern person. The capacity for romantic love. The prickly amour-propre. The consuming neediness. Henry is familiar to us in a way that the Sun King Louis XIV – who lived 150 years later – is not. When Henry VIII came to the throne, England was a normal European country. By 1700 it was a lunar landscape: its countryside a work of complete artifice, with shaped topiaries, carved hedges and artificial lakes; blasted heaths created by deforestation; farmers replaced with sheep by Act of Parliament; dotted everywhere with imitation Greco-Roman temples. Its neighbours thought its people were dangerous lunatics and had only recently ceased to treat it as a rogue state. By pure will, England had been made as remote and peripheral to the continent as Russia. Does the England that Henry VIII created still exist? The grammar schools have largely been abolished and the last of England's pagan virtues were exorcised by New Labour. The country is once again ruled by dull landowners who believe in human rights. One part remains. Parliamentary sovereignty – the master-mechanism of Henry's system – is still in operation. If the English people should ever tire of their 'Rolls Royce' institutions, their fixed international obligations, or what's being demanded of them in the name of human rights, then they, uniquely in the western world, have the ready means to change them. It'll be there to hand – should the English ever want to turn the world upside down again. The idea that we can examine the values and systems by which we're ruled, find them wanting, and choose different ones; or, really, the idea that the world belongs to the living. That is Henry's ultimate bequest.
The Herald Scotland
16 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Justin Tucker suspension: Everyone loses as ex-Ravens kicker penalized
And, yeah, some rookie you've never heard of is going to benefit from the fact that Baltimore had already cut ties with Tucker, creating an open job to compete for in training camp. But there are no winners from this sad saga. There are most definitely losers, though, and they are as follows: Justin Tucker Duh. On the one hand, he ought to be grateful the NFL's announcement was, per usual, devoid of details regarding his violation of the league's personal conduct policy. And unlike the penalty the league levied against Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson three years ago, in what can only be described as similar circumstances - at the time, 24 women had filed civil suits against him involving allegations of sexual misconduct during massage therapy sessions - Tucker has not been fined nor ordered to undergo treatment or an evaluation. Watson was and had to pay $5 million. But Tucker is radioactive. Last season was decidedly the worst of his 13-year career. Still the most accurate kicker in NFL history, he converted a career-low 73.3% of his field-goal attempts. It gave the Ravens a convenient excuse to cut a 35-year-old who was at the top of his positional compensation scale. And in light of the sexual misconduct allegations made by Baltimore-area massage therapists for incidents that reportedly occurred between 2012 and 2016, no team was likely to touch Tucker before the league completed its investigation into the matter - and there will undoubtedly be less consideration for him now given he won't be eligible to return until Nov. 11. But this runs deeper. Again, the NFL didn't offer details as to why it had suspended Tucker, though The Baltimore Banner reported them in spades. All the while, Tucker, a practicing Catholic, has denied them, characterizing the website's reporting as "unequivocally false" - yet also won't appeal his suspension. Take that for what it's worth. At this point, it seems unlikely Tucker plays in the NFL again. And what appears to be the final chapter of his once enviable career has probably delivered a fatal broadside to his Hall of Fame candidacy given the high bar his position already demanded. In a statement issued last month and attributed to executive vice president and GM Eric DeCosta, he said, "Sometimes football decisions are incredibly difficult, and this is one of those instances," when explaining why the Ravens released Tucker with three years left on his four-year, $22 million extension. Anyone paying more than a scintilla of attention knew the move involved far more calculus than that, but that's how the Ravens chose to frame it. They missed the mark. This is the same organization that was spotlit by the Ray Rice situation in 2014, when the team's top running back was seen on video assaulting his fiancee in an elevator. He was eventually released and never played another NFL snap after being indefinitely suspended. Following the issuance of Watson's penalty in 2022, head coach John Harbaugh said of the Ravens' stance about player misconduct, "Basically, we're kind of zero tolerance. You have to know the truth, you have to try to understand the circumstances, but we've stayed away from that particular situation - when we draft players, when we sign them as free agents. "I'm glad that we have that policy." (For what it's worth, the Ravens just spent a second-round pick on linebacker Mike Green, who's been accused of sexual assault multiple times in the past.) More: Opinion: NFL's suspension of kicker Justin Tucker is essentially a guilty verdict Any profession has people who are less-than-savory characters. The NFL is no different, but its scandals make headlines that members of Fortune 500 companies (or far less notable ones) rarely draw. It's just baffling the Ravens - a well-run, first-rate organization by nearly every other measure, on or off the field - would further jeopardize their brand. They undoubtedly carefully parsed their announcement signaling Tucker's departure. DeCosta also thanked him for his "many contributions" to the franchise (meaning its win total). It's fine that the club took its time before cutting the cord while doing its own due diligence on the matter. But given the circumstances, "The Ravens have released Justin Tucker" always seemed to be about the extent of what he deserved. The victims In the event crystal clarity is needed here, victims are not "losers." But the NFL's verdict offers further credence that they've lost too much. According to The Banner's reporting, 16 massage therapists from eight local spas shared horror stories about Tucker's alleged misconduct. It's important to note he has not been charged with a crime, and the statute of limitations in Maryland to file a civil action against him is long past. Sadly, this is often how it goes whenever women are exploited. They won't see a penny in the aftermath of their trauma, which could be very difficult to escape for the balance of their lives. Nobody's lost more than them, and that can't be forgotten. All NFL news on and off the field. Sign up for USA TODAY's 4th and Monday newsletter.
Daily Record
a day ago
- Daily Record
Falkirk council strip religious representatives of education voting rights
The council agreed that the three religious representatives could still take part in debates, but that the decision making powers should rest with elected members. Falkirk Council has voted to remove the voting rights of the religious representatives on its executive when discussing education matters. At a meeting of the full council yesterday (Thursday) members agreed that the three religious representatives will still be welcome to take part in debates but will no longer be able to vote. Councillors said they wanted to ensure that major decisions - such as whether a school should be closed or not - should only be taken by democratically elected members who are fully accountable to the public. At the meeting, deputation was made on behalf of Archbishop Leo Cushley and the Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh. Declan McGavin read a statement from Archbishop Cushley which said the presence of a Catholic representative was the result of "a long-standing partnership between church and state that was not built on power but trust". He added: "Taking away our vote and effectively our input into matters relating to Catholic education would be a great betrayal of that trust. "To strip our representatives of their vote while retaining their right to speak sends a message to the community and says to us that your voice will be heard but it will not count." In a written submission to the council, David Seel, who represents the Evangelical group of churches also expressed concerns. He said: "Removing voting rights from religious reps—when we are often among the most experienced, engaged, and constructive members of these committees—sends a damaging message: that the only voices worth listening to are elected or secular. This is narrow, not inclusive." But members of Falkirk Council stressed that the experience of the religious representatives would still be valued. Proposing the cross-party motion, SNP councillor Iain Sinclair said: "The motion makes clear that in removing voting rights, we do not seek to diminish the voice of religious representatives. "To those impacted by these changes, I want to make it crystal clear that your guidance, insight and experience is a vital part of our decision-making process." Falkirk no longer has a separate education committee, so matters are now referred to the council's executive every second month. By law, local authorities in Scotland must appoint three religious representatives to their education committees, at least one of whom must be appointed by the Roman Catholic Church and one by the Church of Scotland. Falkirk Council also has several non-voting members who attend the education part of the executive; two teachers, a parent, two pupils and a care experienced representative. SNP councillor Fiona Collie, seconding the motion, said the change would put all non-councillor members "on the same footing". Independent councillor Laura Murtagh, who had originally asked for a report on the subject, said many councils, including Falkirk, now have minority administrations, which effectively means religious representatives "hold the balance of power". "This is about democratic accountability and reflecting the views of a modern, democratic society," she said. "This report is about ensuring that anyone charged with the responsibility of taking decisions - for example whether a school should close - does so from a legitimate, elected and accountable position." Cllr Murtagh also put forward her own motion asking the council to look at inviting members of the Scottish Youth Parliament to encourage more young people to get involved but this was not supported.
