SNAP lawyers look to take money from Milwaukee parishes

Couple thoughts about this article, linked below.

1. Who are the nebulous "victims' lawyers"? Why the sudden shyness to name Jeff Anderson/SNAP? Do they not want their names tied to, quite literally, stealing money from babies, in some cases?
2. Check out the last line... perfect example of legislating from the bench. A good reason why judicial races matter.
3. All I see are the words "victims' lawyers", but nothing on what the victims themselves want. Do the victims want money, or healing? Do their lawyers desire healing for their clients, or a giant paycheck settlement?
JSonline:Lawyers for victims and other creditors in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee bankruptcy are seeking to recover at least $35 million in parish funds they say were fraudulently transferred off the archdiocese's books as a way to shelter them from the legitimate claims of sex abuse victims.                                                                                                                                      
The creditors committee asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Susan V. Kelley on Friday for permission to sue to recover all money distributed in 2005 to individual parishes and the newly created Southeastern Wisconsin Catholic Parishes Investment Trust. 
The committee cites as evidence the minutes of a 2003 archdiocese Finance Committee meeting in which members discussed the archdiocese's pastoral mediation program and potential fallout if hundreds of legitimate victims came forward to claim its maximum targeted settlement amount of $30,000, or if Wisconsin were to open a one-year window on lawsuits involving past cases. 
Those minutes include a statement that says: "Currently, we are working on setting up a Trust Fund to shelter the Parish Deposit Fund." 
The archdiocese issued a statement reiterating its position that the funds belonged to the parishes and were invested by the archdiocese on their behalf. 
[...] Attorneys for victims characterized the move as "venue shopping," saying Kelley was not swayed by their argument in an earlier hearing and that they are hoping for a more sympathetic ruling from Randa.

No comments: