Misquoted
Last week we picked up on a column by Steve Duin of The Oregonian, in which he lambasted the Archdiocese of Portland for what appeared to be its suggestion that children who were sexually abused by priests were themselves guilty of "sexual misconduct." Duin quoted from a court brief filed by the archdiocese's lawyers in the pending bankruptcy case involving the church and the victims of abuse.
In my post, I wondered if Duin could possibly have been quoting that brief correctly. But then I got a copy of the brief, and sure enough, it said just what he said it did. I posted the entire document and highlighted the quotation in question:
C. Even If There Were a Third Party Exception, the Tort Claimants Are Not Third Parties. The TCC has never established that the tort claimants here are third parties or strangers to the Church. Indeed, the evidence is the opposite. After reviewing complaints by 206 sexual misconduct claimants, Margaret Hoffman testifies that "[i]n every single one of these Complaints, the claimants assert that, at the time of their alleged sexual misconduct, they were members of or associated with the Roman Catholic Church, primarily through attendance at a Catholic school and/or parish church within the Archdiocese." Sec. Hoffman Decl. at ¶ 2. This, too, constitutes evidence that was not before the Spokane Court when it articulated a "third party" exception to the Church Autonomy Doctrine that the tort claimants had never impliedly consented to Catholic Church Doctrine or polity. [Emphasis added.]Readers suggested that the word "their" might have been an error, or that it referred only to the priests and not the victims. The mistake theory was pretty hard for me to buy, especially since the offending phrase was actually said to be a quotation from another court "declaration" made by another one of the church's many lawyers, Margaret Hoffmann. I might be able to accept that one set of lawyers made a mistake, but two? And as for the "their" meaning the priests, its placement in that sentence made that an impossible reading.
Well, today I finally got hold of the Hoffmann declaration, and it turns out that she did not say what the brief said she said. I've posted the entire declaration, dated Nov. 7, 2005, here. And here is the passage in question:
Attached to this Declaration are copies of the Complaints that 206 tort claimants previously filed in various state circuit courts, alleging sexual misconduct by agents of the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon. In every single one of these Complaints, claimants assert that, at the time of the alleged sexual misconduct, they were members of or associated with the Roman Catholic Church, primarily through attendance at a Catholic school and/or parish church within the Archdiocese.As you can see, the brief misquoted Hoffmann. She said "the alleged sexual misconduct," not "their."
That's a relief. So much of what the archdiocese has done in connection with these sexual abuse claims has been deeply troubling to me. At least the sickest comment attributed to the church elders so far turns out to be an apparent misunderstanding.
| Posted at 1:09 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (8)
This just shows why I'm a big fan of your work.
To the substance of your post: you'd think that a bunch of well-paid lawyers could pick out such an inflammatory comment and verify that it's correct, especially since the potential misunderstanding to which you refer could make their clients look worse than they already do. And also, the attorneys most likely copied and pasted the quoted phrase and had to manipulate it; it's hard to believe they re-typed that whole phrase by hand. Perhaps an intentional, subtle dig at the "poor innocent plaintiffs"?
I guess you could say I'm unsympathetic.
Posted by Jud | November 29, 2005 1:01 PM
Whatever. The record's there now to speak for itself.
Posted by Jack Bog | November 29, 2005 1:06 PM
Too bad Steve Duin is too lazy to do this research.
Posted by Roman | November 29, 2005 1:51 PM
has anyone posted this to Steve Duin and has he responded to it?
Posted by Dayaram | November 29, 2005 3:24 PM
Steve will read it. I don't think he was at fault. After all, he accurately quoted what the one set of church lawyers had written.
Posted by Jack Bog | November 29, 2005 4:08 PM
Cutting and pasting or not, somebody nevertheless wrote the brief, then somebody typed it, then somebody proofread it. In the spirit and passion of advocacy, lawyers often get carried away on behalf of their clients. While it's possible that the "the" got changed to "their" by accident, it's equally possible that it was done by design, with built-in plausible deniability that it was a typo. Furthermore, in that same sentiment, I have no trouble whatsoever envisioning the lawyers for the Archdiocese regarding the abuse claimants in the worst possible and wholly unsympathetic light, and that once the lawyers are safely tucked away in the inner sanctums of their firm's offices, they derisively ridicule the claimants in the most vulgar of terms. Lawyers often do that way to their opponents
Posted by jaybird | November 29, 2005 5:08 PM
FRCP 11(b) empowers the bankruptcy judge to enter an order to show cause, upon the proponent of the misquoted and offensive verbiage,as to whether it is supported by fact and if not, impose an obligation to strike/correct the offensive allegation. Upon a finding that the mistake was designed to annoy, embarrass,harass, etc. the court may impose monetary sanctions for the abuse. Of course, plaintiff's counsel may intitiate the motion to stike if the judge does not. Were I a plaintiff, I would demand no less.
Posted by geno | November 29, 2005 7:51 PM
That Duin actually get paid to write his drivel is one of life's great mysteries. And he was a terrible basketball coach.
Posted by ratso4747 | November 30, 2005 5:31 PM