FW: Interesting question: Portland Archdiocese Filing Chapter 11
JMHACLJ at aol.com
JMHACLJ at aol.com
Thu Jul 8 08:47:25 PDT 2004
I'm not a cowboy, Steven, and am not seeking to coral anything. I am trying
to grasp the underlying fraud. I get the concept of concealment. I get the
concept of harm resulting from concealment. Is this all that is necessary
to prove up "fraud"?
I mean, if so, do people with questionable music taste have a cause in fraud
against the record company responsible for Milli Vanilli? No obvious fraud
appears with William Hong, he obviously cannot sing and that is his
anti-cultural draw. But the Milli Vanilli folks wanted listeners to believe that
those guys were actually singing the songs.
So going back to the diocesan context, what would the fraud be?
Again, I understand the application of fraud in other areas.
For example, Mr. Doe intends to put his house on the market. He completes a
disclosure form required under state law, and in a section on "special
conditions" notes that in a very few instances of constant, extended rain, there
has been flooding on the property. His realtor advises him to change the
disclosure form and omit the flooding information. A buyer purchases the
property and subsequently incurs $50,000 in remediation and repair expenses and lost
use and enjoyment damages. Had the condition of flooding been disclosed,
the buyer would not have purchased the property; his buyer-broker relates the
express concerns raised by the buyer that any property be free from known
Easy case. Fraudulently concealing a known condition for the purpose of
inducing the purchase of the property.
So, help me understand the application of fraud law to the diocesan
homosexual paedophile priest scandal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw