FW: Interesting question: Portland Archdiocese Filing Chapter 11

[JMHACLJ at aol.com]

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 
flooding concerns.  
 
Okay.
 
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.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040708/10974e9e/attachment.html