https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/cardinal-george-pell-civil-case-catholic-archdiocese/101301514

A man is suing the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Cardinal Pell
for damages, claiming he suffered nervous shock after learning of
allegations Cardinal Pell sexually assaulted his son when he was a
choirboy at St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne in 1996.

----------

How could the Catholic Church and Pell be sued about those allegations
when Pell was acquitted by the High Court?

If Pell is not guilty of the allegations, how does it make sense that he
or the church could be liable for "nervous shock" suffered by the father
of the alleged victim?

On 04-Aug-22 8:48 pm, Max wrote:
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/cardinal-george-pell-civil-case-catholic-archdiocese/101301514
>
>
> A man is suing the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Cardinal Pell
> for damages, claiming he suffered nervous shock after learning of
> allegations Cardinal Pell sexually assaulted his son when he was a
> choirboy at St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne in 1996.
>
> ----------
>
> How could the Catholic Church and Pell be sued about those allegations
> when Pell was acquitted by the High Court?
>
> If Pell is not guilty of the allegations, how does it make sense that he
> or the church could be liable for "nervous shock" suffered by the father
> of the alleged victim?

A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the impugned
conduct did not occur.

A civil trial is determined on balance of probability, so it is entirely
possible for someone to be acquitted of doing something, and then be
successfully sued over the very same thing.

As for the main issue in the article, the Ellis defence, I cannot see
how the Church can possibly use it just because the father is the person
suing.

The Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2018
of Victoria, says that the Act applies where "a plaintiff commences or
wishes to commence a claim against an NGO founded on or arising from
child abuse."

Nothing there about the plaintiff having to be the person abused.

Sylvia.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/cardinal-george-pell-civil-case-catholic-archdiocese/101301514

> A man is suing the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Cardinal Pell
> for damages, claiming he suffered nervous shock after learning of
> allegations Cardinal Pell sexually assaulted his son when he was a
> choirboy at St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne in 1996.

> ----------

> How could the Catholic Church and Pell be sued about those allegations
> when Pell was acquitted by the High Court?

Pell was never acquitted by the High Court and the result of
a criminal prosecution is an entirely separate matter to what
is required in a civil suit proof wise.

> If Pell is not guilty of the allegations,

The High Court never said that.

> how does it make sense that he or the church could be liable for
> "nervous shock" suffered by the father of the alleged victim?

The test is different in a civil suit, balance of probaillitys, stupid.

Sylvia Else wrote:
==============
>
> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
> reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the impugned
> conduct did not occur.
>

** Not if the verdict is directed by the judge OR the acts of the accused are found to be justified and the case dismissed.

Like Pell, Lindy Chamberlain and her husband were effectively declared to be innocent long after conviction and jail.
That case and the Pell case are also similar in that both were horribly corrupted by " trial by media" all the way.
The Catholic Church and Pell must look like soft targets to be sued by an opportunistic parent 's lawyers compared to the ABC and the entire commercial media.

The who thing stinks to high heaven of abuse of process.

...... Phil

On 5/08/2022 3:48 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/cardinal-george-pell-civil-case-catholic-archdiocese/101301514
>>
>
>> A man is suing the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Cardinal Pell
>> for damages, claiming he suffered nervous shock after learning of
>> allegations Cardinal Pell sexually assaulted his son when he was a
>> choirboy at St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne in 1996.
>
>> ----------
>
>> How could the Catholic Church and Pell be sued about those allegations
>> when Pell was acquitted by the High Court?
>
> Pell was never acquitted by the High Court and the result of
> a criminal prosecution is an entirely separate matter to what
> is required in a civil suit proof wise.
>

The High Court did acquit Pell. This is a direct quote from the judgement:

"the appellant's convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be
entered in their place"

>> If Pell is not guilty of the allegations,
>
> The High Court never said that.
>
>> how does it make sense that he or the church could be liable for
>> "nervous shock" suffered by the father of the alleged victim?
>
> The test is different in a civil suit, balance of probaillitys, stupid.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Sylvia Else wrote

>> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
>> reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the impugned
>> conduct did not occur.

> Not if the verdict is directed by the judge

You are wrong, that is still an example of where the judge has decided
that the evidence doesn't meet the test of reasonable doubt.

The judge isn't ruling that the accused did not do the crime,
JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he did that.

And no judge did that with Pell, in fact 3 of them did find that
he did the crime.

> OR the acts of the accused are foundto be justified and the case
> dismissed.

Irrelevant to Pell's crimes.

> Like Pell, Lindy Chamberlain and her husband were effectivelydeclared
> to be innocent long after conviction and jail.

Wrong again. The High Court in fact did nothing of the kind.

> That case and the Pell case are also similar in that bothwere horribly
> corrupted by " trial by media" all the way.

Doesn't explain why 3 very senior judges found Pell guilty.

> The Catholic Church and Pell must look like soft targetsto be sued by
> an opportunistic parent 's lawyers comparedto the ABC and the entire
> commercial media.

In fact this claimant is pissed off because he believes that
Pell's crimes are what resulted in the death of his son.

> The who thing stinks to high heaven of abuse of process.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/cardinal-george-pell-civil-case-catholic-archdiocese/101301514

>>> A man is suing the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Cardinal Pell
>>> for damages, claiming he suffered nervous shock after learning of
>>> allegations Cardinal Pell sexually assaulted his son when he was a
>>> choirboy at St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne in 1996.
>>
>>> ----------
>>
>>> How could the Catholic Church and Pell be sued about those allegations
>>> when Pell was acquitted by the High Court?
>> Pell was never acquitted by the High Court and the result of
>> a criminal prosecution is an entirely separate matter to what
>> is required in a civil suit proof wise.

> The High Court did acquit Pell.

Nope.

> This is a direct quote from the judgement:

> "the appellant's convictions be quashed and judgmentsof acquittal be
> entered in their place"

Only because they had decided that the evidence
did not prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

That is not the same thing as ruling that he did not do the crime.

>>> If Pell is not guilty of the allegations,

>> The High Court never said that.

>>> how does it make sense that he or the church could be liable for
>>> "nervous shock" suffered by the father of the alleged victim?

>> The test is different in a civil suit, balance of probaillitys, stupid.

On 4/08/2022 11:16 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 04-Aug-22 8:48 pm, Max wrote:
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/cardinal-george-pell-civil-case-catholic-archdiocese/101301514
>>
>>
>> A man is suing the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Cardinal Pell
>> for damages, claiming he suffered nervous shock after learning of
>> allegations Cardinal Pell sexually assaulted his son when he was a
>> choirboy at St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne in 1996.
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> How could the Catholic Church and Pell be sued about those allegations
>> when Pell was acquitted by the High Court?
>>
>> If Pell is not guilty of the allegations, how does it make sense that
>> he or the church could be liable for "nervous shock" suffered by the
>> father of the alleged victim?
>
>
> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
> reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the impugned
> conduct did not occur.
>

It is saying that there is resonable doubt that the conduct did occur.

> A civil trial is determined on balance of probability, so it is entirely
> possible for someone to be acquitted of doing something, and then be
> successfully sued over the very same thing.
>

Does this mean there could be a whole new trial in the civil case that
goes through all of the evidence and witnesses again?

> As for the main issue in the article, the Ellis defence, I cannot see
> how the Church can possibly use it just because the father is the person
> suing.
>
> The Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2018
> of Victoria, says that the Act applies where "a plaintiff commences or
> wishes to commence a claim against an NGO founded on or arising from
> child abuse."
>
> Nothing there about the plaintiff having to be the person abused.
>
> Sylvia.
>

On 5/08/2022 10:27 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>> Sylvia Else wrote
>
>>> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
>>> reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the impugned
>>> conduct did not occur.
>
>> Not if the verdict is directed by the judge
>
> You are wrong, that is still an example of where the judge has decided
> that the evidence doesn't meet the test of reasonable doubt.
>
> The judge isn't ruling that the accused did not do the crime,
> JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he did that.
>

It is saying he is not guilty, which means he cannot be treated as
though he did do the crime.

> And no judge did that with Pell, in fact 3 of them did find that
> he did the crime.
>

Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.

>> OR the acts of the  accused are foundto be justified and the case
>> dismissed.
>
> Irrelevant to Pell's crimes.
>

Pell committed no crimes - he was acquitted.

>> Like Pell, Lindy Chamberlain and her husband were effectivelydeclared
>> to be innocent long after conviction and jail.
>
> Wrong again. The High Court in fact did nothing of the kind.
>
>> That case and the Pell case are also similar in that bothwere
>> horribly  corrupted by " trial by media"  all the way.
>
> Doesn't explain why 3 very senior judges found Pell guilty.
>

Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.

>> The Catholic Church and Pell must look like soft targetsto be sued by
>> an opportunistic parent 's lawyers comparedto the ABC and the entire
>> commercial media.
>
> In fact this claimant is pissed off because he believes that
> Pell's crimes are what resulted in the death of his son.
>
>> The who thing stinks to high heaven of abuse of process.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2022 10:41:28 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 4/08/2022 11:16 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 04-Aug-22 8:48 pm, Max wrote:
>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/cardinal-george-pell-civil-case-catholic-archdiocese/101301514
>>> A man is suing the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Cardinal Pell
>>> for damages, claiming he suffered nervous shock after learning of
>>> allegations Cardinal Pell sexually assaulted his son when he was a
>>> choirboy at St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne in 1996.
>>>
>>> ----------
>>>
>>> How could the Catholic Church and Pell be sued about those allegations
>>> when Pell was acquitted by the High Court?
>>>
>>> If Pell is not guilty of the allegations, how does it make sense that
>>> he or the church could be liable for "nervous shock" suffered by the
>>> father of the alleged victim?
>> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
>> reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the impugned
>> conduct did not occur.

> It is saying that there is resonable doubt that the conduct did occur.

Nope, that the EVIDENCE isn't as good as it could be.

>> A civil trial is determined on balance of probability, so it is
>> entirely possible for someone to be acquitted of doing something, and
>> then be successfully sued over the very same thing.

> Does this mean there could be a whole new trial in the civil casethat
> goes through all of the evidence and witnesses again?

Nope.

>> As for the main issue in the article, the Ellis defence, I cannot see
>> how the Church can possibly use it just because the father is the
>> person suing.
>> The Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2018
>> of Victoria, says that the Act applies where "a plaintiff commences or
>> wishes to commence a claim against an NGO founded on or arising from
>> child abuse."
>> Nothing there about the plaintiff having to be the person abused.
>> Sylvia.
>>

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Sylvia Else wrote

>>>> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
>>>> reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the impugned
>>>> conduct did not occur.

>>> Not if the verdict is directed by the judge

>> You are wrong, that is still an example of where the judge has decided
>> that the evidence doesn't meet the test of reasonable doubt.

>> The judge isn't ruling that the accused did not do the crime,
>> JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he did that.

> It is saying he is not guilty,

Nope, JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he did that.

> which means he cannot be treated as though he did do the crime.

In that situation the judge is JUST saying that there
isnt sufficient evidence for the jury to decide beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused did the crime.

>> And no judge did that with Pell, in fact 3 of them did find that
>> he did the crime.

> Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.

Pity about the initial trial.

>>> OR the acts of the accused are foundto be justified and the case
>>> dismissed.

>> Irrelevant to Pell's crimes.

> Pell committed no crimes

That was never proven.

> - he was acquitted.

Wrong with the initial trial and the appeal.

>>> Like Pell, Lindy Chamberlain and her husband were effectivelydeclared
>>> to be innocent long after conviction and jail.

>> Wrong again. The High Court in fact did nothing of the kind.

>>> That case and the Pell case are also similar in that bothwere
>>> horribly corrupted by " trial by media" all the way.

>> Doesn't explain why 3 very senior judges found Pell guilty.

> Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.

Pity about the initial trial.

>>> The Catholic Church and Pell must look like soft targetsto be sued by
>>> an opportunistic parent 's lawyers comparedto the ABC and the entire
>>> commercial media.

>> In fact this claimant is pissed off because he believes that
>> Pell's crimes are what resulted in the death of his son.

>>> The who thing stinks to high heaven of abuse of process.

>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

On 5/08/2022 11:23 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2022 10:41:28 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 4/08/2022 11:16 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 04-Aug-22 8:48 pm, Max wrote:
>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/cardinal-george-pell-civil-case-catholic-archdiocese/101301514
>>>> A man is suing the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Cardinal
>>>> Pell for damages, claiming he suffered nervous shock after learning
>>>> of allegations Cardinal Pell sexually assaulted his son when he was
>>>> a choirboy at St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne in 1996.
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> How could the Catholic Church and Pell be sued about those
>>>> allegations when Pell was acquitted by the High Court?
>>>>
>>>> If Pell is not guilty of the allegations, how does it make sense
>>>> that he or the church could be liable for "nervous shock" suffered
>>>> by the father of the alleged victim?
>>>   A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
>>> reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the impugned
>>> conduct did not occur.
>
>> It is saying that there is resonable doubt that the conduct did occur.
>
> Nope, that the EVIDENCE isn't as good as it could be.
>
>>> A civil trial is determined on balance of probability, so it is
>>> entirely possible for someone to be acquitted of doing something, and
>>> then be successfully sued over the very same thing.
>
>> Does this mean there could be a whole new trial in the civil casethat
>> goes through all of the evidence and witnesses again?
>
> Nope.
>

How could the judge determine the outcome in the civil case without
hearing all the evidence?

>>> As for the main issue in the article, the Ellis defence, I cannot see
>>> how the Church can possibly use it just because the father is the
>>> person suing.
>>>  The Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act
>>> 2018 of Victoria, says that the Act applies where "a plaintiff
>>> commences or wishes to commence a claim against an NGO founded on or
>>> arising from child abuse."
>>>  Nothing there about the plaintiff having to be the person abused.
>>>  Sylvia.
>>>

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>> Max wrote

>>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/cardinal-george-pell-civil-case-catholic-archdiocese/101301514
>>>>> A man is suing the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Cardinal
>>>>> Pell for damages, claiming he suffered nervous shock after learning
>>>>> of allegations Cardinal Pell sexually assaulted his son when he was
>>>>> a choirboy at St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne in 1996.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>> How could the Catholic Church and Pell be sued about those
>>>>> allegations when Pell was acquitted by the High Court?
>>>>>
>>>>> If Pell is not guilty of the allegations, how does it make sense
>>>>> that he or the church could be liable for "nervous shock" suffered
>>>>> by the father of the alleged victim?
>>>> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
>>>> reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the impugned
>>>> conduct did not occur.
>>
>>> It is saying that there is resonable doubt that the conduct did occur.

>> Nope, that the EVIDENCE isn't as good as it could be.

More accurately, the EVIDENCE isn't as good as it needs to be.

>>>> A civil trial is determined on balance of probability, so it is
>>>> entirely possible for someone to be acquitted of doing something, and
>>>> then be successfully sued over the very same thing.

>>> Does this mean there could be a whole new trial in the civil casethat
>>> goes through all of the evidence and witnesses again?

>> Nope.

> How could the judge determine the outcome inthe civil case without
> hearing all the evidence?

The judge isn't considering THAT evidence.

And even the appeal or the High Court didnt run the entire criminal trial
again.

>>>> As for the main issue in the article, the Ellis defence, I cannot see
>>>> how the Church can possibly use it just because the father is the
>>>> person suing.

>>>> The Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act
>>>> 2018 of Victoria, says that the Act applies where "a plaintiff
>>>> commences or wishes to commence a claim against an NGO founded on or
>>>> arising from child abuse."

>>>> Nothing there about the plaintiff having to be the person abused.

On 5/08/2022 11:28 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>
>>>>> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
>>>>> reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the impugned
>>>>> conduct did not occur.
>
>>>> Not if the verdict is directed by the judge
>
>>>  You are wrong, that is still an example of where the judge has decided
>>> that the evidence doesn't meet the test of reasonable doubt.
>
>>>  The judge isn't ruling that the accused did not do the crime,
>>> JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he did that.
>
>> It is saying he is not guilty,
>
> Nope, JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he did that.
>
>> which means he cannot be treated as  though he did do the crime.
>
> In that situation the judge is JUST saying that there
> isnt sufficient evidence for the jury to decide beyond
> reasonable doubt that the accused did the crime.
>
>>> And no judge did that with Pell, in fact 3 of them did find that
>>> he did the crime.
>
>> Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.
>
> Pity about the initial trial.
>
>>>> OR the acts of the  accused are foundto be justified and the case
>>>> dismissed.
>
>>>  Irrelevant to Pell's crimes.
>
>> Pell committed no crimes
>
> That was never proven.
>
>> - he was acquitted.
>
> Wrong with the initial trial and the appeal.
>
>>>> Like Pell, Lindy Chamberlain and her husband were
>>>> effectivelydeclared  to be innocent long after conviction and jail.
>
>>>  Wrong again. The High Court in fact did nothing of the kind.
>
>>>> That case and the Pell case are also similar in that bothwere
>>>> horribly  corrupted by " trial by media"  all the way.
>
>>>  Doesn't explain why 3 very senior judges found Pell guilty.
>
>> Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.
>
> Pity about the initial trial.
>

The judge at the initial trial did not found him guilty - that was up to
the jury.

>>>> The Catholic Church and Pell must look like soft targetsto be sued
>>>> by  an opportunistic parent 's lawyers comparedto the ABC and the
>>>> entire  commercial media.
>
>>>  In fact this claimant is pissed off because he believes that
>>> Pell's crimes are what resulted in the death of his son.
>
>>>> The who thing stinks to high heaven of abuse of process.
>
>>>  Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

On 5/08/2022 1:42 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>> Max wrote
>
>>>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/cardinal-george-pell-civil-case-catholic-archdiocese/101301514
>>>>>> A man is suing the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Cardinal
>>>>>> Pell for damages, claiming he suffered nervous shock after
>>>>>> learning of allegations Cardinal Pell sexually assaulted his son
>>>>>> when he was a choirboy at St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne
>>>>>> in 1996.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How could the Catholic Church and Pell be sued about those
>>>>>> allegations when Pell was acquitted by the High Court?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Pell is not guilty of the allegations, how does it make sense
>>>>>> that he or the church could be liable for "nervous shock" suffered
>>>>>> by the father of the alleged victim?
>>>>>   A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there
>>>>> is reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the
>>>>> impugned conduct did not occur.
>>>
>>>> It is saying that there is resonable doubt that the conduct did occur.
>
>>>  Nope, that the EVIDENCE isn't as good as it could be.
>
> More accurately, the EVIDENCE isn't as good as it needs to be.
>
>>>>> A civil trial is determined on balance of probability, so it is
>>>>> entirely possible for someone to be acquitted of doing something,
>>>>> and then be successfully sued over the very same thing.
>
>>>> Does this mean there could be a whole new trial in the civil
>>>> casethat  goes through all of the evidence and witnesses again?
>
>>>  Nope.
>
>> How could the judge determine the outcome inthe civil case without
>> hearing all the evidence?
>
> The judge isn't considering THAT evidence.
>
> And even the appeal or the High Court didnt run the entire criminal
> trial again.
>

Presumably the judge will not find Pell or the church liable unless the
allegations are found to be true.

Won't they therefore need to go through all the evidence again? How
else can the judge determine whether the allegations are true?

>>>>> As for the main issue in the article, the Ellis defence, I cannot
>>>>> see how the Church can possibly use it just because the father is
>>>>> the person suing.
>
>>>>>  The Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act
>>>>> 2018 of Victoria, says that the Act applies where "a plaintiff
>>>>> commences or wishes to commence a claim against an NGO founded on
>>>>> or arising from child abuse."
>
>>>>>  Nothing there about the plaintiff having to be the person abused.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote

>>>>>> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
>>>>>> reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the
>>>>>> impugned conduct did not occur.

>>>>> Not if the verdict is directed by the judge

>>>> You are wrong, that is still an example of where the judge has
>>>> decided that the evidence doesn't meet the test of reasonable doubt.

>>>> The judge isn't ruling that the accused did not do the crime,
>>>> JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he did that.

>>> It is saying he is not guilty,

>> Nope, JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he did
>> that.

>>> which means he cannot be treated as though he did do the crime.

>> In that situation the judge is JUST saying that there
>> isnt sufficient evidence for the jury to decide beyond
>> reasonable doubt that the accused did the crime.

>>>> And no judge did that with Pell, in fact 3 of them did find that
>>>> he did the crime.

>>> Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.

>> Pity about the initial trial.

>>>>> OR the acts of the accused are foundto be justified and the case
>>>>> dismissed.

>>>> Irrelevant to Pell's crimes.

>>> Pell committed no crimes

>> That was never proven.

>>> - he was acquitted.

>> Wrong with the initial trial and the appeal.

>>>>> Like Pell, Lindy Chamberlain and her husband were
>>>>> effectivelydeclared to be innocent long after conviction and jail.

>>>> Wrong again. The High Court in fact did nothing of the kind.

>>>>> That case and the Pell case are also similar in that bothwere
>>>>> horribly corrupted by " trial by media" all the way.

>>>> Doesn't explain why 3 very senior judges found Pell guilty.

>>> Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.

>> Pity about the initial trial.

> The judge at the initial trial did not found him guilty

I didn't say he did.

> - that was up to the jury.

Duh.

>>>>> The Catholic Church and Pell must look like soft targetsto be sued
>>>>> by an opportunistic parent 's lawyers comparedto the ABC and the
>>>>> entire commercial media.

>>>> In fact this claimant is pissed off because he believes that
>>>> Pell's crimes are what resulted in the death of his son.

>>>>> The who thing stinks to high heaven of abuse of process.

>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>> Max wrote

>>>>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/cardinal-george-pell-civil-case-catholic-archdiocese/101301514

>>>>>>> A man is suing the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Cardinal
>>>>>>> Pell for damages, claiming he suffered nervous shock after
>>>>>>> learning of allegations Cardinal Pell sexually assaulted his son
>>>>>>> when he was a choirboy at St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne
>>>>>>> in 1996.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How could the Catholic Church and Pell be sued about those
>>>>>>> allegations when Pell was acquitted by the High Court?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Pell is not guilty of the allegations, how does it make sense
>>>>>>> that he or the church could be liable for "nervous shock" suffered
>>>>>>> by the father of the alleged victim?
>>>>>> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there
>>>>>> is reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the
>>>>>> impugned conduct did not occur.
>>>>
>>>>> It is saying that there is resonable doubt that the conduct did
>>>>> occur.
>>
>>>> Nope, that the EVIDENCE isn't as good as it could be.
>> More accurately, the EVIDENCE isn't as good as it needs to be.
>>
>>>>>> A civil trial is determined on balance of probability, so it is
>>>>>> entirely possible for someone to be acquitted of doing something,
>>>>>> and then be successfully sued over the very same thing.
>>
>>>>> Does this mean there could be a whole new trial in the civil
>>>>> casethat goes through all of the evidence and witnesses again?
>>
>>>> Nope.
>>
>>> How could the judge determine the outcome inthe civil case without
>>> hearing all the evidence?

>> The judge isn't considering THAT evidence.

>> And even the appeal or the High Court didnt run the entire criminal
>> trial again.

> Presumably the judge will not find Pell or the churchliable unless the
> allegations are found to be true.

Wrong, as always.

> Won't they therefore need to go through all the evidence again?

Nope, just like the High Court didn't need to either.

It isnt a new criminal trial, stupid.

> How else can the judge determine whether the allegations are true?

By considering the evidence on the new grounds of balance of probabilitys,
stupid.

>>>>>> As for the main issue in the article, the Ellis defence, I cannot
>>>>>> see how the Church can possibly use it just because the father is
>>>>>> the person suing.
>>
>>>>>> The Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act
>>>>>> 2018 of Victoria, says that the Act applies where "a plaintiff
>>>>>> commences or wishes to commence a claim against an NGO founded on
>>>>>> or arising from child abuse."
>>
>>>>>> Nothing there about the plaintiff having to be the person abused.

On 5/08/2022 5:10 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>> Max wrote
>
>>>>>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/cardinal-george-pell-civil-case-catholic-archdiocese/101301514
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>> A man is suing the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and
>>>>>>>> Cardinal Pell for damages, claiming he suffered nervous shock
>>>>>>>> after learning of allegations Cardinal Pell sexually assaulted
>>>>>>>> his son when he was a choirboy at St Patrick's Cathedral in East
>>>>>>>> Melbourne in 1996.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How could the Catholic Church and Pell be sued about those
>>>>>>>> allegations when Pell was acquitted by the High Court?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If Pell is not guilty of the allegations, how does it make sense
>>>>>>>> that he or the church could be liable for "nervous shock"
>>>>>>>> suffered by the father of the alleged victim?
>>>>>>>   A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there
>>>>>>> is reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the
>>>>>>> impugned conduct did not occur.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is saying that there is resonable doubt that the conduct did
>>>>>> occur.
>>>
>>>>>  Nope, that the EVIDENCE isn't as good as it could be.
>>>  More accurately, the EVIDENCE isn't as good as it needs to be.
>>>
>>>>>>> A civil trial is determined on balance of probability, so it is
>>>>>>> entirely possible for someone to be acquitted of doing something,
>>>>>>> and then be successfully sued over the very same thing.
>>>
>>>>>> Does this mean there could be a whole new trial in the civil
>>>>>> casethat  goes through all of the evidence and witnesses again?
>>>
>>>>>  Nope.
>>>
>>>> How could the judge determine the outcome inthe civil case without
>>>> hearing all the evidence?
>
>>>  The judge isn't considering THAT evidence.
>
>>>  And even the appeal or the High Court didnt run the entire criminal
>>> trial again.
>
>> Presumably the judge will not find Pell or the churchliable unless
>> the  allegations are found to be true.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>

Are you saying that the allegations could be found false and yet Pell
and the church will still liable for the "shock" caused to the father of
the alleged victim?

>> Won't they therefore need to go through all the evidence again?
>
> Nope, just like the High Court didn't need to either.
>
> It isnt a new criminal trial, stupid.
>
>> How  else can the judge determine whether the allegations are true?
>
> By considering the evidence on the new grounds of balance of
> probabilitys, stupid.
>

What evidence? Won't they have to hear all the witnesses again?

Are you saying the judge can look at the evidence and transcript of the
criminal trial?

>>>>>>> As for the main issue in the article, the Ellis defence, I cannot
>>>>>>> see how the Church can possibly use it just because the father is
>>>>>>> the person suing.
>>>
>>>>>>>  The Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse)
>>>>>>> Act 2018 of Victoria, says that the Act applies where "a
>>>>>>> plaintiff commences or wishes to commence a claim against an NGO
>>>>>>> founded on or arising from child abuse."
>>>
>>>>>>>  Nothing there about the plaintiff having to be the person abused.

On 5/08/2022 5:07 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>
>>>>>>> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
>>>>>>> reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the
>>>>>>> impugned conduct did not occur.
>
>>>>>> Not if the verdict is directed by the judge
>
>>>>>  You are wrong, that is still an example of where the judge has
>>>>> decided  that the evidence doesn't meet the test of reasonable doubt.
>
>>>>>  The judge isn't ruling that the accused did not do the crime,
>>>>> JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he did that.
>
>>>> It is saying he is not guilty,
>
>>>  Nope, JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he did
>>> that.
>
>>>> which means he cannot be treated as  though he did do the crime.
>
>>>  In that situation the judge is JUST saying that there
>>> isnt sufficient evidence for the jury to decide beyond
>>> reasonable doubt that the accused did the crime.
>
>>>>> And no judge did that with Pell, in fact 3 of them did find that
>>>>> he did the crime.
>
>>>> Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.
>
>>>  Pity about the initial trial.
>
>>>>>> OR the acts of the  accused are foundto be justified and the case
>>>>>> dismissed.
>
>>>>>  Irrelevant to Pell's crimes.
>
>>>> Pell committed no crimes
>
>>>  That was never proven.
>
>>>> - he was acquitted.
>
>>>  Wrong with the initial trial and the appeal.
>
>>>>>> Like Pell, Lindy Chamberlain and her husband were
>>>>>> effectivelydeclared  to be innocent long after conviction and jail.
>
>>>>>  Wrong again. The High Court in fact did nothing of the kind.
>
>>>>>> That case and the Pell case are also similar in that bothwere
>>>>>> horribly  corrupted by " trial by media"  all the way.
>
>>>>>  Doesn't explain why 3 very senior judges found Pell guilty.
>
>>>> Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.
>
>>>  Pity about the initial trial.
>
>> The judge at the initial trial did not found him guilty
>
> I didn't say he did.
>

So there were only 2 judges that found him guilty. You said there were
three.

>> - that was up to  the jury.
>
> Duh.
>
>>>>>> The Catholic Church and Pell must look like soft targetsto be sued
>>>>>> by  an opportunistic parent 's lawyers comparedto the ABC and the
>>>>>> entire  commercial media.
>
>>>>>  In fact this claimant is pissed off because he believes that
>>>>> Pell's crimes are what resulted in the death of his son.
>
>>>>>> The who thing stinks to high heaven of abuse of process.
>
>>>>>  Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>> Max wrote

>>>>>>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/cardinal-george-pell-civil-case-catholic-archdiocese/101301514

>>>>>>>>> A man is suing the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and
>>>>>>>>> Cardinal Pell for damages, claiming he suffered nervous shock
>>>>>>>>> after learning of allegations Cardinal Pell sexually assaulted
>>>>>>>>> his son when he was a choirboy at St Patrick's Cathedral in East
>>>>>>>>> Melbourne in 1996.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How could the Catholic Church and Pell be sued about those
>>>>>>>>> allegations when Pell was acquitted by the High Court?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If Pell is not guilty of the allegations, how does it make sense
>>>>>>>>> that he or the church could be liable for "nervous shock"
>>>>>>>>> suffered by the father of the alleged victim?
>>>>>>>> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there
>>>>>>>> is reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the
>>>>>>>> impugned conduct did not occur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is saying that there is resonable doubt that the conduct did
>>>>>>> occur.
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, that the EVIDENCE isn't as good as it could be.
>>>> More accurately, the EVIDENCE isn't as good as it needs to be.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> A civil trial is determined on balance of probability, so it is
>>>>>>>> entirely possible for someone to be acquitted of doing something,
>>>>>>>> and then be successfully sued over the very same thing.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Does this mean there could be a whole new trial in the civil
>>>>>>> casethat goes through all of the evidence and witnesses again?
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>> How could the judge determine the outcome inthe civil case without
>>>>> hearing all the evidence?
>>
>>>> The judge isn't considering THAT evidence.
>>
>>>> And even the appeal or the High Court didnt run the entire criminal
>>>> trial again.
>>
>>> Presumably the judge will not find Pell or the churchliable unless
>>> the allegations are found to be true.

>> Wrong, as always.

> Are you saying that the allegations could be found false

No, that the criminal trial may find that there isn't sufficient
evidence to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that Pell
did the crime, and that the civil suit may well find that there
is proof ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITYS that Pell did
attempt to fuck his son or did fuck his son and that that is
why his son killed himself.

> and yet Pell and the church will still liable for the"shock" caused to
> the father of the alleged victim?

Nope.

>>> Won't they therefore need to go through all the evidence again?

>> Nope, just like the High Court didn't need to either.
>> It isnt a new criminal trial, stupid.

>>> How else can the judge determine whether the allegations are true?

>> By considering the evidence on the new grounds of balance of
>> probabilitys, stupid.

> What evidence?

The evidence presented at the initial criminal trial and the appeal.

> Won't they have to hear all the witnesses again?

Nope, the appeal of the criminal conviction didn't and neither
did the High Court.

> Are you saying the judge can look at the evidence and transcript of the
> criminal trial?

Yes, thats what the appeal judges did and the High Court.

>>>>>>>> As for the main issue in the article, the Ellis defence, I cannot
>>>>>>>> see how the Church can possibly use it just because the father is
>>>>>>>> the person suing.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse)
>>>>>>>> Act 2018 of Victoria, says that the Act applies where "a
>>>>>>>> plaintiff commences or wishes to commence a claim against an NGO
>>>>>>>> founded on or arising from child abuse."
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing there about the plaintiff having to be the person abused.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>
>>>>>>>> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
>>>>>>>> reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the
>>>>>>>> impugned conduct did not occur.
>>
>>>>>>> Not if the verdict is directed by the judge
>>
>>>>>> You are wrong, that is still an example of where the judge has
>>>>>> decided that the evidence doesn't meet the test of reasonable
>>>>>> doubt.
>>
>>>>>> The judge isn't ruling that the accused did not do the crime,
>>>>>> JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he did that.
>>
>>>>> It is saying he is not guilty,
>>
>>>> Nope, JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he did
>>>> that.
>>
>>>>> which means he cannot be treated as though he did do the crime.
>>
>>>> In that situation the judge is JUST saying that there
>>>> isnt sufficient evidence for the jury to decide beyond
>>>> reasonable doubt that the accused did the crime.
>>
>>>>>> And no judge did that with Pell, in fact 3 of them did find that
>>>>>> he did the crime.
>>
>>>>> Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.
>>
>>>> Pity about the initial trial.
>>
>>>>>>> OR the acts of the accused are foundto be justified and the case
>>>>>>> dismissed.
>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant to Pell's crimes.
>>
>>>>> Pell committed no crimes
>>
>>>> That was never proven.
>>
>>>>> - he was acquitted.
>>
>>>> Wrong with the initial trial and the appeal.
>>
>>>>>>> Like Pell, Lindy Chamberlain and her husband were
>>>>>>> effectivelydeclared to be innocent long after conviction and jail.
>>
>>>>>> Wrong again. The High Court in fact did nothing of the kind.
>>
>>>>>>> That case and the Pell case are also similar in that bothwere
>>>>>>> horribly corrupted by " trial by media" all the way.
>>
>>>>>> Doesn't explain why 3 very senior judges found Pell guilty.
>>
>>>>> Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.
>>
>>>> Pity about the initial trial.
>>
>>> The judge at the initial trial did not found him guilty
>> I didn't say he did.
>>
>
> So there were only 2 judges that found him guilty. You said there were
> three.
>
>
>
>>> - that was up to the jury.
>> Duh.
>>
>>>>>>> The Catholic Church and Pell must look like soft targetsto be sued
>>>>>>> by an opportunistic parent 's lawyers comparedto the ABC and the
>>>>>>> entire commercial media.
>>
>>>>>> In fact this claimant is pissed off because he believes that
>>>>>> Pell's crimes are what resulted in the death of his son.
>>
>>>>>>> The who thing stinks to high heaven of abuse of process.
>>
>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

On 5/08/2022 7:33 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>> A verdict of acquittal in a criminal case only means that there is
>>>>>>>>> reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is not a statement that the
>>>>>>>>> impugned conduct did not occur.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Not if the verdict is directed by the judge
>>>
>>>>>>>  You are wrong, that is still an example of where the judge has
>>>>>>> decided  that the evidence doesn't meet the test of reasonable
>>>>>>> doubt.
>>>
>>>>>>>  The judge isn't ruling that the accused did not do the crime,
>>>>>>> JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he did that.
>>>
>>>>>> It is saying he is not guilty,
>>>
>>>>>  Nope, JUST that there isn't sufficient evidence that proves he
>>>>> did  that.
>>>
>>>>>> which means he cannot be treated as  though he did do the crime.
>>>
>>>>>  In that situation the judge is JUST saying that there
>>>>> isnt sufficient evidence for the jury to decide beyond
>>>>> reasonable doubt that the accused did the crime.
>>>
>>>>>>> And no judge did that with Pell, in fact 3 of them did find that
>>>>>>> he did the crime.
>>>
>>>>>> Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.
>>>
>>>>>  Pity about the initial trial.
>>>
>>>>>>>> OR the acts of the  accused are foundto be justified and the
>>>>>>>> case dismissed.
>>>
>>>>>>>  Irrelevant to Pell's crimes.
>>>
>>>>>> Pell committed no crimes
>>>
>>>>>  That was never proven.
>>>
>>>>>> - he was acquitted.
>>>
>>>>>  Wrong with the initial trial and the appeal.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Like Pell, Lindy Chamberlain and her husband were
>>>>>>>> effectivelydeclared  to be innocent long after conviction and jail.
>>>
>>>>>>>  Wrong again. The High Court in fact did nothing of the kind.
>>>
>>>>>>>> That case and the Pell case are also similar in that bothwere
>>>>>>>> horribly  corrupted by " trial by media"  all the way.
>>>
>>>>>>>  Doesn't explain why 3 very senior judges found Pell guilty.
>>>
>>>>>> Only the two appeal court judges found him guilty.
>>>
>>>>>  Pity about the initial trial.
>>>
>>>> The judge at the initial trial did not found him guilty
>>>  I didn't say he did.
>>>
>>
>> So there were only 2 judges that found him guilty. You said there were
>> three.
>>

No answer to this.

>>
>>
>>>> - that was up to  the jury.
>>>  Duh.
>>>
>>>>>>>> The Catholic Church and Pell must look like soft targetsto be
>>>>>>>> sued by  an opportunistic parent 's lawyers comparedto the ABC
>>>>>>>> and the entire  commercial media.
>>>
>>>>>>>  In fact this claimant is pissed off because he believes that
>>>>>>> Pell's crimes are what resulted in the death of his son.
>>>
>>>>>>>> The who thing stinks to high heaven of abuse of process.
>>>
>>>>>>>  Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.