He has already fled the country, and made a public apology.
The nightclub was shut down after footage of the weekend's event was shared on social media and sparked outrage.
A
court spokesperson told AFP news agency that the court dismissed
charges against the nightclub owner and an event organiser, but the
prosecution has appealed saying the two should have checked what the DJ
would be playing.
The event was part of Orbit Festival in Nabeul in the country's north-east. The footage showed clubbers dancing to music played by two European DJs.
"We
will not allow attacks against religious feelings and the sacred," the
governor of Nabeul, Mnaouar Ouertani, said when the club was shut down.
Earlier
in the week, the organisers of the Orbit Festival apologised in a post
on the event's Facebook page, but said that they did not accept
responsibility for the playing of any offensive music.
al-Sisi:“I first saw the campaignof
his excellency President Trump, and I listened to his speech of the
neccessity of facing and confronting terrorism all over the world; that
he is a great personality and a unique individual, and that he will find
great success.”“I fully trust the capabilities of President Trump, and I have full
conviction that he can do things, exert efforts, that very few people
can do. And he can succeed in so many fields that others cannot. I
trust him wholeheartedly. And again, I congratulate you for having
him.”
Baier: I know you were one of the first to call and congratulate him,
if not the first; what is your relationship like between you two?
al-Sisi: “I followed all his
announcements through his campaign, he has a very unique personality and
administration, and now I’m speaking with full confidence of
unprecedented success for him. He is seeking the interests of the
United States and the American people in a very clear manner, and a very
direct manner. And a very strong manner as well.”“His true will is a very strong will to counter terrorism and
extremism in the world; and that is a very strong commitment from his
excellency the president, and in addition I am very supportive with full
force in facing this terrorism.”
Baier: Did President Trump talk about aid to Egypt?
al-Sisi: “All I can say in this regard is that his
excellency the President promised to support Egypt, with very strong
support. And I trust his promise.”
Baier: You expressed concerns with President Obama. Obviously
President Trump is establishing a different relationship with Egypt, can
you talk about that difference?
al-Sisi: “That is true, this is true. There is a true
understanding to the realities in the region, and there is a seriousness
and responsible actions in facing extremism and terrorism in the
region, and that’s a wonderful thing indeed. There is nothing better
than to counter evil.
"Exclusive: The U.S. government and the mainstream
media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new
poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert
Parry."
"With the latest hasty judgment about Tuesday’s poison-gas deaths in a
rebel-held area of northern Syria, the mainstream U.S. news media once
more reveals itself to be a threat to responsible journalism and to the
future of humanity. Again, we see the troubling pattern of verdict
first, investigation later, even when that behavior can lead to a
dangerous war escalation and many more deaths.
Before a careful evaluation of the evidence about Tuesday’s tragedy
was possible, The New York Times and other major U.S. news outlets had
pinned the blame for the scores of dead on the Syrian government of
Bashar al-Assad. That revived demands that the U.S. and other nations
establish a “no-fly zone” over Syria, which would amount to launching
another “regime change” war and would put America into a likely hot war
with nuclear-armed Russia
. Even as basic facts were still being assembled about Tuesday’s
incident, we, the public, were prepped to disbelieve the Syrian
government’s response that the poison gas may have come from rebel
stockpiles that could have been released either accidentally or
intentionally causing the civilian deaths in a town in Idlib Province.
One possible scenario was that Syrian warplanes bombed a rebel
weapons depot where the poison gas was stored, causing the containers to
rupture. Another possibility was a staged event by increasingly
desperate Al Qaeda jihadists who are known for their disregard for
innocent human life.
While it’s hard to know at this early stage what’s true and what’s
not, these alternative explanations, I’m told, are being seriously
examined by U.S. intelligence. One source cited the possibility that
Turkey had supplied the rebels with the poison gas (the exact type still
not determined) for potential use against Kurdish forces operating in
northern Syria near the Turkish border or for a terror attack in a
government-controlled city like the capital of Damascus.
On Tuesday,the Times assigned two of its most committed
anti-Syrian-government propagandists to cover the Syrian poison-gas
story, Michael B. Gordon and Anne Barnard....
Gordon has been at the front lines of the neocon “regime change” strategies for years. He co-authored the Times’ infamous aluminum tube story
of Sept. 8, 2002, which relied on U.S. government sources and Iraqi
defectors to frighten Americans with images of “mushroom clouds” if they
didn’t support President George W. Bush’s upcoming invasion of Iraq.
The timing played perfectly into the administration’s advertising
“rollout” for the Iraq War.
Of course, the story turned out to be false and to have unfairly
downplayed skeptics of the claim that the aluminum tubes were for
nuclear centrifuges, when the aluminum tubes actually were meant for
artillery. But the article provided a great impetus toward the Iraq War,
which ended up killing nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers and hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis.
Gordon’s co-author, Judith Miller, became the only U.S. journalist
known to have lost a job over the reckless and shoddy reporting that
contributed to the Iraq disaster. For his part, Gordon continued serving
as a respected Pentagon correspondent.
Gordon’s name also showed up in a supporting role on the Times’ botched “vector analysis,”
which supposedly proved that the Syrian military was responsible for
the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin-gas attack. The “vector analysis” story of Sept.
17, 2013, traced the flight paths of two rockets, recovered in suburbs
of Damascus back to a Syrian military base 9.5 kilometers away.
The article became the “slam-dunk” evidence that the Syrian
government was lying when it denied launching the sarin attack. However,
like the aluminum tube story, the Times’ ”vector analysis” ignored
contrary evidence, such as the unreliability of one azimuth from a
rocket that landed in Moadamiya because it had struck a building in its
descent. That rocket also was found to contain no sarin, so it’s
inclusion in the vectoring of two sarin-laden rockets made no sense.
But the Times’ story ultimately fell apart when rocket scientists
analyzed the one sarin-laden rocket that had landed in the Zamalka area
and determined that it had a maximum range of about two kilometers,
meaning that it could not have originated from the Syrian military base. C.J. Chivers, one of the co-authors of the article, waited until Dec.
28, 2013, to publish a halfhearted semi-retraction. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Backs Off Its Syria-Sarin Analysis.”]
Gordon was a co-author of another bogus Times’ front-page story on
April 21, 2014, when the State Department and the Ukrainian government
fed the Times two photographs that supposedly proved that a group of
Russian soldiers – first photographed in Russia – had entered Ukraine,
where they were photographed again.
However, two days later, Gordon was forced to pen a retraction
because it turned out that both photos had been shot inside Ukraine,
destroying the story’s premise. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Retracts Russian-Photo Scoop.”]
Gordon perhaps personifies better than anyone how mainstream
journalism works. If you publish false stories that fit with the
Establishment’s narratives, your job is safe even if the stories blow up
in your face.However, if you go against the grain – and if someone
important raises a question about your story – you can easily find
yourself out on the street even if your story is correct.
No Skepticism Allowed
Anne Barnard, Gordon’s co-author on Tuesday’s Syrian poison-gas
story, has consistently reported on the Syrian conflict as if she were a
press agent for the rebels, playing up their anti-government claims
even when there’s no evidence.
For instance, on June 2, 2015, Barnard, who is based in Beirut,
Lebanon, authored a front-page story that pushed the rebels’ propaganda
theme that the Syrian government was somehow in cahoots with the Islamic State though even the U.S. State Department acknowledged that it had no confirmation of the rebels’ claims.
When Gordon and Barnard teamed up to report on the latest Syrian tragedy,
they again showed no skepticism about early U.S. government and Syrian
rebel [terrorist] claims that the Syrian military was responsible for intentionally
deploying poison gas.
Perhaps for the first time, The New York Times cited President Trump
as a reliable sourcebecause he and his press secretary were saying what
the Times wanted to hear–that Assad must be guilty.
Gordon and Barnard also cited the controversial White Helmets,
the rebels’ Western-financed civil defense group that has worked in
close proximity with Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and has come under suspicion
of staging heroic “rescues” but is nevertheless treated as a fount of
truth-telling by the mainstream U.S. news media.
In early online versions of the Times’ story, a reaction from the Syrian military was buried deep in the article around the 27th
paragraph, noting: “The government denies that it has used chemical
weapons, arguing that insurgents and Islamic State fighters use toxins
to frame the government or that the attacks are staged.”
The following paragraph mentioned the possibility that a Syrian
bombing raid had struck a rebel warehouse where poison-gas was stored,
thus releasing it unintentionally.
But the placement of the response was a clear message that the Times
disbelieved whatever the Assad government said. At least in the version
of the story that appeared in the morning newspaper, a government
statement was moved up to the sixth paragraph although still surrounded
by comments meant to signal the Times’ acceptance of the rebel version.
After noting the Assad government’s denial, Gordon and Barnard added,
“But only the Syrian military had the ability and the motive to carry
out an aerial attack like the one that struck the rebel-held town of
Khan Sheikhoun.”
But they again ignored the alternative possibilities. One was that a
bombing raid ruptured containers for chemicals that the rebels were
planning to use in some future attack, and the other was that Al Qaeda’s
jihadists staged the incident to elicit precisely the international
outrage directed at Assad as has occurred.
Gordon and Barnard also could be wrong about Assad being the only one
with a motive to deploy poison gas. Since Assad’s forces have gained a
decisive upper-hand over the rebels, why would he risk stirring up
international outrage at this juncture? On the other hand, the desperate
rebels might view the horrific scenes from the chemical-weapons
deployment as a last-minute game-changer.
Pressure to Prejudge
None of this means that Assad’s forces are innocent, but a serious
investigation ascertains the facts and then reaches a conclusion, not
the other way around.
However, to suggest these other possibilities will, I suppose, draw
the usual accusations about “Assad apologist,” but refusing to prejudge
an investigation is what journalism is supposed to be about.
The Times, however, apparently has no concern anymore for letting the
facts be assembled and then letting them speak for themselves. The
Times weighed in on Wednesday with an editorial entitled “A New Level of Depravity From Mr. Assad.”
Another problem with the behavior of the Times and the mainstream
media is that by jumping to a conclusion they pressure other important
people to join in the condemnations and that, in turn, can prejudice the
investigation while also generating a dangerous momentum toward war.
Once the political leadership pronounces judgment, it becomes
career-threatening for lower-level officials to disagree with those
conclusions. We’ve seen that already with how United Nations
investigators accepted rebel claims about the Syrian government’s use of
chlorine gas, a set of accusations that the Times and other media now
report simply as flat-fact.
Yet, the claims about the Syrian military mixing in canisters of
chlorine in supposed “barrel bombs” make little sense because chlorine
deployed in that fashion is ineffective as a lethal weapon but it has
become an important element of the rebels’ propaganda campaign.
U.N. investigators, who were under intense pressure from the United
States and Western nations to give them something to use against Assad,
did support rebel claims about the government using chlorine in a couple
of cases, but the investigators also received testimony from residents
in one area who described the staging of a chlorine attack for
propaganda purposes.
One might have thought that the evidence of one staged attack would
have increased skepticism about the other incidents, but the U.N.
investigators apparently understood what was good for their careers, so
they endorsed a couple of other alleged cases despite their inability to
conduct a field investigation. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “UN Team Heard Claims of Staged Chemical Attacks.”]
Now, that dubious U.N. report is being leveraged into this new
incident, one opportunistic finding used to justify another. But the
pressing question now is:
"At least 58 people were killed in a
horrific gas attack in the Idlib Governorate this morning. However, even
before investigations could be conducted and for evidence to emerge,
Federica Mogherini, the Italian politician High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, condemned
the Syrian government stating that the “Assad regime bears responsibility for ‘awful’ Syria ‘chemical’ attack.”
Merely hours after the alleged chemical weapons attack in Khan
Sheikhun, supposedly by the Syrian government, holes are beginning to
emerge from opposition sources,discrediting the Al-Qaeda affiliated
White Helmets claims.
Within seconds of exposure to sarin, the affects of the gas begins to
target the muscle and nervous system. There is an almost immediate
release of the bowels and the bladder, and vomiting is induced. When
sarin is used in a concentrated area, it has the likelihood of killing
thousands of people. Yet, such a dangerous gas, and the White Helmets
are treating bodies with little concern to their exposed skin. This has
to raise questions.
It also raises the question why a “doctor” in a hospital full of
victims of sarin gas has the time to tweet and make video calls. This
will probably be dismissed and forgotten however.
@maytham956
Hmm…'Patients are flooding in' YET this 'doctor' (seems the main source
of 'gas attack') has time to film, tweet and videocalls…#Syriapic.twitter.com/SfLOfjE2pG
It is known that about 250 people from Majdal and Khattab were
kidnapped by Al-Qaeda terrorists last week. Local sources have claimed
that many of those dead from the chemical weapons were those from Majdal
and Khattab."...
In his letter of resignation,
Lacker admitted to speaking to an analyst at Medley Global Advisors
regarding the September 2012 Fed meeting. Medley publishes analysis for
hedge funds and asset managers andis owned by the Financial Times.
Lacker said his actions violated Fed communications policies that
prohibit "providing any profit-making person or organization with a
prestige advantage over its competitors."
Lacker said he was asked by an
analyst about an "important nonpublic detail" regarding the Federal Open
Market Committee's policy options.
"Due to the highly confidential
and sensitive nature of this information, I should have declined to
comment and perhaps have ended the phone call," Lacker said....
In addition, Lacker said he was obligated to disclose that the analyst had confidential information, which he did not do.
Medley ultimately told clients
in October 2012 that the Fed would initiate another leg of its monthly
bond-buying program in December. The author of the note was Regina
Schleiger, who added in the note that Fed members had been up after
midnight preparing for the meeting, according to the New York Times....
The Fed was criticized for not referring the leak to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or the FBI. Instead, Fed General Counsel Scott
Alvarez lead a Fed probe into the matter from October 2012 until March
of 2013.
The Fed also released a statement saying, it "is committed to
maintaining the security of confidential FOMC information. We cooperated
fully with the independent law enforcement investigation into an
unauthorized disclosure in 2012. We appreciate the diligent efforts made
to bring this matter to its conclusion.""
----------------------
Comment: "The Fed was criticizedfor not referring the leak to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or the FBI." The Fed "was criticized" by whom? Why is this sentence written passively? We all know laws don't effect the Deep State, so criticism certainly doesn't. Nevertheless, if the CNBC reporter knows "the Fed was criticized," why didn't he allow the peasants to know who did the criticizing?
For instance, New York Times columnist Charles W. Blow declared
on Monday thatthe public can longer debate whether Russia leaked to WikiLeaks the emails from the Democratic National Committeeand Hillary
Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta despite the failure of the U.S.
government or private researchers to present evidence that establishes
that claim as fact.
Blow acknowledged that “We are still not conclusively able to connect
the dots on the question of whether there was any coordination or
collusion between members of Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russians…but those dots do continue to multiply at an alarming rate.”
And if that indictment doesn’t quiet you up, there’s the column by
The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne Jr. who explains that the real victims
in Russia-gate are the accusers who have promoted this
guilt-by-association scandal that has impugned the integrity of a
growing number of Americans who either talked to Russians or who
expressed doubts about the investigation....
The
turnout was slightly and consistently more favorable for Mr. Trump
across all three states. But the turnout edge was small; in one of the
closest elections in American history, it might not have represented his
margin of victory.
A More Favorable Electorate for Trump
In
general, white and Hispanic voters roughly matched expectations of
voter share or made up a slightly larger share of the electorate than
expected, while black voters made up a smaller share....
This
was mainly a result of higher white and Hispanic turnout; black turnout
was roughly in line with our pre-election expectations.On average,
white and Hispanic turnout was 4 percent higher than we expected, while
black turnout was 1 percent lower than expected.
Whether
black turnout was “disappointing” or “poor” is a matter of perspective.
It was consistent with our pre-election models, but it was
significantly lower than it was four or eight years ago, when Mr. Obama
galvanized record black turnout.
Our
pre-election estimates did not anticipate that black turnout would stay
at such elevated levels, since African-Americans still had a weaker
track record of voting in midterm and primary elections when President
Obama was not on the ballot.
Ultimately,
black turnout was roughly as we expected it. It looks as if black
turnout was weak mostly in comparison with the stronger turnout among
white and Hispanic voters.
This
was part of a broader national pattern. Mr. Trump’s turnout edge was
nonexistent or reversed in states with a large Hispanic population and a
small black population, like Arizona. His turnout advantage was largest
in states with a large black population and few Hispanic voters, like
North Carolina.
What was consistent across most states, however, was higher-than-expected white turnout.
For
this reason alone, it’s hard to argue that turnout was responsible for
the preponderance of Mr. Trump’s gains among white voters. The turnout
among young and white Democratic voters was quite strong.
But
the turnout was generally stronger among the likeliest white Trump
supporters than among the likeliest white Clinton supporters.
Over
all, the turnout among white voters with a greater than 80 percent
chance of supporting Mr. Trump was 7 percent higher than expected, while
the turnout was 4 percent higher among white voters with greater than
an 80 percent chance of supporting Mrs. Clinton.
The
stronger Republican turnout among white voters narrowed the Democratic
registration edge below pre-election expectations in Florida,
Pennsylvania and North Carolina.
Only a Modest Effect
So
how much did turnout contribute to Mr. Trump’s victory? As the party
registration numbers and turnout figures by race imply, just a bit. But
Mr. Trump won the election by just a bit — by only 0.7 percentage points
in Pennsylvania, for example.
We
estimated the presidential vote of every registered voter, based on our
pre-election polls, voter file data and the results of every precinct.
With these individual-level estimates of vote choice, it’s easy to
assess how the election might have gone differently with a different
electorate.
These
estimates suggest that turnout improved Mr. Trump’s standing by a
modest margin compared with pre-election expectations. If the turnout
had gone exactly as we thought it would, the election would have been
extremely close. But by this measure, Mrs. Clinton still would have lost
both Florida and Pennsylvania — albeit very narrowly.
It’s
important to note that this is just one analysis, based on one set of
data. Over the coming months or years, other analysts may conclude that
the effect of turnout was larger or smaller than our estimates suggest.
Their conclusions could differ if, for instance, their pre-election
models showed a different electorate (say, they expected another big
2012-like turnout among black voters), or if their polling data shows
that the people who voted were more or less supportive of Mr. Trump
compared with those who stayed home.
Even
so, it would surprise me if other analysts reach a fundamentally
different conclusion, based on interviews with pollsters and data
analysts from both parties. In such a high-turnout election, it’s
difficult for the voting electorate to be vastly different than
expected.
For
comparison, consider just how much worse Mrs. Clinton would have done
with the 2014 electorate. Young, nonwhite and Democratic voters did not
turn out in large numbers that year, and Mrs. Clinton would have
probably lost Florida and Pennsylvania by a wide margin. Her losses
would have been smaller in North Carolina, perhaps because the state had
such a competitive Senate race in 2014.
Based
on these data, Democrats are right to blame many of their midterm
election losses on weak turnout. They’re on far shakier ground if they
complain about the turnout last November.
This
doesn’t mean that Democrats can’t improve on turnout. If the turnout
had been as good for Mrs. Clinton as it was for Mr. Trump, she would
have won by our analysis. But even then, she would have only scratched
by.
The
voter file data makes it impossible to avoid this conclusion. It’s not
just that the electorate looks far too Democratic. In many cases,
turnout cannot explain Mrs. Clinton’s losses.
Did
8,000 of Mr. Obama’s supporters stay home? No. There were 5,995
registered voters who voted in 2012, remain registered in Schuylkill
County, and stayed home in 2016.
And
there’s no way these 2016 drop-off voters were all Obama supporters.
There were 2,680 registered Democrats, 2,629 registered Republicans and
686 who were unaffiliated or registered with a different party. This is a
place where registered Democrats often vote Republican in presidential
elections, so Mr. Obama’s standing among these voters was most likely
even lower."...
(continuing): "Were
they mostly supporters of Bernie Sanders? Unlikely: He was popular
among the young, but 67 percent of the 2016 drop-off voters were over
age 45, and 35 percent were over age 65. Just 5 percent voted in the
Democratic primary in 2016, and 7 percent voted in the Republican
primary.
Is
it possible that the registered Democrats who turned out were Trump
supporters, and that the Democrats who stayed home were likelier to be
supporters of Mrs. Clinton? Perhaps, but our polling suggests the
opposite. In our pre-electionUpshot/Sienapolls, voters were likelier than nonvoters to support their party’s nominee.
[Ed. note: This being the case, why wasn't it urgently addressed and treated as big news during the campaigns? Hillary could've adjusted her campaign accordingly.]
(continuing): "The
postelection survey data tells a similar story: Mrs. Clinton won Mr.
Obama’s white-working class supporters by a margin of only 78 percent to
18 percent against Mr. Trump, according to the Cooperative
Congressional Election Study.
In
the Midwestern battleground states and Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton had
an advantage of 76 percent to 20 percent among white working-class Obama
voters.
But
the data all points in the same direction: Shifts in turnout were not
the dominant factor in Mr. Trump’s success among white working-class
voters." above maps from wikipedia, which states: Schuylkill County, Pa. "is located in the heart oftheanthraciteCoal Regionof Eastern Pennsylvania."
Over all, the national polls missed the result by
only a few points: Hillary Clinton is on track to win the popular vote
by around 1.5 percentage points, not especially far from her roughly
four-point lead in an average of national polls.
Few saw it coming. Mrs. Clinton led in nearly every high-quality survey of Minnesota, Maine, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.
It was her modest but consistent edge in those states and others that
led analysts to project that she had an excellent chance at victory.
This includes our poll-based forecast,
which gave Mrs. Clinton an 85 percent chance to win, alongside those
from other organizations, which put Mrs. Clinton's chances at between 71
percent at FiveThirtyEight and greater than 99 percent at the Princeton Election Consortium.
Her campaign, with its own polling, concluded the
same thing. She barely even campaigned in Maine, Wisconsin or
Minnesota, and visited Michigan only in the last week of the race.
All of these states have something in common:
They have a large number of white voters without a college degree. Mr.
Trump also outperformed the polls in other mostly white and rural
states, whether Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri or Indiana.
The states with a large number of white
working-class voters tend to be somewhat less populous than the more
diverse and well-educated states along the coasts. A result is that the
state polling averages were off by more than usual, even though the
national numbers weren’t far off.
State Polling Errors in 2016 Were the Largest in Decades"...
Unfortunately a lot of those in positions of power seem to be in
denial of those facts. Then there are those who are uninterested in why.
Hillary was a terrible candidate, and at least some senior Dems seem to
be willing to ask how they can do better. Too many on the Republican
side seem to be oblivious that Trump did better than generic Republican,
and what the implications of that are. I am dubious that any other
candidate in the primaries could have done better than Donald Trump,
mostly because he had a brand independent of that of the Republican
party.
The Upshot reached this conclusion by
reviewing actual voter files, comparing those to The Upshot's
pre-election turnout projections in Florida, Pennsylvania and North
Carolina. The turnout patterns in these three states are representative
of broader trends throughout the nation, according to the analysis."
The
diocese’s bankruptcy filing comes in the face of 72 lawsuits claiming
child sexual abuse by priests and other diocesan staff. More claims may
be filed as the case goes through the bankruptcy process.
Great
Falls-Billings Bishop Michael Warfel told The Wall Street Journal he has
already met with several sexual abuse victims and is open to meeting
with all of them.
“A
lot of people have carried wounds for many years, and I am very
sensitive to that,” he said Friday. “It’s really important in the
healing process for victims to meet with the bishop and the diocese, and
I encourage it.”
All diocesan bankruptcies to date—from the
Archdiocese of Portland, Ore., in 2004 to the Diocese of New Ulm, Minn.,
which filed in March—have been driven by mounting liabilities tied to
the past sexual abuse of minors.
“On behalf of the entire Diocese of
Great Falls-Billings, I express my profound sorrow and sincere apologies
to anyone who was abused by a priest, a sister or a lay Church worker,”
the bishop said in a statement Friday. “No child should experience harm
from anyone who serves the Church.”
Bishop Warfel added that no
priests from his diocese facing credible accusations of abuse are in
active ministry and that most are deceased. The vast majority of abuse
allegations involving the Catholic Church in the U.S. occurred decades
ago.
The Diocese of Great Falls-Billings covers nearly two thirds
of the state of Montana, but serves a relatively small population.
According to its website, the diocese has about 40,000 parishioners, 42
active priests, 50 parishes and 50 missions.
In bankruptcy court
papers, the diocese listed total assets of about $21 million. The
diocese’s parishes aren’t separately incorporated, and it isn’t clear
how much, if any, of their assets will be included in a future
bankruptcy settlement.
The Great Falls-Billings diocese enters
bankruptcy with a negotiated agreement with both victims plaintiffs and
its insurance carriers, which aims to help speed up the chapter 11 case.
The agreement, reached with the help of a mediator, provides a road map
intended to avoid legal obstacles at the outset of the case, according
to Ford Elsaesser, a lawyer for the diocese.
Mr.
Elsaesser says he expects the case to follow in the footsteps of the
Diocese of Helena, Mont., a neighboring diocese that sought bankruptcy
protection in 2014.
The Diocese of Helena eventually reached a $21 million settlement with
about 380 victims, largely through out-of-court negotiations. The
diocese spent just over a year in chapter 11 but less than five hours in
court, according to Mr. Elsaesser, who also represented the Helena
diocese.
Other U.S. diocesan bankruptcies, however, have been protracted and hard-fought, with many stretching out over several years.
Not
everyone agrees that bankruptcy is the best forum for handling
sensitive allegations of past sexual abuse. Critics say the process can
deprive victims of the opportunity to present their stories to a jury
and can force other victims to come forward before they are ready. Once a
bankruptcy comes to a close, victims whose claims stem from abuse that
occurred prior to the bankruptcy are typically barred from taking their
allegations to court.
“While we had hoped to obtain justice for
our clients at trial, we are hopeful that the diocese’s bankruptcy will
result in nonmonetary terms for the protection of children and monetary
recognition of the tragedies endured by victims,” Leander James, an
attorney for a group of victims, said in a statement Friday."
