State Supreme Court issues ruling

Cheri Perkins Mantz's report in our Catholic Herald (July 12, 2007) on John Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee. She interviewed John Rothstein, attorney for our Archdiocese.

“That leaves the claim asserting fraud, so that is sent to the court below for further processing because the Supreme Court couldn’t make a determination at this stage whether or not it was barred.

“As the Supreme Court said, (the fraud charge) may be untimely or it might not be, so that’s what the trial judge is going to have to decide. And that’s why the matter is being sent back to the trial judge."

It's almost as if claims of fraud against our Archdiocese are just this side of "dog bites man". Mr. Rothstein then goes on as if explaining a lawsuit at a middle school Career Day.

“The next step for the archdiocese is, we’ll go through the normal process, the files and papers will find their way to the trial judge and then we’ll ask the trial judge to hold a hearing or meeting with all the parties to map out how we go from here,” he explained. “At that first meeting, I think we’ll try to identify for the judge and set the scheduling so we can bring the threshold question of that statute of limitations back to the judge for the processing the Supreme Court has directed. After that, the question on the statute of limitations is resolved, if the trial judge decides that the lawsuit is untimely, that completes the lawsuit. If he concludes it was timely, then he’ll have to schedule a trial..”

But what about that little matter of, you know, fraud?

“On the fraud count, while we obviously would’ve preferred, and we believe the trial judge appropriately decided the question (in 2005), we understand the Supreme Court’s direction that the trial judge should now take additional information before deciding the statute of limitations for fraud. As a lawyer that gives me clear direction to what the Supreme Court wants and I’m very pleased to do that.”

If the Circuit Court decides the cases are not barred by the statute of limitations, he'll be pleased, in the same sense, to defend the cases on the merits. Assume the Supreme Court had affirmed the dismissal of these cases, or assume the fraud claims are eventually dismissed because brought too late. Is our Archdiocese proceeding on the assumption that if it has no legal liability, then the fraud allegations raise no moral questions?

The Archdiocese released a statement to the media, stating, "We respect the Supreme Court’s decision and will abide by it. ..."

That answers a question no one asked.

"The Archdiocese of Milwaukee remains committed to continuing our work on the issue of clergy sexual abuse."

The word I most believe in that sentence is "continuing".