Talk:Sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles

Attorneys
This article does not make any sense at all. The "plaintiffs attorney's demanded 10% of a million" would suggest they are demanding $100,000 and the Church is offering $4,000,000. This does not make sense. I have no clue what is inteded by the wording, but it is not conveyed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this may refer to attorney's fees. I found this in an article:
 * In the four months since the diocese declared bankruptcy, bills for attorneys and accountants have exceeded $2.1 million. Under Chapter 11 rules, the diocese must foot the bill for nearly all bankruptcy costs. Webb expects bankruptcy costs to be about $4 million by the end of August.
 * Judge sets bankruptcy settlement deadline; Mark Sauer, Sandi Dolbee. The San Diego Union - Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Jun 30, 2007. pg. A.1
 * But I can't really make sense out of that sentence either.   Will Beback    talk    22:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mexico case
From what I can make out of it, a Mexican national is suing LA Archdiocese for abuse which took place Mexico. The priest was transferred to LA, was accused of abuse, and fled back to Mexico before he could be arrested. It appears the statute has run out for any US prosecution, and Mexico has been resisting any meaningful criminal prosecution. This lawsuit is not part of the record settlement. I think this case should be deleted pending some kind of court decision. Lionel (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Federal investigation
The source is from 1/2009. The only update I've been able to find is that the US Attorney who filed the case is now in private practice. I'm removing this section until there is some kind of court ruling. Lionel (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I found some sources from February 2009 indicating that prosecutors were considering using the "honest services fraud" theory. Since nothing has happened in the intervening 18 months, it looks they decided against it.   Will Beback    talk    04:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Need to update
With recent criticisms of Mahony's role since his removal as Archbishop, it would seem the scandal is not over yet, at least not in its impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The January 2013 court order to release the non-redacted documents suggessts we may not have seen the full impact of this as an issue yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)