Robert: As I seem to be ruffling feathers, maybe I should take my leave? Any further questions?
You are certainly not ruffling my feathers one bit. I find your case interesting and rather compelling as you state it.
Jersey Girl: With regards to the "unscrupulous" remark:
He stated that any lawsuit brought against the church is held up as long as possible in appeals.
I don't think it unscrupulous for lawyers to file appeals. The justice system lets losing parties appeal. But here, I wonder what that means because he just dismissed his case before trial. Nobody would want to appeal. The Church wouldn't appeal because it had one. You couldn't because you dismissed.
Jersey Girl: What does that mean? Dismissed without prejudice?
If you dismiss with prejudice, it means that you admit that you have no case. Such dismissals are rare and almost always come with a negotiated settlement. So most people dismiss without prejudice. It is kind of like saying, "I am not going to pursue my case further, but don't hold it against me if I try again."
But here, look above in the posts.
Crockett: (3) the facts as they came out in discovery showed that the case wasn't worth pursuing.
Robert: #3 is almost correct.
Certainly enigmatic, but the best interpretation of his response is that my speculation is "almost" correct. It looks like he's saying he has no case against the Church.
That prompted me task why he dismissed his case. Again, reading the press reports, it seems like an interesting case and the missing element seems to the reason why he dismissed his case.
Robert: I am sorry I cannot discuss that here as it may be a point of referance if I choose litigation. If I do, you can read about it then.
I wouldn't have been so impertinent to ask this question had not you entitled this thread: "Please come to the source, and I will answer all your questions."
So, also, is the question I have as to why your lawyers quit on you.
Robert: Maybe the messenger should check his dates before stating things out of turn. Possible I felt personally attacked with the statement of taking it to the papers, and the disregard to write about me in the 3rd person.
I think I've made it clear that I'm speculating in large part as to the reasons you were doing what you did, and I offered alternative reasons. The dates are largely meaningless to me, but it appears to me that you dismissed your case and then somebody championed your case in the press. Whether one or the other came first, it doesn't really matter to me.
Robert: The staute has a loop hole and can be argued. I still have time on this count (one year left). There are also others that can be pursued.
Again, I don't know anything about Washington law. Most states have a three or four year statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse, which begins to run at 18. Given the apparent date of your injuries, and the fact that you dismissed your case, it appears that under a four year rule you'd be out of luck the day you dismissed your case. That was why I wanted to know what made you give up. I thought I had come to the source to hear all answers.