Proportional Judgment or, more accurately, proportional liability, clouds the litigation. It is the principle that when multiple entities bear some responsibility for a loss, the court (jury) may assign a proportional responsibility to each party with corresponding financial obligation. If one party is responsible for 20% of the loss, another 30% and another 50%, each party pays “their percentage” of the dollar amount awarded.

It sounds fair, depending on your perspective. It gets more complicated, though. What if a defendant is deemed to be 90% responsible, but has No Money (or not enough)? The Plaintiffs would collect 10% from the other entities, and they would receive little or nothing from the entity judged most the blame. Herein lies the risk of going to trial…it is a gamble. Major blame could be given to a party with the least ability to pay. The Plaintiffs lose big time. Are you reading between the lines?

The Institution, The Plaintiffs, and The Others are walking a tightrope trying to balance who is to blame for how much of the judgement and do they have the resources to pay? Settling before going to trial substitutes reasonable negotiation for risk. When there is no agreement, those with confidence welcome the jury, as those who are unsure seek compromise and pray for a better result.

Who do you think is responsible… and at what percentage? Is the Harris Estate sufficient? Is there recoverable money hidden somewhere by those who managed the loss? Will the corporate entities rise to the point of blame, and payments, for us to achieve 100% wholeness through the Settlement?

Morally, there is no mystery. The Institution owes the People. The Others owe the Institution! What is the moral commitment of The Institution?

If ANY of the Others choose to go to trial, proportional responsibility will be assigned regardless to The Settlement. The Plaintiffs’ ability to collect from the Institution is capped. Does limited Institution liability matter if insufficient liability falls on The Others? Will The Institution and The Plaintiffs drop its case against some, if others settle? (A bad mistake for morale. Will there be a cover-up in our future?)

Is this a good deal? Yes, if you think you think significant, additional, collectible funds may not be awarded at trial. No, if The Institution does not respond with post-judgment payments to bring Participants to 100% whole. No, if The Institution walks away, and Participants do not have a court enforceable moral commitment (a legally binding promise without acknowledging legal responsible for the cause). No, if The Others are not ordered to pay significant, collectible funds that will bring Participants to 100% Whole more quickly. No, if The Institution continues to spend money on legal fees to pursue The Others with little or no hope of recovering any of those fees in even a “good” outcome. No, if the only ones walking away smiling and at peace are attorneys.

From the beginning, The Institution and The Plaintiffs should have been working together to hold OTHERS responsible for their part, and together, they should have been seeking financial restitution for the wrongdoing of others. Just as important, The Institution should have committed to a trustworthy path toward 100% Wholeness from the start.

Sophistry, evasion, and opaqueness corroded a fragile confidence. Still, are they listening? Will they respond as Emperors or Shepherds? Will the Church commit to a moral response with equitable, viable plans as The Institution pursues legal justice and remedies? Why make us Object or Opt Out to get a just acknowledgment of our cries? Compromise usually entails loss. The Participants should not be the losers here!