[patent]

"the assumption that he has either tacitly or expressly permitted one of his own priests to initiate and publish the above mentioned website"

Maybe Rose and his lawyer knew that the bishop was indeed expressly permitting, or even leaning on, the priest to take this line against Rose.

I doubt it, but if that was true it would have been overly easy for Rose to demonstrate that. He won’t even respond to e-mails, much less support his actions. He won’t produce the letter he sent the Bishop, or the letter he sent Johansen. I’ve said from the start of my criticism on this that I would like to hear Rose’s side, and if its valid I’ll retract my criticism. The fact that he can’t be bothered to respond to this, but did get all upset about things posted to a blog, demonstrates with crystal clarity what the truth is.

He has no good reason for his actions.

The articles above provide further evidence of bad faith. To repeat what I said above:

It just amazes me that they ask this question, then mention the libel charge made to Johansen, but then they don’t bother to mention that pesky little detail about what really seems to have shut Johansen up, threatening the Bishop:

Rose's efforts to communicate with Fr. Johansen proved futile, so Rose took up a Catholic attorney's offer to challenge Fr. Johansen to the either back up his claims or face a federal lawsuit for libel.

To ask that question, and then give that half answer, is in my view, intellectually dishonest. If you want to ask what Rose is going to do in response to Johansen, then admit all of what he did, not the part you find most helpful.

If your going to slam the man, at least admit you made it so that he can’t respond to you.

patent  +AMDG

[sitetest]

Dear patent,

You may wish to entertain the notion that Mr. Rose's view of his letter to Fr. Johansen's bishop is similar to that of many of the non-lawyers here at FR. You, as a lawyer, find the letter to the bishop to be reprehensible. I understand your explanation of why it's so terrible, though as a non-lawyer, frankly, it doesn't strike me in the same way.

Perhaps Mr. Rose doesn't have the same view of the letter to the bishop as you do. Thus, he didn't think it was important to mention it.


sitetest

[ninenot]

He won’t even respond to e-mails, much less support his actions

You evidently have never been party to legal action.

It is SOP for an attorney to advise his client to ZIP THE LIP about ANYTHING having to do with a legal action, once initiated (and the letter sent is the initiation.)

Rose cannot send documents or emails if he is properly advised by counsel.

His article defending his work is proper, BTW. Johansen fired a round, now it's Rose's turn.

Seems fair to me.