Thomas Magnum, et al, Plaintiffs, vs. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, et al., Defendants -- Part 2
VIII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
71. Plaintiffs maintain this action on behalf of themselves and a class of all other male and female students and parishioners of Defendants who were subject to any form of sexual abuse, sexual contact, sexual misconduct, sexual exploitation and/or sex discrimination by priests or clergy or members of religious orders from 1940 to the present and at the time of such abuse or misconduct such priests or clergy or members were assigned to or employed by or being protected/concealed/harbored by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
72. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) and (3).
73. Upon information and belief, there are up to five hundred (500) members of the proposed class and there are approximately sixty-three (63) known pedophile priests who victimized the class members for a period of more than four decades. Accordingly, the members of the class are so numerous that joinder is impractical. Despite the size of the class, the identities of many of the class members can be ascertained from Defendants’ files and records. Plaintiffs and their counsel do not anticipate any difficulties in the management of this class action.
74. The interests of Plaintiffs are consistent with and are not antagonistic to those of the other class members.
75. There are significant questions of law and fact common to the members of the class, including but not limited to:
a. Whether or not Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to conceal the sexual abuse of Plaintiffs;
b. Whether or not Defendants, by their actions, perpetuated the acts of sexual abuse against Plaintiffs;
c. Whether or not Defendants used illegal tactics including but not limited to threats, intimidation and bribery to conceal the sexual abuse of Plaintiffs;
d. Whether or not Defendants’ fraudulent and illegal actions act to toll and/or suspend the accrual and running any applicable statute of limitations;
e. Whether or not Defendants’ actions constitute a violation of, or neglect to prevent a violation of, Plaintiffs’ civil rights under the 14thAmendment of the United States Constitution, and state laws;
f. Whether or not Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to conceal the sexual abuse and sexual misconduct of the pedophile priests in violation of the federal RICO statute; and
g. Whether or not Defendants engaged in fraudulent concealment of the criminal activities of the pedophile priests.
76. The claims of the named individual and representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. The named Plaintiffs have been the victims of the same intentional practices that affect each class member. Plaintiffs and each class member have sustained and continue to suffer injuries arising from Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
77. The proposed class representatives will fairly and adequately represent the class, because they have the class’ interests in mind, and because they are represented by well-qualified counsel.
78. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
79. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation since individual joinder of all members of the class is impracticable. Most members of the class cannot afford to pursue individual litigation against Defendants. Even if some class members could themselves afford individual litigation, it would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which the individual litigation would proceed. Individual litigation magnifies the delay and expense of resolving controversies surrounding Defendants’ practices. Individual litigation would also subject individual class members to severe stress and humiliation that necessarily attends litigation relating to sexual abuse. Many victims of the Defendants’ agents have failed to come forward for fear of being publicly identified. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of unitary adjudication and comprehensive supervision by a single court, and can protect the privacy of many class members who otherwise would not come forward.
80. The class, as defined herein, may be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
81. The class, as defined herein, may also be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
82. The class, as defined herein, may also be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) for the following reasons:
a. As above stated, legal costs, the desire for anonymity, and the fear of public humiliation greatly diminishes the interests of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;
b. The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by members of the class is not such that a class action should be precluded;
c. Because the acts in question occurred within the jurisdictional district of this Court, and because Defendants and to knowledge and belief most of the class of Plaintiffs can be located within the jurisdiction of this Court, and because there are questions of federal law to be decided, it is desirable to concentrate the litigation of the claims in this forum; and
d. Despite the size of the class, the identities of many of the class members can be ascertained from Defendants’ files and records. Plaintiffs and their counsel do not anticipate any difficulties in the management of this case as a class action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying Plaintiffs to be class representatives and the undersigned counsel to be class counsel for the class as defined herein.
COUNT I RICO - Violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c)ENTERPRISE
83. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully stated herein.
84. Defendants are persons under 18 U.S.C. §1961(3).
85. The relationship between Cardinal Krol, Cardinal Bevilacqua, Cardinal Rigali and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise I”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
86. Alternatively, the relationship between Cardinal Krol and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise II”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
87. Alternatively, the relationship between Cardinal Bevilacqua and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise III”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
88. Alternatively, the relationship between Cardinal Rigali and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise IV”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
89. Alternatively, the relationship between the pedophile priests, Cardinal Krol and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise V”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
90. Alternatively, the relationship between the pedophile priests, Cardinal Bevilacqua and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise VI”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
91. Alternatively, the relationship between the pedophile priests, Cardinal Rigali and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise VII”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
92. Alternatively, the relationship between the pedophile priests and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise VIII”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
93. Alternatively, Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise IX”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
94. Alternatively, the relationship between the pedophile priests, Cardinal Bevilacqua, Cardinal Krol, Cardinal Rigali and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise X”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
95. Alternatively, the relationship between the United States Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church (hereafter “Enterprise XI”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
96. Enterprises I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI had an ongoing business aside and apart from the racketeering acts alleged herein in that they were involved in the operation of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.
97. Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI engaged in activities which affected interstate or foreign commerce.
98. At all relevant times Defendants were employed by and/or associated with Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI.
99. At all relevant times Defendants controlled or directed the affairs of Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI. ACTIVITY
100. At all relevant times Defendants, aided and abetted by each other, their agents, employees, and others, conducted and participated directly or indirectly in the conduct and affairs of Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI through a pattern or practice of conspiracy and racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C §1962 (c) .
101. From approximately 1940 through to the present, Defendants, as persons controlling or directing the affairs of Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI, engaged in or joined in a conspiracy to intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently conceal criminal conduct of its agents, aid and abet the concealment of criminal conduct, aid and abet criminal sexual conduct, fail to report criminal conduct of its agents, obstruct justice, obstruct criminal investigation, obstruct state and/or local law enforcement, evade criminal and/or civil prosecution and liability, fail to warn the public of the possible and/or likely future criminal conduct of its agents, fail to act to remove pedophile priests from their parishes and from contact with potential and likely victims, bribe and/or pay money to and/or threaten and/or coerce victims in order to keep its criminal conduct secret, violate the civil rights of children and families, engage in mail and/or wire fraud, and commit fraud and/or fraudulent inducement of its parishioners in furtherance of its scheme to protect pedophile priests and the archdiocese from criminal and/or civil prosecution, to maintain and/or increase charitable contributions and/or avoid public scandal in the Roman Catholic Church.
102. In some instances, the church also coerced and/or obstructed state and local law enforcement officials from arresting pedophile priests by using their position of power in the community and by fraudulently promising to remove the priests from their positions within the church, thus further obstructing justice and criminal investigations.
103. In a further effort to conceal the criminal activities of the pedophile priests, the church officials, through letters mailed and telephone calls placed to other states, conspired to transfer priests to parishes in other states in order to “hide” the priests and to fraudulently convince victims and state and local law enforcement agents not to press charges and/or arrest the pedophile priests by concealing the fact that they were still active as priests in the Roman Catholic Church.
104. The Defendants, as persons controlling or directing the affairs of Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI knew that pedophile priests under their control were sexually abusing and exploiting children and they showed willful indifference and/or reckless or intentional disregard for the children in order to further their scheme.
105. In 1985, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops received a report titled “The Problem of Sexual Molestations By Roman Catholic Clergy”, which outlined the pervasive problem of child sexual abuse by priests within the Roman Catholic Church. The report predicted that failure of the Roman Catholic Church to correct this problem could result in liability for the church in excess of one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000.00) over ten years. The report also outlined steps that the Roman Catholic Church, through the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, must take to protect the church and its parishioners from the devastating effects of pedophile priests. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops failed to respond to the report or follow the suggestions contained therein, and instead continued to protect the pedophile priests and conceal their criminal activity to the severe detriment of unsuspecting children and their families. Upon information and belief, Defendants engaged in the racketeering activity described above in order to protect financial interests, continue to receive parishioner contributions, and to protect pedophile priests and Defendants themselves from criminal and/or civil prosecution.
106. The above 1985 report also advised the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to discontinue purging the secret files of potentially damaging information. The report also warned the National Conference of Catholic Bishops that their practice of moving files containing potentially dangerous material to the Apostolic Delegate (delegate to the Vatican), where the files would be immune from subpoena, could ultimately destroy the immunity enjoyed by the Holy See. These warnings were also ignored.
107. In furtherance of its scheme and enterprise to protect pedophile priests and Defendants from criminal prosecution and civil liability, maintain or increase charitable contributions and/or avoid public scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, Defendants intentionally and fraudulently engaged in the routine practice of maintaining secret “sub secreto” archival files of sexual misconduct by priests. These sub secreto files are accessible to Bishops only. The existence of these secret files and the contents were not disclosed to or made available to law enforcement authorities, or others, in order for law enforcement to investigate the known crimes of the priests. Further, it is the practice of the Roman Catholic Church to fraudulently purge the files and hide them from persons, including law enforcement authorities, seeking access to them.
108. As evidence of this fraudulent practice and its widespread use, in 1990, in an address by Bishop A. James Quinn to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops titled “NCCB Guidelines, and other Considerations in Pedophile Cases”, Bishop Quinn stated:
109. The Apostolic Delegate is the delegate from the Vatican and Holy See who the church believes enjoys sovereign immunity from lawsuits and subpoenas.
110. In furtherance of its scheme, Defendants have routinely entered into secret settlement agreements with confidentiality provisions that require victims of sexual abuse to preserve the Bishop’s secrets from scrutiny by the public and law enforcement authorities.
111. In furtherance of its scheme, Defendants have routinely illegally bribed victims of sexual exploitation and abuse in order to influence them to not report the sexual exploitation and abuse to law enforcement authorities and ultimately to influence the victims to not testify in court against Defendants and/or members of Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI .
112. As a result of Defendants’ actions, showing willful indifference and/or reckless disregard, a secret society of pedophile priests who perpetrated unspeakable criminal acts of child sexual abuse throughout the United States was maintained for over fifty (50) years. Defendants maintained this secret society by making fraudulent representations, concealing criminal activity, obstructing justice and criminal investigations, evading civil and/or criminal liability, bribing and/or payment of money to victims in order to conceal its criminal conduct from, among others, financially contributing parishioners and law enforcement agents, tampering with victims through threatening or coercive means, violating civil rights of children and families, and committing mail and wire fraud and misprision of felonies. Evidence that Defendants committed a continuing pattern of racketeering in furtherance of its scheme by engaging in fraudulent conduct across the nation includes, but is not limited to those specific instances detailed in the 2003 Report of the Grand Jury captioned In RE: County Investigating Grand Jury, Misc. No. 03-00-239 (September 17, 2003), relevant portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference herein.
113. Upon information and belief, Defendants fraudulently misrepresented the facts of known sexual misconduct to parishioners and their families for the economic purpose of avoiding civil liability while increasing or maintaining the charitable contributions and tuition payments of parishioners, current and prospective catholic school students, and current and prospective seminarians. Upon information and belief, much, if not all, of the solicitations for contributions were effectuated by using the United States Postal Service or interstate wire service.
114. The conduct set forth above constitutes “racketeering activity” in that (a) the Defendants engaged in acts and/or threats including but not limited to acts and/or threats involving kidnapping, bribery, extortion, and dealing in obscene matter and said acts and/or threats are or were chargeable under state law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; and (b) the Defendants engaged in acts including but not limited to mail and/or wire fraud, obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of state or local law enforcement, tampering with a witness or victim, retaliating against a witness or victim, peonage, slavery and trafficking in persons and sexual exploitation of children.
115. Upon information and belief, Defendants continued the above-stated racketeering activities until at least the year 2002, when Defendant Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua made statements to the public and to the grand jury in which he purposely misrepresented the extent of the sexual abuse by priests in the Archdiocese over the last several decades and his knowledge thereof. See, In RE: County Investigating Grand Jury, Misc. No. 03-00-239 (September 17, 2003).
116. Plaintiffs have been injured in their business and/or property by reason of their inability to pursue claims for monetary damages against the Defendants for personal injuries sustained as a result of the above conduct due to the Defendants’ assertion of a defense based on the statute of limitations. The fraudulent racketeering activity set forth above was conducted for the purpose of avoiding such civil liability and in order to deny the Plaintiffs said monetary damages which they were otherwise lawfully entitled to.
117. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be injured in their business and/or property by reason of Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962 et seq. Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional and psychological stress and illness as a result of the sexual abuse, which prevented them from performing to their full capacity as productive, working adults, thus causing them loss of earnings and earning capacity. Plaintiffs also have suffered and will continue to suffer out-of-pocket expenses relating to medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling necessitated by the acts of abuse.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in such sum as a jury determines to be just, reasonable and adequate, together with treble damages, litigation costs, attorney fees and interest, and for such other reliefas this Honorable Court deems to be just.
COUNT II RICO - Violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d)
118. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully stated herein.
119. Defendants agreed to and in fact did to enter into a conspiracy to violate the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) as described above.
120. As evidence of this agreement/conspiracy, Defendants and other co-conspirators committed the acts described herein and conspired to conceal the pedophile priest’s criminal activity, or aided and abetted the pedophile priests in concealing their criminal activity for over fifty (50) years.
121. As further evidence of the agreement/conspiracy, Defendants and other co-conspirators conspired with the pedophile priests to evade and/or aided and abetted the pedophile priests in evading law enforcement agencies, criminal prosecution, civil suits and the public embarrassment and liability related thereto.
122. This secret agreement/conspiracy was fraudulently concealed from Plaintiffs as well as state officials for decades.
123. Plaintiffs were injured in their business and/or property, as alleged herein, by reason of the above violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in such sum as a jury determines to be just, reasonable and adequate, together with treble damages, litigation costs, attorney fees and interest, and for such other relief as this Honorable Court deems to be just.
COUNT III CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. §1985)
124. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully stated herein.
125. Plaintiffs are members of a protected class in that they were at all relevant times minor children. The Defendants used and/or condoned the use of Plaintiffs’ status as minor children, including their obedience to adult authority and their susceptibility to the notion of the sanctity of the pedophile priests, as a way to conceal the fact that Plaintiffs had in fact been injured by the pedophile priests, to conceal the nature and extent of said injuries and to conceal the identity of those responsible, including Defendants’ own culpability in perpetuating and concealing the horrific acts of abuse.
126. Alternatively, Plaintiffs are members of a protected class in that they were at all relevant times exercising their constitutional rights as members of the Roman Catholic Church. The Defendants used and/or condoned the use of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, including their belief in God and the sanctity of the pedophile priests, as a way to conceal the fact that Plaintiffs had in fact been injured by the pedophile priests, to conceal the nature and extent of said injuries and to conceal the identity of those responsible, including Defendants’ own culpability in perpetuating and concealing the horrific acts of abuse.
127. Defendants, acting by and through their respective, agents, servants, and/or employees, conspired with each other and with the pedophile priests to conceal the illegal sexual abuse that was committed upon Plaintiffs, which concealment was done with the intent to injure Plaintiffs in their ability to seek legal redress.
128. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy that included, but was not limited to, transferring priests to different parishes and in some instances different states to conceal their crimes.
129. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy including but not limited to purposely and fraudulently telling parishioners and law enforcement agents that accused pedophile priests would be defrocked or that the accused pedophile priests were put on sick leave, when in fact they remained active within the Roman Catholic Church and were simply transferred to another parish where they would come in contact with more unsuspecting victims.
130. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy including but not limited to not only failing to warn parishioners of known pedophile priests in their community, but in fact putting in place strict policies that encouraged misinforming parishioners regarding a priest’s background and forbidding the informing of parishioners – either those whose children had recently been exposed to a sexual offender in his old parish or the parents of potential victims in a newly assigned parish – about the known predatory and pedophilic nature of a priest.
131. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy including but not limited to threatening and/or retaliating against members of the clergy who reported instances or suspicions of abuse.
132. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy including but not limited to using their position within the Catholic community to coerce victims, their families and law enforcement agents not to press charges against the pedophile priests and/or against Defendants.
133. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy including but not limited to conducting “non-investigations” manipulated to avoid finding the priests guilty of sexual abuse.
134. Defendants’ actions in furtherance of their conspiracy included but was not limited to keeping the acts of sexual abuse secret by failing to report known incidents to law enforcement agents, parents or victims, keeping purposely vague records of reports of sexual abuse the incidents, destroying records documenting the sexual abuse.
135. Defendants’ actions in furtherance of their conspiracy included but was not limited to instructing their agents to respond to victims’ complaints of abuse with a policy of indifference, bullying, intimidation, threats, skepticism, retaliation, humiliation and lies regarding whether there were other victims.
136. Defendants’ action in furtherance of their conspiracy included but was not limited to allowing psychologists to render aid and/or therapy to the victims.
137. Defendants’ actions in furtherance of their conspiracy included but was not limited to concealing/limiting evidence of the pedophile priests’ crimes and their own guilty knowledge of them by recording reports of abuse and related information in ways that often masked the nature of the abuse and the actions taken in response. Written records of allegations often left out the names of potential victims, and included only vague euphemisms to obscure the actual heinous nature of the offenses.
138. Defendants’ actions in furtherance of their conspiracy included but was not limited to reporting and/or discussing reports of abuse orally rather than in written form, thus further limiting evidence of the pedophile priests’ criminal acts and Defendants’ knowledge thereof.
139. Defendants actively, deliberately, and with intent to injure, suppressed the identity of priests, employees, and/or servants of the church who committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, including Plaintiffs, to prevent the filing of both criminal and civil complaints against those priests, employees, and/or servants.
140. Defendants actively, deliberately, and with intent to injure, obstructed the prosecution of Plaintiffs’ causes of action against them through an intricate conspiracy which included concealment and misrepresentations made to the public and to law enforcement agencies regarding the criminal activity of the pedophile priests and Defendants’ knowledge thereof before, during, and after the time period in which Plaintiff was sexually abused.
142. As such, the abuse perpetuated on the Plaintiffs constitutes a violation of their substantive due process right to bodily integrity as secured by the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV. This constitutional right is protected from private conspiracies under 42 U.S.C. §1985.
143. The abuse perpetuated on the Plaintiffs further constitutes a violation of substantive rights created under state law designed to protect minor children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, including but not limited to 18 Pa.C.S. §3121(c) (relating to rape of a child), 18 Pa.C.S. §3121(d) (relating to rape of a child with serious bodily injury), 18 Pa.C.S. §3122.1 (relating to statutory sexual assault), 18 Pa.C.S. §3123(a)(7), (b) (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child), 18 Pa.C.S. §3123(c) (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child with serious bodily injury), 18 Pa.C.S. §3125(a)(7),(8) and (b) (relating to aggravated indecent assault of a child) and 18 Pa.C.S. §3126(a)(7),(8) (relating to indecent assault of a child). The substantive rights created by these and similar state laws are likewise protected from private conspiracies under 42 U.S.C. §1985.
144. Based on the conduct described herein, Defendants conspired with one another and with the pedophile priests for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating the due course of justice, with the intent to deny Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws, and/or to injure Plaintiffs or their property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of Plaintiffs to the equal protection of the laws, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(2).
145. Based on the conduct described herein, Defendants conspired with one another and with the pedophile priests to deprive Plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws and equal privileges and immunities under the laws, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3).
146. Based on the conduct described herein, Defendants conspired with one another and with the pedophile priests to prevent or hinder state and local law enforcement agencies from giving or securing to Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3).
147. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages set forth herein.
148. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct and conspiracy described herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer a loss of enjoyment of life, severe emotional distress, severe depression, anxiety, embarrassment, pain and suffering, humiliation, loss of vocation and loss of earnings, loss of faith, their ability to live a normal life, and have incurred, or will incur medical, hospital, and psychiatric expenses in connection therewith.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in such sum as a jury determines to be just, reasonable and adequate, including attorney fees, costs and interest, and for such other relief as this Honorable Court deems to be just.
COUNT IV ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PREVENT CONSPIRACY (42 U.S.C. §1986)
149. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully stated herein.
150. Each Defendant had full knowledge that the sexual abuse of minors and the illegal tactics used to conceal such criminal actions, as alleged above, would continue to be committed.
151. Each Defendant had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the sexual abuse by reporting the pedophile priests to law enforcement agencies, alerting the public about known pedophile priests, and taking disciplinary actions including but not limited to defrocking the pedophile priests.
152. Each Defendant had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of illegal acts of concealment by refusing to participate in same, and by instructing their agents to refuse to participate in the same.
153. Despite having the power to do so, Defendants failed to act, failed to warn, and neglected or refused to prevent or aid in the preventing of the sexual abuse of minors and the illegal tactics used to conceal the same.
154. Defendants neglected and refused to aid or prevent the above-alleged crimes and wrongs conspired to be done under 42 U.S.C. §1985(2), including conspiracy for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating the due course of justice with the intent to deny Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws and/or to injure Plaintiffs or their property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce their rights to equal protection of the laws.
155. Defendants neglected and refused to aid or prevent the above-alleged crimes and wrongs conspired to be done under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3), including conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws.
156. Defendants neglected and refused to aid or prevent the above-alleged crimes and wrongs conspired to be done under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3), including conspiracy to prevent or hinder state and local law enforcement agencies from giving or securing to Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws.
157. Defendants’ neglect and refusal to aid or prevent the above-alleged conspiracies is in direct violation of 42 U.S.C. §1986.
158. As a direct and proximate result of the neglect to prevent the conspiracies described herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer a loss of enjoyment of life, severe emotional distress, severe depression, anxiety, embarrassment, pain and suffering, humiliation, loss of vocation and loss of earnings, loss of faith, their ability to live a normal life, and have incurred, or will incur medical, hospital, and psychiatric expenses in connection therewith.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in such sum as a jury determines to be just, reasonable and adequate, including attorney fees, costs and interest, and for such other relief as this Honorable Court deems to be just.
EISENBERG, ROTHWEILER, WINKLER, EISENBERG & JECK, P.C.
By: /s/Stewart J. Eisenberg, Stewart J. Eisenberg, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiffs
VERIFICATION
I, STEWART J. EISENBERG, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Civil Action Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalty of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
/s/Stewart J. Eisenberg, STEWART J. EISENBERG, ESQUIRE
Dated: June 14, 2006.
_______________
1 Because the Report of the Grand Jury exceeds four hundred pages, it has not been attached hereto in its entirety. A copy of the Report of the Grand Jury in its entirety will be immediately presented to this Court upon request.
71. Plaintiffs maintain this action on behalf of themselves and a class of all other male and female students and parishioners of Defendants who were subject to any form of sexual abuse, sexual contact, sexual misconduct, sexual exploitation and/or sex discrimination by priests or clergy or members of religious orders from 1940 to the present and at the time of such abuse or misconduct such priests or clergy or members were assigned to or employed by or being protected/concealed/harbored by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
72. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) and (3).
73. Upon information and belief, there are up to five hundred (500) members of the proposed class and there are approximately sixty-three (63) known pedophile priests who victimized the class members for a period of more than four decades. Accordingly, the members of the class are so numerous that joinder is impractical. Despite the size of the class, the identities of many of the class members can be ascertained from Defendants’ files and records. Plaintiffs and their counsel do not anticipate any difficulties in the management of this class action.
74. The interests of Plaintiffs are consistent with and are not antagonistic to those of the other class members.
75. There are significant questions of law and fact common to the members of the class, including but not limited to:
a. Whether or not Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to conceal the sexual abuse of Plaintiffs;
b. Whether or not Defendants, by their actions, perpetuated the acts of sexual abuse against Plaintiffs;
c. Whether or not Defendants used illegal tactics including but not limited to threats, intimidation and bribery to conceal the sexual abuse of Plaintiffs;
d. Whether or not Defendants’ fraudulent and illegal actions act to toll and/or suspend the accrual and running any applicable statute of limitations;
e. Whether or not Defendants’ actions constitute a violation of, or neglect to prevent a violation of, Plaintiffs’ civil rights under the 14thAmendment of the United States Constitution, and state laws;
f. Whether or not Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to conceal the sexual abuse and sexual misconduct of the pedophile priests in violation of the federal RICO statute; and
g. Whether or not Defendants engaged in fraudulent concealment of the criminal activities of the pedophile priests.
76. The claims of the named individual and representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. The named Plaintiffs have been the victims of the same intentional practices that affect each class member. Plaintiffs and each class member have sustained and continue to suffer injuries arising from Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
77. The proposed class representatives will fairly and adequately represent the class, because they have the class’ interests in mind, and because they are represented by well-qualified counsel.
78. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
79. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation since individual joinder of all members of the class is impracticable. Most members of the class cannot afford to pursue individual litigation against Defendants. Even if some class members could themselves afford individual litigation, it would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which the individual litigation would proceed. Individual litigation magnifies the delay and expense of resolving controversies surrounding Defendants’ practices. Individual litigation would also subject individual class members to severe stress and humiliation that necessarily attends litigation relating to sexual abuse. Many victims of the Defendants’ agents have failed to come forward for fear of being publicly identified. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of unitary adjudication and comprehensive supervision by a single court, and can protect the privacy of many class members who otherwise would not come forward.
80. The class, as defined herein, may be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
81. The class, as defined herein, may also be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
82. The class, as defined herein, may also be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) for the following reasons:
a. As above stated, legal costs, the desire for anonymity, and the fear of public humiliation greatly diminishes the interests of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;
b. The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by members of the class is not such that a class action should be precluded;
c. Because the acts in question occurred within the jurisdictional district of this Court, and because Defendants and to knowledge and belief most of the class of Plaintiffs can be located within the jurisdiction of this Court, and because there are questions of federal law to be decided, it is desirable to concentrate the litigation of the claims in this forum; and
d. Despite the size of the class, the identities of many of the class members can be ascertained from Defendants’ files and records. Plaintiffs and their counsel do not anticipate any difficulties in the management of this case as a class action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying Plaintiffs to be class representatives and the undersigned counsel to be class counsel for the class as defined herein.
COUNT I RICO - Violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c)ENTERPRISE
83. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully stated herein.
84. Defendants are persons under 18 U.S.C. §1961(3).
85. The relationship between Cardinal Krol, Cardinal Bevilacqua, Cardinal Rigali and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise I”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
86. Alternatively, the relationship between Cardinal Krol and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise II”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
87. Alternatively, the relationship between Cardinal Bevilacqua and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise III”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
88. Alternatively, the relationship between Cardinal Rigali and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise IV”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
89. Alternatively, the relationship between the pedophile priests, Cardinal Krol and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise V”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
90. Alternatively, the relationship between the pedophile priests, Cardinal Bevilacqua and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise VI”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
91. Alternatively, the relationship between the pedophile priests, Cardinal Rigali and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise VII”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
92. Alternatively, the relationship between the pedophile priests and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise VIII”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
93. Alternatively, Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise IX”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
94. Alternatively, the relationship between the pedophile priests, Cardinal Bevilacqua, Cardinal Krol, Cardinal Rigali and Defendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise X”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
95. Alternatively, the relationship between the United States Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church (hereafter “Enterprise XI”) constitutes an association in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
96. Enterprises I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI had an ongoing business aside and apart from the racketeering acts alleged herein in that they were involved in the operation of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.
97. Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI engaged in activities which affected interstate or foreign commerce.
98. At all relevant times Defendants were employed by and/or associated with Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI.
99. At all relevant times Defendants controlled or directed the affairs of Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI. ACTIVITY
100. At all relevant times Defendants, aided and abetted by each other, their agents, employees, and others, conducted and participated directly or indirectly in the conduct and affairs of Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI through a pattern or practice of conspiracy and racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C §1962 (c) .
101. From approximately 1940 through to the present, Defendants, as persons controlling or directing the affairs of Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI, engaged in or joined in a conspiracy to intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently conceal criminal conduct of its agents, aid and abet the concealment of criminal conduct, aid and abet criminal sexual conduct, fail to report criminal conduct of its agents, obstruct justice, obstruct criminal investigation, obstruct state and/or local law enforcement, evade criminal and/or civil prosecution and liability, fail to warn the public of the possible and/or likely future criminal conduct of its agents, fail to act to remove pedophile priests from their parishes and from contact with potential and likely victims, bribe and/or pay money to and/or threaten and/or coerce victims in order to keep its criminal conduct secret, violate the civil rights of children and families, engage in mail and/or wire fraud, and commit fraud and/or fraudulent inducement of its parishioners in furtherance of its scheme to protect pedophile priests and the archdiocese from criminal and/or civil prosecution, to maintain and/or increase charitable contributions and/or avoid public scandal in the Roman Catholic Church.
102. In some instances, the church also coerced and/or obstructed state and local law enforcement officials from arresting pedophile priests by using their position of power in the community and by fraudulently promising to remove the priests from their positions within the church, thus further obstructing justice and criminal investigations.
103. In a further effort to conceal the criminal activities of the pedophile priests, the church officials, through letters mailed and telephone calls placed to other states, conspired to transfer priests to parishes in other states in order to “hide” the priests and to fraudulently convince victims and state and local law enforcement agents not to press charges and/or arrest the pedophile priests by concealing the fact that they were still active as priests in the Roman Catholic Church.
104. The Defendants, as persons controlling or directing the affairs of Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI knew that pedophile priests under their control were sexually abusing and exploiting children and they showed willful indifference and/or reckless or intentional disregard for the children in order to further their scheme.
105. In 1985, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops received a report titled “The Problem of Sexual Molestations By Roman Catholic Clergy”, which outlined the pervasive problem of child sexual abuse by priests within the Roman Catholic Church. The report predicted that failure of the Roman Catholic Church to correct this problem could result in liability for the church in excess of one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000.00) over ten years. The report also outlined steps that the Roman Catholic Church, through the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, must take to protect the church and its parishioners from the devastating effects of pedophile priests. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops failed to respond to the report or follow the suggestions contained therein, and instead continued to protect the pedophile priests and conceal their criminal activity to the severe detriment of unsuspecting children and their families. Upon information and belief, Defendants engaged in the racketeering activity described above in order to protect financial interests, continue to receive parishioner contributions, and to protect pedophile priests and Defendants themselves from criminal and/or civil prosecution.
106. The above 1985 report also advised the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to discontinue purging the secret files of potentially damaging information. The report also warned the National Conference of Catholic Bishops that their practice of moving files containing potentially dangerous material to the Apostolic Delegate (delegate to the Vatican), where the files would be immune from subpoena, could ultimately destroy the immunity enjoyed by the Holy See. These warnings were also ignored.
107. In furtherance of its scheme and enterprise to protect pedophile priests and Defendants from criminal prosecution and civil liability, maintain or increase charitable contributions and/or avoid public scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, Defendants intentionally and fraudulently engaged in the routine practice of maintaining secret “sub secreto” archival files of sexual misconduct by priests. These sub secreto files are accessible to Bishops only. The existence of these secret files and the contents were not disclosed to or made available to law enforcement authorities, or others, in order for law enforcement to investigate the known crimes of the priests. Further, it is the practice of the Roman Catholic Church to fraudulently purge the files and hide them from persons, including law enforcement authorities, seeking access to them.
108. As evidence of this fraudulent practice and its widespread use, in 1990, in an address by Bishop A. James Quinn to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops titled “NCCB Guidelines, and other Considerations in Pedophile Cases”, Bishop Quinn stated:
Personnel files should be carefully examined to determine their content. Unsigned letters alleging misconduct should be expunged. Standard personnel files should contain no documentation relating to possible criminal behavior. Serious moral questions, signed allegations, those should be a part of the secret file anyhow. But they still subpoena them. But comb through your files. Now what files have been subpoenaed, they cannot be tampered with; destroyed, removed; that constitutes obstruction of justice and contempt of court. Prior, however, thought and study ought to be given if you think its going to be necessary; if there’s something the Apostolic Delegate, because they have immunity to protect something that is potentially dangerous, or that you consider to be dangerous, you might send it there.
109. The Apostolic Delegate is the delegate from the Vatican and Holy See who the church believes enjoys sovereign immunity from lawsuits and subpoenas.
110. In furtherance of its scheme, Defendants have routinely entered into secret settlement agreements with confidentiality provisions that require victims of sexual abuse to preserve the Bishop’s secrets from scrutiny by the public and law enforcement authorities.
111. In furtherance of its scheme, Defendants have routinely illegally bribed victims of sexual exploitation and abuse in order to influence them to not report the sexual exploitation and abuse to law enforcement authorities and ultimately to influence the victims to not testify in court against Defendants and/or members of Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI .
112. As a result of Defendants’ actions, showing willful indifference and/or reckless disregard, a secret society of pedophile priests who perpetrated unspeakable criminal acts of child sexual abuse throughout the United States was maintained for over fifty (50) years. Defendants maintained this secret society by making fraudulent representations, concealing criminal activity, obstructing justice and criminal investigations, evading civil and/or criminal liability, bribing and/or payment of money to victims in order to conceal its criminal conduct from, among others, financially contributing parishioners and law enforcement agents, tampering with victims through threatening or coercive means, violating civil rights of children and families, and committing mail and wire fraud and misprision of felonies. Evidence that Defendants committed a continuing pattern of racketeering in furtherance of its scheme by engaging in fraudulent conduct across the nation includes, but is not limited to those specific instances detailed in the 2003 Report of the Grand Jury captioned In RE: County Investigating Grand Jury, Misc. No. 03-00-239 (September 17, 2003), relevant portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference herein.
113. Upon information and belief, Defendants fraudulently misrepresented the facts of known sexual misconduct to parishioners and their families for the economic purpose of avoiding civil liability while increasing or maintaining the charitable contributions and tuition payments of parishioners, current and prospective catholic school students, and current and prospective seminarians. Upon information and belief, much, if not all, of the solicitations for contributions were effectuated by using the United States Postal Service or interstate wire service.
114. The conduct set forth above constitutes “racketeering activity” in that (a) the Defendants engaged in acts and/or threats including but not limited to acts and/or threats involving kidnapping, bribery, extortion, and dealing in obscene matter and said acts and/or threats are or were chargeable under state law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; and (b) the Defendants engaged in acts including but not limited to mail and/or wire fraud, obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of state or local law enforcement, tampering with a witness or victim, retaliating against a witness or victim, peonage, slavery and trafficking in persons and sexual exploitation of children.
115. Upon information and belief, Defendants continued the above-stated racketeering activities until at least the year 2002, when Defendant Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua made statements to the public and to the grand jury in which he purposely misrepresented the extent of the sexual abuse by priests in the Archdiocese over the last several decades and his knowledge thereof. See, In RE: County Investigating Grand Jury, Misc. No. 03-00-239 (September 17, 2003).
116. Plaintiffs have been injured in their business and/or property by reason of their inability to pursue claims for monetary damages against the Defendants for personal injuries sustained as a result of the above conduct due to the Defendants’ assertion of a defense based on the statute of limitations. The fraudulent racketeering activity set forth above was conducted for the purpose of avoiding such civil liability and in order to deny the Plaintiffs said monetary damages which they were otherwise lawfully entitled to.
117. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be injured in their business and/or property by reason of Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962 et seq. Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional and psychological stress and illness as a result of the sexual abuse, which prevented them from performing to their full capacity as productive, working adults, thus causing them loss of earnings and earning capacity. Plaintiffs also have suffered and will continue to suffer out-of-pocket expenses relating to medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling necessitated by the acts of abuse.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in such sum as a jury determines to be just, reasonable and adequate, together with treble damages, litigation costs, attorney fees and interest, and for such other reliefas this Honorable Court deems to be just.
COUNT II RICO - Violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d)
118. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully stated herein.
119. Defendants agreed to and in fact did to enter into a conspiracy to violate the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) as described above.
120. As evidence of this agreement/conspiracy, Defendants and other co-conspirators committed the acts described herein and conspired to conceal the pedophile priest’s criminal activity, or aided and abetted the pedophile priests in concealing their criminal activity for over fifty (50) years.
121. As further evidence of the agreement/conspiracy, Defendants and other co-conspirators conspired with the pedophile priests to evade and/or aided and abetted the pedophile priests in evading law enforcement agencies, criminal prosecution, civil suits and the public embarrassment and liability related thereto.
122. This secret agreement/conspiracy was fraudulently concealed from Plaintiffs as well as state officials for decades.
123. Plaintiffs were injured in their business and/or property, as alleged herein, by reason of the above violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in such sum as a jury determines to be just, reasonable and adequate, together with treble damages, litigation costs, attorney fees and interest, and for such other relief as this Honorable Court deems to be just.
COUNT III CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. §1985)
124. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully stated herein.
125. Plaintiffs are members of a protected class in that they were at all relevant times minor children. The Defendants used and/or condoned the use of Plaintiffs’ status as minor children, including their obedience to adult authority and their susceptibility to the notion of the sanctity of the pedophile priests, as a way to conceal the fact that Plaintiffs had in fact been injured by the pedophile priests, to conceal the nature and extent of said injuries and to conceal the identity of those responsible, including Defendants’ own culpability in perpetuating and concealing the horrific acts of abuse.
126. Alternatively, Plaintiffs are members of a protected class in that they were at all relevant times exercising their constitutional rights as members of the Roman Catholic Church. The Defendants used and/or condoned the use of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, including their belief in God and the sanctity of the pedophile priests, as a way to conceal the fact that Plaintiffs had in fact been injured by the pedophile priests, to conceal the nature and extent of said injuries and to conceal the identity of those responsible, including Defendants’ own culpability in perpetuating and concealing the horrific acts of abuse.
127. Defendants, acting by and through their respective, agents, servants, and/or employees, conspired with each other and with the pedophile priests to conceal the illegal sexual abuse that was committed upon Plaintiffs, which concealment was done with the intent to injure Plaintiffs in their ability to seek legal redress.
128. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy that included, but was not limited to, transferring priests to different parishes and in some instances different states to conceal their crimes.
129. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy including but not limited to purposely and fraudulently telling parishioners and law enforcement agents that accused pedophile priests would be defrocked or that the accused pedophile priests were put on sick leave, when in fact they remained active within the Roman Catholic Church and were simply transferred to another parish where they would come in contact with more unsuspecting victims.
130. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy including but not limited to not only failing to warn parishioners of known pedophile priests in their community, but in fact putting in place strict policies that encouraged misinforming parishioners regarding a priest’s background and forbidding the informing of parishioners – either those whose children had recently been exposed to a sexual offender in his old parish or the parents of potential victims in a newly assigned parish – about the known predatory and pedophilic nature of a priest.
131. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy including but not limited to threatening and/or retaliating against members of the clergy who reported instances or suspicions of abuse.
132. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy including but not limited to using their position within the Catholic community to coerce victims, their families and law enforcement agents not to press charges against the pedophile priests and/or against Defendants.
133. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy including but not limited to conducting “non-investigations” manipulated to avoid finding the priests guilty of sexual abuse.
134. Defendants’ actions in furtherance of their conspiracy included but was not limited to keeping the acts of sexual abuse secret by failing to report known incidents to law enforcement agents, parents or victims, keeping purposely vague records of reports of sexual abuse the incidents, destroying records documenting the sexual abuse.
135. Defendants’ actions in furtherance of their conspiracy included but was not limited to instructing their agents to respond to victims’ complaints of abuse with a policy of indifference, bullying, intimidation, threats, skepticism, retaliation, humiliation and lies regarding whether there were other victims.
136. Defendants’ action in furtherance of their conspiracy included but was not limited to allowing psychologists to render aid and/or therapy to the victims.
137. Defendants’ actions in furtherance of their conspiracy included but was not limited to concealing/limiting evidence of the pedophile priests’ crimes and their own guilty knowledge of them by recording reports of abuse and related information in ways that often masked the nature of the abuse and the actions taken in response. Written records of allegations often left out the names of potential victims, and included only vague euphemisms to obscure the actual heinous nature of the offenses.
138. Defendants’ actions in furtherance of their conspiracy included but was not limited to reporting and/or discussing reports of abuse orally rather than in written form, thus further limiting evidence of the pedophile priests’ criminal acts and Defendants’ knowledge thereof.
139. Defendants actively, deliberately, and with intent to injure, suppressed the identity of priests, employees, and/or servants of the church who committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, including Plaintiffs, to prevent the filing of both criminal and civil complaints against those priests, employees, and/or servants.
140. Defendants actively, deliberately, and with intent to injure, obstructed the prosecution of Plaintiffs’ causes of action against them through an intricate conspiracy which included concealment and misrepresentations made to the public and to law enforcement agencies regarding the criminal activity of the pedophile priests and Defendants’ knowledge thereof before, during, and after the time period in which Plaintiff was sexually abused.
142. As such, the abuse perpetuated on the Plaintiffs constitutes a violation of their substantive due process right to bodily integrity as secured by the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV. This constitutional right is protected from private conspiracies under 42 U.S.C. §1985.
143. The abuse perpetuated on the Plaintiffs further constitutes a violation of substantive rights created under state law designed to protect minor children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, including but not limited to 18 Pa.C.S. §3121(c) (relating to rape of a child), 18 Pa.C.S. §3121(d) (relating to rape of a child with serious bodily injury), 18 Pa.C.S. §3122.1 (relating to statutory sexual assault), 18 Pa.C.S. §3123(a)(7), (b) (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child), 18 Pa.C.S. §3123(c) (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child with serious bodily injury), 18 Pa.C.S. §3125(a)(7),(8) and (b) (relating to aggravated indecent assault of a child) and 18 Pa.C.S. §3126(a)(7),(8) (relating to indecent assault of a child). The substantive rights created by these and similar state laws are likewise protected from private conspiracies under 42 U.S.C. §1985.
144. Based on the conduct described herein, Defendants conspired with one another and with the pedophile priests for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating the due course of justice, with the intent to deny Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws, and/or to injure Plaintiffs or their property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of Plaintiffs to the equal protection of the laws, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(2).
145. Based on the conduct described herein, Defendants conspired with one another and with the pedophile priests to deprive Plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws and equal privileges and immunities under the laws, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3).
146. Based on the conduct described herein, Defendants conspired with one another and with the pedophile priests to prevent or hinder state and local law enforcement agencies from giving or securing to Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3).
147. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages set forth herein.
148. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct and conspiracy described herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer a loss of enjoyment of life, severe emotional distress, severe depression, anxiety, embarrassment, pain and suffering, humiliation, loss of vocation and loss of earnings, loss of faith, their ability to live a normal life, and have incurred, or will incur medical, hospital, and psychiatric expenses in connection therewith.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in such sum as a jury determines to be just, reasonable and adequate, including attorney fees, costs and interest, and for such other relief as this Honorable Court deems to be just.
COUNT IV ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PREVENT CONSPIRACY (42 U.S.C. §1986)
149. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully stated herein.
150. Each Defendant had full knowledge that the sexual abuse of minors and the illegal tactics used to conceal such criminal actions, as alleged above, would continue to be committed.
151. Each Defendant had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the sexual abuse by reporting the pedophile priests to law enforcement agencies, alerting the public about known pedophile priests, and taking disciplinary actions including but not limited to defrocking the pedophile priests.
152. Each Defendant had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of illegal acts of concealment by refusing to participate in same, and by instructing their agents to refuse to participate in the same.
153. Despite having the power to do so, Defendants failed to act, failed to warn, and neglected or refused to prevent or aid in the preventing of the sexual abuse of minors and the illegal tactics used to conceal the same.
154. Defendants neglected and refused to aid or prevent the above-alleged crimes and wrongs conspired to be done under 42 U.S.C. §1985(2), including conspiracy for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating the due course of justice with the intent to deny Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws and/or to injure Plaintiffs or their property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce their rights to equal protection of the laws.
155. Defendants neglected and refused to aid or prevent the above-alleged crimes and wrongs conspired to be done under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3), including conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws.
156. Defendants neglected and refused to aid or prevent the above-alleged crimes and wrongs conspired to be done under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3), including conspiracy to prevent or hinder state and local law enforcement agencies from giving or securing to Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws.
157. Defendants’ neglect and refusal to aid or prevent the above-alleged conspiracies is in direct violation of 42 U.S.C. §1986.
158. As a direct and proximate result of the neglect to prevent the conspiracies described herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer a loss of enjoyment of life, severe emotional distress, severe depression, anxiety, embarrassment, pain and suffering, humiliation, loss of vocation and loss of earnings, loss of faith, their ability to live a normal life, and have incurred, or will incur medical, hospital, and psychiatric expenses in connection therewith.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in such sum as a jury determines to be just, reasonable and adequate, including attorney fees, costs and interest, and for such other relief as this Honorable Court deems to be just.
EISENBERG, ROTHWEILER, WINKLER, EISENBERG & JECK, P.C.
By: /s/Stewart J. Eisenberg, Stewart J. Eisenberg, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiffs
VERIFICATION
I, STEWART J. EISENBERG, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Civil Action Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalty of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
/s/Stewart J. Eisenberg, STEWART J. EISENBERG, ESQUIRE
Dated: June 14, 2006.
_______________
1 Because the Report of the Grand Jury exceeds four hundred pages, it has not been attached hereto in its entirety. A copy of the Report of the Grand Jury in its entirety will be immediately presented to this Court upon request.