By Matt C. Abbott
Renew America [New York]
January 27, 2007
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/070127
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________________ FR. ROBERT M. HOATSON, Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION -against- CIVIL ACTION No.: 05-CV-10467 (Hon. Paul Crotty) NEW YORK ARCHDIOCESE, CARDINAL EDWARD EGAN, THE NEWARK ARCHDIOCESE, ARCHBISHOP JOHN J. MYERS, CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS, FR. JOHN O'BRIEN, BR. LAURENCE BOSCHETTO, BR. PAUL KEVIN HENNESSY, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ALBANY, AND BISHOP HOWARD HUBBARD ______________________________________________________I, Father Robert Hoatson, do set out and swear to the following facts under the penalty of perjury:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above entitled matter, and I make this affidavit in response to and in opposition to the motion to dismiss, motion for sanctions, and particularly the RICO count of my lawsuit, and with respect to the supplemental papers submitted to the court by the defendants.
2. Contrary to the defendants' contentions, this is my lawsuit, my allegations, and not the claims of my lawyer, John Aretakis. I hired him because he has successfully represented and advocated for over two hundred victims of clergy sexual abuse. When we filed this case, Mr. Aretakis had no pending cases that contained RICO allegations. As a victim and supporter of victims, I have taken on the moral obligation to speak out about the causes of this abuse crisis and crimes against the vulnerable in an effort to expose corruption and criminal activity in the Catholic Church, and to expose the crimes that were committed against me. In one case of clergy abuse handled by Mr. Aretakis, the defendant Bishop Howard Hubbard paid him a settlement of just under one million dollars. Mr. Aretakis did not file this lawsuit until he investigated my claims for several months, spoke to several priests who substantiated my claims, met with me and reviewed my documentation during many meetings.
 |
3. Mr. Aretakis had only one case where a RICO count was dismissed and I believe it was primarily because the plaintiff could not produce damages to his business or property, and that crimes of the Church were alleged, but the crimes were not committed upon the plaintiff. This is not so in my case. Raymond Fisher, an attorney for Archbishop John Myers in this case is on the record in the Angie Bouchard v. Cardinal Egan case as calling Mr. Aretakis one of the finest and capable "victims of clergy abuse" lawyers in the country.
4. The defendants refused to agree to my request to dismiss the RICO count without prejudice and their supplemental papers relied on the reference of the attorney for the Albany Diocese and Bishop Howard Hubbard to one case; namely, Magnum et. al, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia et al (Case No. 2:06-cv-02589-LDD) U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84123. This case concerned a RICO charge that was dismissed. The claims set out in my case have not been attempted or dismissed by any state or federal court in the country. The defendants have not produced the pleadings, affidavits or any relevant evidence in that case. The case cited is not controlling or binding precedent for my case.
5. The defendants claim that the case cited applies to my case against the Archdioceses of New York and Newark, the Diocese of Albany, their bishops, and the Congregation of Christian Brothers and two Christian Brothers. It is distinguishable from my case and is not binding in the Second Circuit.
6. There are enormous dissimilarities in the case cited by the defendants and that of my case, including 6. There are enormous dissimilarities in the case cited by the defendants and that of my case, including but not limited to:
1. The twelve plaintiffs in the Philadelphia case were not employees of the Roman Catholic Church or the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. I have been an employee of the Catholic Church in various capacities for over thirty years, and my reporting of facts, allegations, and observation of criminal acts is from an employee of the enterprise or organization.
2. The twelve plaintiffs in the "Magnum" case were not members of a religious order or clergy at the time of their abuse. I was sexually abused by members of the religious order of which I was a member for nearly twenty-five years and reported my abuse during and shortly after the sexual abuse, and as a result was further harmed and retaliated against for doing so. Not only were sexual crimes committed upon me, but the cover-up of these crimes, once I reported them to my supervisors, were also crimes.
3. The plaintiffs in the "Magnum" case were never abused while being employed by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and had nothing to fear by reporting their abuse since they were not "insiders" in the organization or criminal enterprise when they reported or endured their abuse. My life and career were and are at risk from "insiders" because I reported and endured the abuse while I was an employee of the same employers and enterprise as the defendants.
4. The twelve plaintiffs cited in "Magnum" did not suffer harm or injury to their businesses or incomes as a result of their abuse. I was fired from my job as a priest for speaking truthfully to legislators and law enforcement personnel and, as a result, was denied necessary and crucial income that would allow me to live adequately and save money for my life and my retirement. Serious damage has been done to my business and property as a result of the sexual abuse, harassment, and retaliation I have endured, and my career has been taken from me by the defendants who have not denied my allegations and their criminal cover-up of crimes I have alleged. I am currently unable to work in the only field in which I am educated and trained.
5. The plaintiffs in "Magnum" were not prevented from earning as much income as they were able as a result of their abuse. I, by being "fired" from my ministry and then placed on leave several days after I filed this action, was not and have not been able to function as a priest. Because I cannot work in any other venue except the Catholic Church, I was and am denied the ability to earn income, and sustained damage to my business and my property. My career as a priest is my business and the defendants have acted to deny me the ability to function in my career. This aspect of damages is oftentimes the graveyard of RICO claims, and I have satisfied my burden in this regard. As referenced in matrimonial law, a career and a professional license or degree is a property right capable of being valued.
6. The plaintiffs do not allege in "Magnum" that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia conspired against them as a group or individually to prevent harm to their business or property. In my case, the Albany Diocese used the phone lines to contact the Newark Archdiocese within minutes of my testimony before the New York State Legislature on May 20, 2003, to report that I had criticized the Roman Catholic Church and its bishops, in particular, and called for the resignation of any bishops who had covered up clergy sexual abuse. I was summarily dismissed from my occupation as a Catholic priest and educator within days of my May 20, 2003 testimony to the legislature. This was and is consistent with repeated retaliation against me each time I tried to report my being criminally and sexually abused by others in the Church, as well as chilling my freedom of speech rights.
7. The Archdiocese of New York used the phone lines and mail to contact the Archdiocese of Newark to report that I had reported sexual abuse by a former Christian Brother and current New York Archdiocesan priest without my permission. The Newark Archdiocese to this day has relied on that information from the Archdiocese of New York to retaliate against and harm me. None of the plaintiffs in the "Magnum" case claims harassment, retaliation, harm, a violation of civil and constitutional rights, and loss of employment because of his actions.
8. The plaintiffs in "Magnum" were never "eliminated" from the Catholic Church because of their charges because they were not part of the "governance" of the Church. However, I, as a priest, am part of the governance structure of the church and potentially could become the Head of the Roman Catholic Church.
9. The defendants had to "eliminate" me and cause injury to my person (career) and business (income) because I had information and was speaking out regarding same that would adversely affect the continued racketeering efforts of the Church and Church leaders, which have been widely recognized both by Catholics themselves (i.e., former Governor Frank Keating called the actions of bishops "Mafia-like") and professional researchers (i.e., a 2007 survey by two Villanova University professors) who concluded that 85 % of Catholic dioceses in the United States embezzled money from the faithful in a given year. These researchers were not "looking for" these results during their research.
10. The Philadelphia Grand Jury Report, in an investigation that lasted years, concluded that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia was "criminal" in its policies and procedures regarding sexually abusive clerics. Unfortunately, outdated laws regarding statutes of limitations did not allow the "Magnum" plaintiffs to bring their cases to courts of law. But, I reported my sexual abuse to appropriate religious authorities in the late 1970s or early 1980s during the time the abuse was occurring.
7. It also appears that the defendants do not recognize the authority of the courts or this court. I filed this claim on December 13, 2005, and on that date this court was assigned. Rather than follow directives and orders from the court, and awaiting rulings and or orders from this court which had jurisdiction over my claims on December 13, 2005, the defendants instead conspired to have me removed from active ministry, and, in effect, fired me again, the week after my suit was filed. The defendants have publicly conceded that I was fired because of the institution of this suit.
8. I believe this and other courts may take judicial notice of the public revelations of the past five years of the clergy sexual abuse scandal. There has been a massive amount of reporting, litigation, and public disclosure of not only sexual abuse by priests (including against me) but also of the organized and intentional acts of bishops and Cardinals, such as in this case, of cover-up and the moving and shifting around of predators of the innocent or vulnerable, like me. I believe at an oral argument on a prior motion, this court acknowledged that the Church has been rocked or severely damaged by these revelations of the past few years.
9. As a result of my immersion in and employment by the Roman Catholic Church in various capacities and organizations of the defendants for over thirty years, and my efforts to get my employers to expose sexually abusive priests including those who abused me, I have experienced ongoing and continuous acts of sexual abuse, retaliation, harassment, and workplace abuse. Two years ago, in the aftermath of my firing and severe harassment and retaliation by church leaders, I was diagnosed with a life-threatening kidney disease called C1Q Nephropathy. The cause of this disease is unknown and it is rarely diagnosed in adults. A recent United Kingdom study indicated that sexual abuse of a person at a young age results in risk of physical illness in later years. Furthermore, the long-term effects of stress or stress that remains over a long period of time seem to raise the risk of illness in later years. I have suffered from unending stressful situations in my thirty-plus years as a church employee, mostly due to the presence of sexual abusers in religious life and the priesthood and those who shield them from prosecution and retaliate against those who attempt to hold them accountable, and especially due to the sexual abuse that I experienced for many years. Even former federal prosecutor and Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, who led a national review board and was hired by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, described the Church and its leaders as acting like the Mafia. Like me, Governor Keating has an inside view from which to make such a claim. He did not merely use "colorful" language; as a former federal prosecutor, he knew exactly what RICO meant. His deposition would be sought and it would be central to my claims, as well as to my good faith assertions of same.
10. I am better able to describe the defendants as acting as a criminal organization because I myself have worked for and for over thirty years have been a vital part of this criminal organization or enterprise. The hierarchical and organizational structure of the Church is similar to that of the Mafia, and the active and undenied criminal activity against me by the enterprise is alleged to have continued for decades.
11. I have alleged that the Catholic Church and the defendants act as a criminal enterprise and behave accordingly. A recent study from international news agencies reported that the sovereign state with the highest crime rate in the world per capita is Vatican City. There are at least 1.5 crimes committed per citizen of the Vatican. This is the same sovereign state that allows criminal members of the Church hierarchy, like the disgraced Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, Bernard Law, to flee there with immunity from prosecution. Grand jury investigations in Suffolk County, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Boston, Massachusetts, have stated that had it not been for antiquated laws regarding statutes of limitations, numerous clerics would have been criminally liable for serious crimes against children and other vulnerable persons. All of the reports expressed frustration that charges could not be brought against those who covered up, exacerbated, and participated in the enterprise known as "clergy sexual abuse." I specifically allege that should a Grand Jury review the allegations that are contained in my suit, criminal wrongdoing would be found. Since courts are the great levelers of the playing field, I would hope this court would allow my claims to go forward so New York State would not continue to promulgate archaic statutes of limitations, in turn, permitting the defendants to continue their pattern of shielding predators and covering-up crimes against children and the vulnerable.
12. In the organizational schema of the Catholic Church, the category below bishop is that of priest. A priest serves at the whim of the bishop and has no direct say in the goings-on of the enterprise, except when a bishop allows a priest into the inner sanctum. A priest who attempts to expose the inner criminal workings can be disciplined with or without salary, admonished to "get in line or else," and assigned to unpopular and dangerous work-sites.
13. When an allegation of sexual abuse or sexual misconduct is made against a Cardinal, Archbishop, or Bishop, the record or report of this is kept only in the "sub secreto" files at the Vatican so as to avoid the reach of courts and foreign countries. In other words, the defendants will use the First Amendment and the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act to keep material from being exchanged. My case alleges that Cardinal Egan, Archbishop Myers, and Bishop Howard Hubbard have been sexually abusive and/or active during their priesthoods, and that a reason they cannot police their own priests is because of their own sexual indiscretions. I have proof of these charges and will present it during discovery and at trial. I have specific and direct knowledge that the defendants have used and will use the freedom of religion clause to the First Amendment as a shield against civil and criminal responsibility for acts committed by priests for decades, including the crimes against me. The current landscape and revelations over the last five years have demonstrated that the abuse going on in the Church has not consisted of isolated incidents; rather, they have taken place in an organized manner, spanning decades, and have been covered up for the most part in order to shield the Church and Church leaders from canonical and civil liability.
14. I am also knowledgeable that if and when there is a conflict between our country's civil laws and canon laws, the Church acknowledges that civil laws always take precedence. However, I am aware that the defendants will never exchange documents that are kept at the Vatican which will substantiate my claims.
15. It appears that the defendants do not specifically deny my allegations of a criminal enterprise and predicate criminal acts, but they are merely saying that my amended complaint and affidavits do not meet the rigid technical pleading requirement of the RICO statute. For that reason, I ask the court to allow me to amend my complaint if technical pleading defects are found to exist. Of course, I am asking the court to allow my allegations to go forward to discovery and to trial. The equities in this case weigh greatly in my favor as a victim of crime and what I believe is illegal termination and retaliation for speaking out pursuant to my First Amendment and constitutional rights, and for exposing criminal activity in the Church.
16. It cannot go unnoticed that I very much feel like a Mafia turncoat who has been compelled (for sufficient reasons) to "RAT OUT" my employers and my co-employees in the Church. From the defendants' perspective, my transgressions consist of speaking out against the Church and in favor of victims of abuse, and speaking out in a manner so as to protect the community against the criminal cover-up by the bishops and Cardinals who are defendants in this case.
17. This analogy of "RATTING OUT" is often used to describe an employee of the enterprise who has turned on or been a whistleblower against his employers. He is not only forever banished from the ability to earn income from being associated with the enterprise; he is also in danger both physically and financially. Since I am only educated and trained to be a priest, the defendants have irreparably harmed my career profession and ability to earn an income, and to practice the only trade I am trained in.
18. Another priest like me who worked with and helped Mr. Aretakis in exposing sexual abuse and predators was an Albany diocesan priest named Fr. John Minkler. On February 13, 2004, Fr. Minkler was publicly identified as having reported extensive sexual and other types of misconduct of defendant Bishop Howard Hubbard and others to former Cardinal John J. O'Connor, and specifically in a June 10, 1995 letter to the Cardinal, as well as providing other documents and speaking to reporters.
19. Within forty-eight hours of being identified as someone who was assisting victims of abuse represented by John Aretakis, Fr. Minkler was found dead of suspicious causes. Two days before his death on February 15, 2004, Fr. Minkler was coerced into signing a false and fraudulent document by Bishop Howard Hubbard. Bishop Hubbard's own lawyer confirmed that Fr. Minkler did in fact write the June 10, 1995 letter to Cardinal O'Connor that accused Bishop Hubbard of repeated sexual misconduct. Working with John Aretakis and with victims is dangerous, tantamount to turning on the Mafia, and I believe my circumstances have placed my life, health, and safety in danger, as well as my career and property.
20. A former upstate New York law enforcement officer, Lincoln Grimm, has revealed the details of the procedures used in his city when a priest was accused of sexual abuse. According to Grimm, when a police chief is told about abuse by a police officer, he (the chief), in turn, reports the charges directly to the bishop who then is able to transfer, hide, or do nothing to the accused priest so as to avoid criminal charges and public disclosure. This appears to be the pattern throughout the Church and is what happened in my case. Clerics were (and are) treated differently than other citizens, even if it meant that police had to break the law. There is much more to the details of my claims, and I respectfully hope the court will allow these important matters to see the light of day.
21. Some of my claims regarding the defendants have been submitted to the representative of the Vatican in the United States and I have requested an investigation of such. The Papal Nuncio has "duly noted" my claims.
22. As further evidence of the claims that I have alleged, the New York Times of January 26, 2007 reported that Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, Michigan, has been fired from his position as pastor of a parish and retaliated against by his supervisors for at least three of the reasons for which I was fired and retaliated against. Bishop Gumbleton and I were fired from our jobs because we exercised our First Amendment and constitutional right of free speech by reporting having been sexually abused by clerics, lobbying for changes in legislation that currently does not protect victims, and speaking out publicly on behalf of victims and the cover-up by the Church hierarchy. This is another example of the "pattern" of corruption that exists throughout the Catholic Church. Even though what was reported about Bishop Gumbleton does not apply directly to me, it is another example of the Catholic Church's organized efforts to silence critics who work in the Church, retaliate against them, falsely attempt to smear their credibility, and continue a pattern of covering-up crimes against children and the vulnerable, including me.
23. An attorney for a bishop in New Jersey had a letter to the editor published in the January 26, 2007 edition of the Daily Record newspaper which criticized me personally for my comments about a confirmed pedophile priest. This is part of a more long-standing issue with the defendants in my case in which they repeatedly attack my credibility and that of my attorney in a variety of ways for speaking out against crimes committed against children and the vulnerable, including me.
Wherefore, I respectfully request that the defendants' motion all be denied and for whatever and further relief the Court deems just.
Sworn to this _____ day of January, 2007 _______________________ REV. ROBERT M. HOATSON ___________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC
Matt C. Abbott can be reached at mattcabbott@gmail.com.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.