Judge Denies Holy Trinity's Motion to Expose Victims' Names; Sets Trial Date, Orthodox Reform, August 17, 2007

Judge Denies Holy Trinity's Motion to Expose Victims' Names; Sets Trial Date

Orthodox Reform
August 17, 2007

http://orthodoxreform.org/news/judge-denies-motion/

Dallas (TX) — Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Dallas and the Denver Metropolis — both represented by the Dallas law firm of Douglas D. Fletcher — made a motion on June 6th to expose the Plaintiff's name to the public (see attached motion below).1

Attorneys representing both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in the Nicholas Katinas sexual misconduct lawsuit went before a judge on August 7th to review this motion. The judge denied the Defendants' motion and ruled that the Plaintiffs be allowed to continue to use pseudonyms within the public documents.

The judge also set the trial date for this case for June 9th, 2008.

Below are excerpts from the Plaintiffs' response. Highlights are made for emphasis by the editors of OrthodoxReform. Source documents are available for download at the end of the document.

The Plaintiffs' names in such cases are typically made known to the judge and the defendants in private, but to prevent further revictimization of the Plaintiffs, pseudonyms are used in public court documentation. This is a common practice in sexual abuse cases, as the Plaintiffs' response points out:

There have been many, many cases litigated in Dallas county using John Doe and Jane Doe pseudonyms for both Plaintiffs and Defendants. …So long as the litigants know the identities of the Does, these types of cases clearly can be developed without denying fair play to anyone, certainly not the public. Even our own local media do not reveal the identities of sexual abuse victims.

Katinas' name, however, is published in the court records. Is this a double standard? The Plaintiffs' explain the difference:

Sex offenders are understandably publicly registered for the protection of society. Their victims, understandably, are not.3
What was the Defendants' motive in making this motion to expose the Plaintiffs names to the public? The Plaintiff's believe it is an intimidation tactic meant to silence the current Plaintiffs and "punish" them4. The Plaintiffs' response went further to explain this:

…Defendants have cited no legitimate benefit they could derive from Plaintiffs being forced to expose their names to the public…The public naming of these victims being unnecessary, silencing them and others with the prospect of renewed injury and extended intimidation would seems [sic] to be their motivation. The attorneys for the Defendants and the Defendants themselves have adequate, even abundant personal information about these young men. Defendants are not at a disadvantage in this regard.

Responses from the Plaintiffs in documents submitted to the judge were pointed about the fear of retaliation:

My sons and I do not want their identities known to the public. We fear continued retribution. I have personally been subjected to threats, been retaliated against by removal from church boards and have been subjected to ridicule. If our identities are confirmed in publicly available documents, I fear must more of the same.

Mary Grant is a survivor of sexual abuse by a priest, and founder of the Southern California chapter of SNAP (The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests). Apparently, she has been in communication with the victims:

I offer my opinion to the court not only as a victim of sexual abuse but as someone who has met with victims and anguished with them. I want to help the court understand the unique circumstance victims of clergy abuse find themselves in when "outing" them is employed by church attorneys as a menacing legal tactic.

Is such a tactic becoming of a religious institution? Mary Grant of SNAP had this to say:

For years our society has wisely and justly permitted victims of adult sexual violation (i.e. rape) to protect their privacy while taking action to expose predators and warn families and safeguard others. Despite this well-grounded and long-standing practice, this Defendant religious organization wants to deny the same protection to victims of more horrific sexual violation (i.e. child molestation by trusted clergy). It is especially sad and ironic that the institution seeking to deny this fundamental right and, in effect, punish its victims advertises itself publicly as a spiritual body whose declared mission is care of souls, especially children's.

"DZ", ostensibly the first victim of Katinas to report abuse to the GOAA (though not a Plaintiff in the lawsuit), had this to say:

I am angry that the Defendants and Defendant's lawyers are demanding that the identities of Katinas' victims be made public. I believe they intend to revictimize me, to punish me for having, at last, come forward and to intimidate other victims so they will not. Their demand is humiliating and insensitive.

"DZ" further points out his motive in coming forward. His simple request? Asking the GOAA for reimbursement for counseling expenses, and asking the GOAA to take measures to protect children from future abuse from Katinas:

My case was never about money…I asked to be reimbursed for past counseling and for future counseling. I also asked that the Dallas parish be informed of Katinas' sexual misconduct and the expectation that he would be removed as pastor so other boys would be safe and their families undisturbed."

The way Holy Trinity and the Metropolis of Denver are responding to those making claims of sexual abuse is producing a negative image of the Orthodox Church. "DZ" speaks frankly about his reactions:

Defendants have tried to silence victims, then failing that, determinedly worked to expose them. It is also my opinion that the Defendants are acting out of vengeance and vindictiveness, which is contrary to the precepts of that Orthodox Christianity they preached to me as a child, and to my too-trusting family.

Cited documents are listed below. Court documents which are a matter of public record related to this case can be obtained from the 95th Judicial Court, Dallas, County Texas under Cause No. 0703807.

An extensive review of these documents left several questions unanswered:

The Orthodox Church's reputation may be impacted — for good or for bad — by the way it conducts itself during this court case. Given the impending trial date next year, which has the potential to be a high-publicity court event, it is important for laity and church leaders alike to understand the way this litigation is being handled, and to ensure that our church leadership acts with integrity.

1. "Defendants' Special Exception to Plaintiff' Original Petition and Brief In Support", pp. 1-3, Katinas-Fletcher-Special-Exception.pdf

2. "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Special Exceptions", p. 5, Katinas-Plaintiffs-Response.pdf

3. "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Special Exceptions", p. 6 Katinas-Plaintiffs-Response.pdf

4. "Unsworn Declaration of 'DZ' Under Penalty of Perjury, Exhibit I", p. 2, Katinas-Plaintiffs-Response-Exhibit-I.pdf

5. "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Special Exceptions", p. 9, Katinas-Plaintiffs-Response.pdf

6. Plaintiff Exhibit F, "Unsworn Declaration of Mother of John Doe I and John Doe II Under Penalty of Perjury", p. 1, Katinas-Plaintiffs-Response-Exhibit-F.pdf

7. "Affidavit of Mary Grant, Exhibit J", p. 1, Katinas-Plaintiffs-Response-Exhibit-J.pdf

8. "Affidavit of Mary Grant, Exhibit J", p. 3, Katinas-Plaintiffs-Response-Exhibit-J.pdf

9. "Unsworn Declaration of 'DZ' Under Penalty of Perjury, Exhibit I", p. 3, Katinas-Plaintiffs-Response-Exhibit-I.pdf