| BishopAccountability.org
|
||
|
Accused Ex-Priest Had Worked at Slain Professor's Parish By Matt C. Abbott Renew America [Chicago IL] April 8, 2006 http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/060408 The following is most of the text of a complaint filed April 6, 2006 in Chicago. Defendants in the lawsuit are the Chicago archdiocese and former priest Robert Craig. (Interestingly, one of the parishes to which Craig was assigned was All Saints-St. Anthony, the same parish at which choir director Francis Pellegrini had worked prior to his murder in May 1984. (Pellegrini, also a professor and acquaintance of Father Andrew Greeley, was found stabbed multiple times in his South side apartment. Pellegrini reportedly was going to inform the archdiocese about the activities of a clergy pedophile ring known as the Boys' Club, which had been targeting minority children in addition to engaging in sexual "escapades" with other adults. (Catholic attorney Sheila Parkhill has been working to expose the ring.) COMPLAINT AT LAW NOW COMES the Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, KERNS, PITROF, FROST & PEARLMAN, L.L.C. and JEFF ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, and for his causes of action against Defendants, states as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff John Doe 104 (hereinafter "Plaintiff") is an adult male resident of the state of Illinois. At all times material, Plaintiff was a minor and a resident of Illinois. 2. At all times material, the Catholic Bishop of Chicago, a Corporation Sole (hereinafter "Archdiocese of Chicago") was and is an Illinois corporation. Defendant has approximately eight hundred fifty four Diocesan priests serving in two counties in the State of Illinois. At all times material to the complaint, Defendant Archdiocese was conducting business in the State of Illinois. 3. At all times material, the Archbishop or Cardinal of Chicago, was in charge of the Defendant Archdiocese, and was the local agent of the Roman Catholic Church. As chief operating officer and ordinary of Defendant Archdiocese, the Archbishop of the Archdiocese is appointed by the Pope and has ultimate authority and responsibility for the training, ordination, placement, and, the discipline, removal and recommendation for laicization of all Roman Catholic priests ordained in the Defendant Archdiocese. Upon ordination, each and every priest of Defendant Archdiocese vows obedience to the Archbishop of the Defendant Archdiocese and his successors. The Archbishop of the Defendant Archdiocese possesses individual responsibility for the care of each and every parish, and its members, located within the counties, which geographically comprise the Defendant Archdiocese. The Archbishop is also responsible for fully investigating the history and fitness of all priests prior to placement within a parish in Defendant Archdiocese and for the discipline and/or removing of such priest. (hereinafter the "Archdiocese" includes the Archbishop and/or Cardinal). 4. At all material times, Father Robert Craig (hereinafter "Defendant Craig") was a priest and member of Defendant Archdiocese. Defendant Craig was educated by Defendant Archdiocese and ordained by the Archdiocese in or about 1974. Defendant Craig was an adult and designated holy figure at the time of the sexual abuse alleged herein. 5. On information and belief, the Archdiocese moved Craig to many parishes in the Archdiocese including:
FACTS 7. Generally, Defendant Craig's employment duties with Defendant Archdiocese included providing pastoral care, counseling, and spiritual guidance and leadership to Catholics. In addition, Defendant Craig was a teacher and provided religious instruction for the spiritual and emotional needs of children, including Plaintiff, entrusted to his care. Because of these duties, Craig routinely interacted with the youth of the churches in the Archdiocese. 8. Plaintiff was raised in a devout Roman Catholic family, was baptized, confirmed, and regularly celebrated mass and received the sacraments through the Roman Catholic Church (hereinafter "Church"). As a result, Plaintiff developed great admiration, trust, reverence, and respect for, and obedience to Roman Catholic priests, including Defendant Craig. 9. At all times material, Plaintiff was a parishioner within Defendant Archdiocese at St. Ann's Church in Chicago, IL, where he came to know, admire, trust, revere and respect Craig as a priest, teacher, counselor, spiritual advisor and religious instructor. Plaintiff and his family actively participated in many of the religious and secular activities of St. Ann's. 10. From approximately 1987 to 1990 when Plaintiff was approximately 13 to 16 years old, Craig repeated molested Plaintiff. Some of the abuse occurred on the premises of St. Mark's. 11. The sexual abuse of the Plaintiff, and the circumstances under which the abuse occurred, caused Plaintiff to develop various psychological coping mechanisms and symptoms of psychological distress, including depression, repression and dissociation. As a result, Plaintiff was under a disability and has only recently been able to link his severe psychological and emotional problems with the acts perpetrated by Craig. 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Archdiocese had been apprised of Craig's pedophilic behavior and sexual abuse of young boys prior to the time that Craig was assigned to St. Ann's and began abusing Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, before Plaintiff was first sexually abused by Craig, Defendant Archdiocese had actual or constructive knowledge of material facts regarding Craig's individual pedophile impulses and behavior, but failed to act on that knowledge thereby increasing the likelihood that Plaintiff would be harmed. Defendant Archdiocese's failure to act on that knowledge also contributed to Plaintiff's inability to have any knowledge of the wrongful nature of the events. 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Archdiocese did not inform parishioners, parents or law enforcement officials of Craig's criminal conduct and the danger he posed to children. Upon information and belief, Defendant Archdiocese permitted Craig to remain at St. Ann's Church and other Archdiocese churches despite its knowledge of Craig's sexual abuse of children. Upon information and belief, despite its knowledge of Craig's sexual abuse of Plaintiff and other students, Defendant Archdiocese allowed Craig to remain as pastor of St. Ann's Church and other assignments and represented him to be a priest in good standing, thus enabling him to retain his continued, unrestricted access to minor children, including Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, Craig was transferred between churches in the Archdiocese to conceal his criminal behavior and the Archdiocese's knowledge of it and to make it more difficult for parishioners, others in the community and law enforcement officials to discover Craig's criminal activities. Defendant Archdiocese thereby ratified Defendant Craig's behavior and increased the likelihood that Plaintiff would be harmed and would fail to obtain help. Had Defendant Archdiocese publicly disclosed the information it had to parishioners and to Plaintiff in particular, Plaintiff may have recalled the abuse he suffered at the hands of Craig and sought help earlier thereby avoiding years of pain and suffering. 14. The failure of Defendant Archdiocese to take any action regarding Craig's sexual abuse of Plaintiff is consistent with its decades-long practice of failing to respond to credible allegations of sexual abuse. On numerous occasions since at least 1960 the Archdiocese received credible allegations of sexual abuse but failed to take the actions necessary to properly investigate the allegations. On information and belief, the Archdiocese engaged in a pattern and practice of purposefully hiding claims of sexual abuse, including the frequent transfer of priests accused of pedophilic behavior, to protect its reputation and avoid the scandal that would result if parishioners and the public at large were aware of the incidents of pedophilia in the church community. 15. The Archdiocese did not take appropriate action to safeguard the children of the Archdiocese. On information and belief, on numerous occasions, the Archdiocese transferred priests accused of inappropriate behavior toward a minor from one assignment to another, without disclosing any information about the priest's behavior to anyone in the community or to law enforcement officials. Additionally, the Archdiocese knowingly accepted known child molesters into the Archdiocese and assigned them to ministries without warning anyone in the community of the pedophilic behavior of these priests. These actions substantially increased the likelihood that children such as Plaintiff would be abused. 16. Defendant Archdiocese created the misperception in the mind of Plaintiff and others that he and other children were safe with the Archdiocese's priests in general and with Craig in particular. At no time during the period in question did Defendant Archdiocese have in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor priests' abstinence from sexual activity or pre-sexual grooming of children in the Archdiocese to prevent or minimize the risk of sexual contact with minors. Nor did Defendant Archdiocese employ reasonably sufficient procedures for testing and screening priests for dangerous sexual proclivities, such as those shown by Craig. 17. Further, and upon information and belief, Defendant Archdiocese and others maintained "secret files" in which they kept allegations of abuse, making it almost impossible for Archdiocese officials and Church leaders to learn of past abuse allegations directed at Craig or other pedophile priests. As a result, despite the Archdiocese's knowledge of the problem of pedophilic priests in general and any specific knowledge with respect to Craig, the Archdiocese made the youth attending the Archdiocese accessible by and vulnerable to acts of pre-sexual grooming and abuse, all of which were done in the scope of employment or agency of the Archdiocese. 18. Defendant Archdiocese ratified the conduct of Craig by ignoring the incidents of abuse committed by Craig even though it was aware of the abuse and by not warning others, including law enforcement authorities, parishioners and Plaintiff and other Archdiocese students, of Craig's propensity to commit sexual abuse on minor boys. 19. The decades long concealment by the Archdiocese of pedophilia conduct by many of its priests, including Craig, contributed to the fact that Plaintiff was unable to discover the abuse and injuries he suffered until recently. 20. During the time that Craig was pastor at St. Ann's and St. Mark's and as a result of the affiliation Plaintiff had with the Church, the Archdiocese and Craig, a special fiduciary relationship of human, religious and spiritual trust developed between Plaintiff, Craig and Defendant Archdiocese, with concomitant in loco parentis duties, including providing a safe haven for Plaintiff by providing for his physical and emotional care and safety. As a result of representations made by Defendant Archdiocese and Craig, and because the Archdiocese held itself out as counselors and instructors on matters that were spiritual, moral and ethical, Plaintiff placed great trust in the Archdiocese and its priests so that the Archdiocese gained control and influence over its priests and Plaintiff. Defendants, by maintaining and encouraging such a relationship with the Plaintiff, entered into a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. 21. This fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff established a duty of good faith, fair dealing and the duty to act with the highest degree of trust and confidence. This fiduciary relationship includes the duty to warn and to disclose and the duty to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation by Catholic priests whom the Defendants promote as being celibate and chaste representatives of God on earth. Defendants' fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff was based upon justifiable trust on Plaintiff's side and superiority and influence on Defendants' side. 22. The local leaders of Defendant Archdiocese were in a specialized or superior position to receive and did receive specific information regarding misconduct by priests and other agents and employees that was of critical importance to the well-being, protection, care and treatment of innocent victims, including the Plaintiff. This knowledge was not otherwise readily available. Defendant Archdiocese exercised its special or superior position to assume control of said knowledge and any response thereto. 23. Plaintiff was in a subordinate position of weakness, vulnerability, and inequality and were lacking in such knowledge. Further, the ability of Plaintiff or his family to monitor the use or misuse of the power and authority of Defendant Archdiocese and Craig was compromised, inhibited or restricted by the Archdiocese and Craig. 24. Defendant Archdiocese had a secular standard of fiduciary duty which they breached by failing to act upon, or insufficiently acting upon or responding to, information which they had obtained by virtue of their superior status, known only or secretly to them, that was indicative or highly suggestive of a pattern of wrongful, unlawful or criminal behavior by Craig. Defendant Archdiocese breached this duty, as well as other duties, through inaction, manipulation, intimidation, evasion, intended deception, undue influence, duress or otherwise, as more fully described and set forth elsewhere in this Complaint, resulting in negative consequences to the welfare and well-being of Plaintiff including his continued repression of the abusive events.. 25. By tradition, Roman Catholics, including Plaintiff, are taught to hold priests in the highest esteem as earthly representatives of God, and that priests, unlike lay people, belong to a separate and higher state in life, the so called "clerical state," which they represent to be of divine origin and which they represent entitles them to special privileges. For these and other reasons relating to the practices of the Church, priests and other persons in leadership positions in the Church have traditionally occupied a position of great trust and allegiance among the parents and youth of Illinois, including Plaintiff. 26. As part of this traditional reverence of Church clergy, Plaintiff was instructed and indoctrinated as a child to show obedience to priests and was taught to believe and did believe that it would be "sinful" or wrong to make any kind of an accusation against a priest or Bishop. Additionally, Plaintiff were instructed and believed that priests and Bishops followed their vow of celibacy and chastity and could not and would not engage in conduct considered sexual, evil or wrong. Plaintiff relied upon these teachings and incorporated them into his religious beliefs and practices. Accordingly, Plaintiff believed that it would be sinful or wrong for anyone to make any kind of an accusation against a priest or Bishop and this contributed to Plaintiff's belief that he was responsible for his psychological problems and his repression of the abuse. 27. In addition, Plaintiff and others were taught and instructed that Church issues and scandals were not to be disclosed to the public at large or to law enforcement and that any such scandals were to remain strictly secret. "Good" Catholics, like Plaintiff, were taught and believed that such issues would be handled internally by the Church, including Defendant Archdiocese, and that it was un-Christian and counter to the tenants of the faith to make any public allegations against the Church or any priest. In fact, to disclose any such issues or scandals could result in excommunication. Plaintiff believed what he was taught by the Church. These teachings kept the wide spread problem of pedophile priests out of the public arena until recently. Plaintiff's strong beliefs added to the traumatic nature of what occurred and his incapacity to be aware that the conduct was harmful. 28. As a result of Plaintiff's position as a minor, together with Craig's position in the Church as a priest, holy man and authority figure, Craig was able to have control and influence over Plaintiff. By his words and actions, Craig represented to Plaintiff that the object of his relationship with Plaintiff was to provide friendship, counseling, comfort and advice. This representation was untrue and was intended by Craig to deceive Plaintiff, to gain Plaintiff's trust and confidence and to obtain control over him. Plaintiff believed Craig, justifiably relied upon him and gave him his trust and confidence. Craig and the Archdiocese actively concealed the wrongfulness of this exploitation, manipulation and misconduct. As a result, Plaintiff was unaware that the behavior of Craig and the Archdiocese was wrongful until recently. 29. Plaintiff had the right to rely, and did rely, on the representations and teachings of the Church and Defendant Archdiocese including, but not limited to, representations regarding priests in general and Craig in particular (including the representation that Craig was a priest "in good standing"). Plaintiff also expected and believed that the Church and Defendant Archdiocese would not tolerate criminal misconduct that represented a known threat to children by any priest. Accordingly, Plaintiff also relied on Defendant's omission and silence. 30. The Church and Defendant Archdiocese created the misperception in the mind of Plaintiff and others that he and other children were safe with priests in general and with Craig in particular. In fact, Plaintiff was a victim of a known and preventable hazard that the Church, the Archdiocese and Craig created and allowed to continue. Further, as a result of the early instruction and indoctrination described herein, Plaintiff believed that Defendant Archdiocese was unaware and uninvolved in facilitating the criminal sexual behavior and the wide ranging efforts to conceal that criminal conduct from him and others. 31. Because of his age, immaturity, religious and spiritual upbringing, the sexual pre-grooming of Plaintiff by Craig, the continual failure of any Archdiocese representative or other Catholic official aware of the abuse to help him, the trauma as a result of the abuse, it never occurred to Plaintiff until recently that any priest or the Archdiocese would engage in criminal behavior, or knowingly actively be involved in a conspiracy to conceal criminal behavior. Even after Craig had sexually molested him, Plaintiff did not know he was a victim of sexual abuse and assumed that he was somehow responsible for the problems he experienced. However, upon information and belief, Defendant Archdiocese knew of Craig's misconduct and the overall problem of pedophile behavior in the Church and the Archdiocese but failed to inform Plaintiff, anyone else within the Catholic community or the criminal authorities of Craig's actions. As a result, Plaintiff continued to repress what happened to him and was unable to understand the wrongfulness and illegality of Craig's abuse of him and the related injury until recently. 32. The applicable statutes of limitations are tolled because the Archdiocese and others fraudulently concealed Craig's exploitation and misconduct from Plaintiff, law enforcement, Plaintiff's family and other parishioners. Upon information and belief, in an attempt to avoid scandal in the Archdiocese and to protect the reputation of the Church and Defendant Archdiocese at any cost, Defendant Archdiocese concealed the nature of Craig's abuse by denying the wrongfulness of Craig's behavior, hiding the wrongfulness of his behavior from Plaintiff and others, and by improperly retaining Craig as a priest and spiritual advisor despite being aware of Craig's criminal conduct. Had Defendants not engaged in such concealment, Plaintiff may not have continued to not know that Defendants' conduct was wrong and may have taken action against Defendants sooner. 33. Upon information and belief, after learning of Craig's pedophilic tendencies, Defendant Archdiocese and others ratified his conduct by failing to report him to law enforcement authorities and failing to notify parishioners, members of the community and the laity after Craig committed the criminal acts against Plaintiff and those before and after him. Therefore, Defendant Archdiocese knew, or should have known, that its actions would silence Plaintiff, prevent him from discovering his injuries, possibly cause him to repress memory of the abuse, and ultimately exacerbate his emotional distress and trauma. The Archdiocese knew or should have known that Plaintiff was injured as a result of Craig's abuse and also knew or should have known that he likely blamed his injuries on himself. Defendants should therefore be estopped from asserting any defense that Plaintiff's action is not timely under Illinois law because the Archdiocese and Craig fraudulently concealed the wrongfulness of Craig's conduct and did nothing to stop the wrongful behavior of Craig (or other pedophiles). 34. The applicable statute of limitations is further tolled by Craig and Defendant Archdiocese's acts of threats, manipulation and intimidation. Since approximately 1986, Plaintiff has been subjected to manipulation by Defendant Archdiocese in that Defendant Archdiocese failed to disclose to Plaintiff and others that Defendant Archdiocese knew of and concealed Defendant Craig's acts of sexual abuse of children both before and after Craig's sexual abuse of Plaintiff. Because Defendant Archdiocese failed to disclose this information to Plaintiff, Plaintiff was unaware that he had a cause of action against Defendant Archdiocese until recently. 35. Due to Defendant Archdiocese's representations, its concealment of its knowledge of Craig's sexual molestation of children, and Plaintiff's religious teachings and beliefs, Plaintiff was further unable to know (1) the wrongful nature of the Archdiocese, Craig's conduct, (2) that he was a victim of sexual abuse committed upon him by Craig, (3) that Defendant Archdiocese knew or had reason to know that Craig was a pedophile prior to his abuse; (4) that the Archdiocese and Craig were responsible for the abuse, and (5) that the injuries he suffered were the result of the abuse. 36. Plaintiff lacked sophistication to perceive the psychological or emotional harm or injury proximately resulting from defendants' behavior until 2005. Moreover, Plaintiff did not, in fact, begin to perceive the wrongfulness of Defendants' conduct until 2005. 37. Due to psychological coping mechanisms, Plaintiff was incapable of recognizing that he experienced injuries that were causally related to this sexual abuse. As a result, Plaintiff did not know, nor through the exercise of reasonable diligence did he have reason to know, of the fact of the injury or its causal relationship to the sexual abuse until less than two years prior to commencement of this action when Plaintiff began to make this discovery. In addition, Plaintiff did not know or have any reason to know through the exercise of due diligence that the Defendant Archdiocese knew of Craig's sexual misconduct and the problem of pedophile priests in general, yet both before and after Craig's sexual abuse of Plaintiff, it negligently continued to employ those priests and failed to adequately investigate or supervise Craig's activity at the Archdiocese. 38. Plaintiff did not discover that he had been defrauded or have any reason to believe that the Archdiocese had defrauded him until recently when he found out that the Archdiocese knew about many of its sexually offending employees, yet continued to place them in positions where they had unlimited access to children. 39. As a direct result of Craig's sexual abuse, and the negligent and wrongful conduct of Defendant Archdiocese and others, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe and permanent emotional distress, terror, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of religious faith, difficulty in practicing his religion through the Church, severe psychological injury and deprivation of earning capacity, and has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for psychological treatment, therapy and counseling. COUNT I: BATTERY / CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CRAIG Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count and further alleges that: 40. Starting in or about 1987, when Plaintiff was a minor child, Defendant Craig engaged in un-permitted, harmful and offensive sexual contact upon the person of the Plaintiff at, among other places, St. Mark's Church in Chicago. 41. As alleged and described herein, the sexual abuse of Plaintiff was undertaken while Craig was a managing agent of Defendant Archdiocese, while in the course and scope of Craig's employment with Defendant Archdiocese, and/or was ratified by Defendant Archdiocese and others. 42. As a direct result of this sexual abuse, Plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages described herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Craig in an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney's fees, interest and such other relief as the court deems just and equitable. COUNT II: VICARIOUS LIABILITY — ARCHDIOCESE Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count and further alleges that: 43. Starting in approximately 1987 when Plaintiff was a prepubescent, minor child, Craig engaged in un-permitted, harmful and offensive sexual contact upon Plaintiff. 44. Also starting in approximately 1987 when Plaintiff was a prepubescent, minor child, Craig defrauded the Plaintiff. 45. At all times material, Defendant Archdiocese employed Craig. Craig was under Defendant Archdiocese's direct supervision, employ, and control when he committed the wrongful and negligent acts described herein. Craig engaged in this conduct while acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Archdiocese and/or accomplished the sexual abuse and fraud by virtue of his job created authority as a priest and spiritual leader within the Archdiocese. 46. Defendant Archdiocese granted Craig facilities to perform as a priest, teacher, spiritual leader and counselor within Defendant Archdiocese. Defendant Archdiocese held Craig out to the community as a fit and competent agent of Defendant Archdiocese. Craig committed the acts alleged within the apparent authority arising from his agency. This conduct was undertaken in the course and scope of Craig's employment with Defendant Archdiocese and/or was ratified by Defendant Archdiocese. 47. Craig was acting at least in part to serve the interests of their employer when he committed the sexual abuse and when he defrauded Plaintiff. Specifically, Craig was acting as a priest, as well as using the trust, power and authority of the position granted, while he was with Plaintiff. Simultaneously, Craig used that same power and authority to gain Plaintiff's confidence and trust and to sexually abuse and to defraud Plaintiff. 48. By using his position as a priest and the trust, power and authority the position conferred on him, Craig purported to act and/or speak on behalf of Defendant Archdiocese when he committed the tortuous acts alleged herein. Plaintiff further relied upon Craig 's apparent authority to act on behalf of Defendant Archdiocese. 49. Craig would not have been able to commit the sexual abuse or fraud were he not given the authority to act as a priest by Defendant Archdiocese under its direct supervision. Craig conducted his tortuous conduct during his agency relationship with Defendant Archdiocese while providing religious instruction and counseling to Plaintiff. Therefore Defendant is liable for the negligent and wrongful conduct of Craig, under the law of vicarious liability, including the doctrine of respondeat superior. 50. As a direct result of the sexual abuse and fraud, Plaintiff has suffered the injuries and damages as described herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Archdiocese in an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney's fees, interest and such other relief as the court deems just and equitable. COUNT III: NEGLIGENCE — ARCHDIOCESE Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count and further alleges that: 51. Defendant Archdiocese, by accepting minor parishioners and holding St. Ann's and St. Mark's out as place of safety, guidance, healing, refuge and support and by holding Craig out as a fit agent, agreed to and did undertake to provide for the supervision, care and physical safety of Plaintiff. As such Defendant Archdiocese owed Plaintiff a duty to provide for the supervision, care, and physical safety of Plaintiff in a reasonable manner. 52. Defendant Archdiocese, by and through its agents, servants and employees, knew or should reasonably have known of Craig's dangerous and exploitative propensities as child sexual abuser and/or unfit agent. Despite such knowledge, Defendant Archdiocese negligently retained and/or failed to supervise Craig in his position of trust and authority as a Roman Catholic priest, where he was able to commit the wrongful acts against Plaintiff. 53. Defendant Archdiocese failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff and his family of Craig's dangerous and exploitive propensities. Further, Plaintiff was unaware of his cause of action because the Archdiocese concealed its knowledge of Craig's wrongful acts. 54. Defendant Archdiocese breached its duty of care by exposing the minor Plaintiff to unsupervised contact with Craig, wherein he was able to sexually abuse Plaintiff. 55. As a direct result of this negligent conduct, Plaintiff has suffered the injuries and damages described herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Archdiocese in an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney's fees, interest and such other relief as the court deems just and equitable. COUNT IV: FRAUD — ARCHDIOCESE Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count and further alleges that: 56. The Archdiocese affirmatively represented to Plaintiff and his family that Father Craig did not have a history of molesting children, that the Archdiocese did not know that Father Craig had a history of molesting children, and/or that the Archdiocese did not know that Father Craig was a danger to children. 57. The Archdiocese knew that Father Craig had a history of sexually molesting children and was a danger to children. 58. Whether Father Craig had a history of molesting children, whether the Archdiocese knew that Father Craig had a history of molesting children, and/or whether the Archdiocese knew that Father Craig was a danger to children were all material facts to Plaintiff 59. Had Plaintiff known that Father Craig had a history of sexually molesting children, that the Archdiocese knew that Father Craig had a history of sexually molesting children, and/or that Father Craig was a danger to children, Plaintiff would have acted differently. 60. The Archdiocese made the misrepresentations with the intent to deceive Plaintiff and to induce him to act on the misrepresentations to his detriment. 61. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon the Archdiocese's misrepresentations which caused him to be sexually molested by Father Craig and suffer the other damages described herein. 62. The Archdiocese's misrepresentations were a proximate cause of Plaintiff's damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Archdiocese in an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney's fees, interest and such other relief as the court deems just and equitable. COUNT V: FRAUD (INTENTIONAL NON-DISCLOSURE) — ARCHDIOCESE Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count and further alleges that: 63. The Archdiocese knew that Father Craig had a history of sexually molesting children and/or that Father Craig was a danger to children before Plaintiff was abused. 64. Whether or not Father Craig had a history of sexual abuse and/or was a danger to children was a material fact to Plaintiff. 65. The Archdiocese owed Plaintiff a duty to disclose its knowledge regarding Father Craig's dangerous propensities. 66. Plaintiff justifiably relied on the Archdiocese's intentional non-disclosure because Plaintiff was a child, the Archdiocese was his spiritual leaders, and the Archdiocese held superiority and influence over Plaintiff. 67. The Archdiocese intentionally did not disclose these facts to Plaintiff in order to induce him to act on the misrepresentations to his detriment. 68. Plaintiff's reliance upon this intentional non-disclosure caused him to be sexually molested by Father Craig and suffer the other damages described herein. 69. The Archdiocese's intentional non-disclosure was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Archdiocese in an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney's fees, interest and such other relief as the court deems just and equitable. COUNT VI: NEGLIGENT AND/OR INTENTIONAL SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE- ARCHDIOCESE Plaintiff incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count and further alleges that: 70. On information and belief, Defendant had reports that Craig sexually molested children before Plaintiff. 71. On information and belief, some of these reports were contained in the Archdiocese's documents. 72. Defendant also knew that child molesters had a very high rate of recidivism, meaning that they were likely to abuse more children. As such the Defendant owed all children that came into contact with Craig, a priest in their employ, the duty to maintain all records regarding his sexual misconduct. 73. Most of Defendant's agents are mandatory reporters of sexual abuse against children. As such the Defendant owed all children that came into contact with Craig, a priest in their employ, the duty to maintain all records regarding his sexual misconduct. 74. Defendant also knew that because of the high rate of recidivism, Craig had probably already molested numerous children. As such, the Defendant owed all children that had come into contact with Craig, a priest in their employ, the duty to maintain all records regarding his sexual misconduct. 75. Defendants knew that certain children with whom Craig came into contact in the past would have potential causes of action against the Archdiocese. 76. Due to the high rate of recidivism, Defendant knew that children with whom Craig might come into contact in the future may also have potential causes of action against the Archdiocese. 77. On information and belief, the Defendant breached its duties to children with whom Craig had or may have contact by negligently destroying or losing documents relating to Craig's sexual misconduct. 78. Alternatively, Defendant may have intentionally destroyed or lost these Craig documents in order to thwart Plaintiff's ability to prove his case. 79. A reasonable person in the Defendant's positions would have known that these documents were crucial to a civil case against the Archdiocese involving Craig and that there were potential civil causes of action related to Craig. 80. These documents are crucial to Plaintiff's ability to prove his civil claim against Defendant. Defendant knew that these documents were crucial to any civil claim against it dealing with Craig. 81. Plaintiff was injured by the negligent or intentional destruction of these documents because he may be unable to prove his claim against Defendant without this crucial evidence, which will cause him to continue to suffer the injuries alleged in this complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Archdiocese in an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney's fees, interest and such other relief as the court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, By: ______________________________ Attorneys for Plaintiff John Doe 104 KERNS, PITROF, FROST & PEARLMAN, LLC Marc J. Pearlman Michael L. Brooks Debra Goldberg Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison, Suite 5350 Chicago, IL 60602 Atty No.: 38766 (312) 261-4550 Jeffrey R. Anderson JEFF ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. E-1000 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (651) 227-9990 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Matt C. Abbott is a Catholic journalist and commentator. He is a columnist for and/or contributor to RenewAmerica.us, TheConservativeVoice.com, MichNews.com, Catholic.org, Opeds.com, and Speroforum.com. He can be reached at mattcabbott@gmail.com. |
||
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution. |
||