It is intriguing that when the topic here is the sexual abuse of children that some would like to silence or restrict that!!!
Why is that?
Pedophilia and sexual abuse of children in AustraliaThe Problems  |  The Solutions  |  Make a Submission  |  Petition  |  Statistics  |  International  |  Historical
 Site map   Johnb Print Friendly Email to a Friend

  Home :: 2006 November :: Thomas Magnum, et al, Plaintiffs, vs. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, et al., Defendants -- Part 2
 

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 classof all other male and female students and parishioners of Defendantswho were subject to any form of sexual abuse, sexual contact, sexualmisconduct, sexual exploitation and/or sex discrimination by priests orclergy or members of religious orders from 1940 to the present and atthe time of such abuse or misconduct such priests or clergy or memberswere assigned to or employed by or being protected/concealed/harboredby 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 aperiod of more than four decades. Accordingly, the members of the classare so numerous that joinder is impractical. Despite the size of theclass, the identities of many of the class members can be ascertainedfrom Defendants’ files and records. Plaintiffs and their counsel do notanticipate 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 notlimited to threats, intimidation and bribery to conceal the sexualabuse of Plaintiffs;

d. Whether or not Defendants’ fraudulent and illegal actions act totoll and/or suspend the accrual and running any applicable statute oflimitations;

e. Whether or not Defendants’ actions constitute a violation of, orneglect to prevent a violation of, Plaintiffs’ civil rights under the14thAmendment of the United States Constitution, and state laws;

f. Whether or not Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to conceal thesexual abuse and sexual misconduct of the pedophile priests inviolation 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 Plaintiffsare typical of the claims of the class. The named Plaintiffs have beenthe victims of the same intentional practices that affect each classmember. Plaintiffs and each class member have sustained and continue tosuffer injuries arising from Defendants’ wrongful conduct.

77. The proposed class representatives will fairly and adequatelyrepresent 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 generallyapplicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctiveand declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.

79. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fairand efficient adjudication of this litigation since individual joinderof all members of the class is impracticable. Most members of the classcannot afford to pursue individual litigation against Defendants. Evenif some class members could themselves afford individual litigation, itwould be unduly burdensome to the courts in which the individuallitigation would proceed. Individual litigation magnifies the delay andexpense of resolving controversies surrounding Defendants’ practices.Individual litigation would also subject individual class members tosevere stress and humiliation that necessarily attends litigationrelating to sexual abuse. Many victims of the Defendants’ agents havefailed to come forward for fear of being publicly identified. Bycontrast, the class action device presents far fewer managementdifficulties and provides the benefits of unitary adjudication andcomprehensive supervision by a single court, and can protect theprivacy of many class members who otherwise would not come forward.

80. The class, as defined herein, may be certified pursuant to Rule23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that Defendantshave acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to theclass, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief orcorresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.

81. The class, as defined herein, may also be certified pursuant toRule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that thequestions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominateover any questions affecting only individual members, and that a classaction is superior to other available methods for the fair andefficient 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 fearof public humiliation greatly diminishes the interests of members ofthe class in individually controlling the prosecution of separateactions;

b. The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversyalready commenced by members of the class is not such that a classaction should be precluded;

c. Because the acts in question occurred within the jurisdictionaldistrict of this Court, and because Defendants and to knowledge andbelief most of the class of Plaintiffs can be located within thejurisdiction of this Court, and because there are questions of federallaw to be decided, it is desirable to concentrate the litigation of theclaims in this forum; and

d. Despite the size of the class, the identities of many of the classmembers can be ascertained from Defendants’ files and records.Plaintiffs and their counsel do not anticipate any difficulties in themanagement of this case as a class action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Courtenter an Order, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure, certifying Plaintiffs to be class representativesand the undersigned counsel to be class counsel for the class asdefined 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 DefendantArchdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise II”) constitutes an association infact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).

87. Alternatively, the relationship between Cardinal Bevilacqua andDefendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise III”) constitutes anassociation in fact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).

88. Alternatively, the relationship between Cardinal Rigali andDefendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise IV”) constitutes anassociation 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 “EnterpriseVI”) 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 andDefendant Archdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise VIII”) constitutes anassociation 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 DefendantArchdiocese (hereafter “Enterprise X”) constitutes an association infact enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).

95. Alternatively, the relationship between the United States Bishopsof the Roman Catholic Church (hereafter “Enterprise XI”) constitutes anassociation 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 hadan ongoing business aside and apart from the racketeering acts allegedherein in that they were involved in the operation of the RomanCatholic Church in the United States.

97. Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XIengaged in activities which affected interstate or foreign commerce.

98. At all relevant times Defendants were employed by and/or associatedwith Enterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI.

99. At all relevant times Defendants controlled or directed the affairsof 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 participateddirectly 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 orpractice of conspiracy and racketeering activity in violation of 18U.S.C §1962 (c) .

101. From approximately 1940 through to the present, Defendants, aspersons 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 aconspiracy to intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently concealcriminal conduct of its agents, aid and abet the concealment ofcriminal conduct, aid and abet criminal sexual conduct, fail to reportcriminal conduct of its agents, obstruct justice, obstruct criminalinvestigation, obstruct state and/or local law enforcement, evadecriminal and/or civil prosecution and liability, fail to warn thepublic of the possible and/or likely future criminal conduct of itsagents, fail to act to remove pedophile priests from their parishes andfrom contact with potential and likely victims, bribe and/or pay moneyto and/or threaten and/or coerce victims in order to keep its criminalconduct secret, violate the civil rights of children and families,engage in mail and/or wire fraud, and commit fraud and/or fraudulentinducement of its parishioners in furtherance of its scheme to protectpedophile priests and the archdiocese from criminal and/or civilprosecution, to maintain and/or increase charitable contributionsand/or avoid public scandal in the Roman Catholic Church.

102. In some instances, the church also coerced and/or obstructed stateand local law enforcement officials from arresting pedophile priests byusing their position of power in the community and by fraudulentlypromising 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 thepedophile priests, the church officials, through letters mailed andtelephone calls placed to other states, conspired to transfer prieststo parishes in other states in order to “hide” the priests and tofraudulently convince victims and state and local law enforcementagents not to press charges and/or arrest the pedophile priests byconcealing the fact that they were still active as priests in the RomanCatholic Church.

104. The Defendants, as persons controlling or directing the affairs ofEnterprise I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and/or XI knew thatpedophile priests under their control were sexually abusing andexploiting children and they showed willful indifference and/orreckless or intentional disregard for the children in order to furthertheir scheme.

105. In 1985, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops received areport titled “The Problem of Sexual Molestations By Roman CatholicClergy”, which outlined the pervasive problem of child sexual abuse bypriests within the Roman Catholic Church. The report predicted thatfailure of the Roman Catholic Church to correct this problem couldresult in liability for the church in excess of one billion dollars($1,000,000,000.00) over ten years. The report also outlined steps thatthe Roman Catholic Church, through the National Conference of CatholicBishops, must take to protect the church and its parishioners from thedevastating effects of pedophile priests. The National Conference ofCatholic Bishops failed to respond to the report or follow thesuggestions contained therein, and instead continued to protect thepedophile priests and conceal their criminal activity to the severedetriment of unsuspecting children and their families. Upon informationand belief, Defendants engaged in the racketeering activity describedabove in order to protect financial interests, continue to receiveparishioner contributions, and to protect pedophile priests andDefendants themselves from criminal and/or civil prosecution.

106. The above 1985 report also advised the National Conference ofCatholic Bishops to discontinue purging the secret files of potentiallydamaging information. The report also warned the National Conference ofCatholic Bishops that their practice of moving files containingpotentially dangerous material to the Apostolic Delegate (delegate tothe Vatican), where the files would be immune from subpoena, couldultimately destroy the immunity enjoyed by the Holy See. These warningswere also ignored.

107. In furtherance of its scheme and enterprise to protect pedophilepriests and Defendants from criminal prosecution and civil liability,maintain or increase charitable contributions and/or avoid publicscandals in the Roman Catholic Church, Defendants intentionally andfraudulently engaged in the routine practice of maintaining secret “subsecreto” archival files of sexual misconduct by priests. These subsecreto files are accessible to Bishops only. The existence of thesesecret files and the contents were not disclosed to or made availableto law enforcement authorities, or others, in order for law enforcementto investigate the known crimes of the priests. Further, it is thepractice of the Roman Catholic Church to fraudulently purge the filesand hide them from persons, including law enforcement authorities,seeking access to them.

108. As evidence of this fraudulent practice and its widespread use, in1990, in an address by Bishop A. James Quinn to the National Conferenceof Catholic Bishops titled “NCCB Guidelines, and other Considerationsin Pedophile Cases”, Bishop Quinn stated:

Personnel files should be carefully examined to determinetheir content. Unsigned letters alleging misconduct should be expunged.Standard personnel files should contain no documentation relating topossible criminal behavior. Serious moral questions, signedallegations, those should be a part of the secret file anyhow. But theystill subpoena them. But comb through your files. Now what files havebeen subpoenaed, they cannot be tampered with; destroyed, removed; thatconstitutes obstruction of justice and contempt of court. Prior,however, thought and study ought to be given if you think its going tobe necessary; if there’s something the Apostolic Delegate, because theyhave immunity to protect something that is potentially dangerous, orthat you consider to be dangerous, you might send it there.

109. The Apostolic Delegate is the delegate from the Vatican and HolySee who the church believes enjoys sovereign immunity from lawsuits andsubpoenas.

110. In furtherance of its scheme, Defendants have routinely enteredinto secret settlement agreements with confidentiality provisions thatrequire victims of sexual abuse to preserve the Bishop’s secrets fromscrutiny by the public and law enforcement authorities.

111. In furtherance of its scheme, Defendants have routinely illegallybribed victims of sexual exploitation and abuse in order to influencethem to not report the sexual exploitation and abuse to law enforcementauthorities and ultimately to influence the victims to not testify incourt 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 indifferenceand/or reckless disregard, a secret society of pedophile priests whoperpetrated unspeakable criminal acts of child sexual abuse throughoutthe United States was maintained for over fifty (50) years. Defendantsmaintained this secret society by making fraudulent representations,concealing criminal activity, obstructing justice and criminalinvestigations, evading civil and/or criminal liability, bribing and/orpayment of money to victims in order to conceal its criminal conductfrom, among others, financially contributing parishioners and lawenforcement agents, tampering with victims through threatening orcoercive means, violating civil rights of children and families, andcommitting mail and wire fraud and misprision of felonies. Evidencethat Defendants committed a continuing pattern of racketeering infurtherance of its scheme by engaging in fraudulent conduct across thenation includes, but is not limited to those specific instancesdetailed in the 2003 Report of the Grand Jury captioned In RE: CountyInvestigating Grand Jury, Misc. No. 03-00-239 (September 17, 2003),relevant portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” andincorporated by reference herein.

113. Upon information and belief, Defendants fraudulentlymisrepresented the facts of known sexual misconduct to parishioners andtheir families for the economic purpose of avoiding civil liabilitywhile increasing or maintaining the charitable contributions andtuition payments of parishioners, current and prospective catholicschool students, and current and prospective seminarians. Uponinformation and belief, much, if not all, of the solicitations forcontributions were effectuated by using the United States PostalService or interstate wire service.

114. The conduct set forth above constitutes “racketeering activity” inthat (a) the Defendants engaged in acts and/or threats including butnot limited to acts and/or threats involving kidnapping, bribery,extortion, and dealing in obscene matter and said acts and/or threatsare or were chargeable under state law and punishable by imprisonmentfor more than one year; and (b) the Defendants engaged in actsincluding but not limited to mail and/or wire fraud, obstruction ofcriminal investigations, obstruction of state or local law enforcement,tampering with a witness or victim, retaliating against a witness orvictim, peonage, slavery and trafficking in persons and sexualexploitation of children.

115. Upon information and belief, Defendants continued the above-statedracketeering activities until at least the year 2002, when DefendantCardinal Anthony Bevilacqua made statements to the public and to thegrand jury in which he purposely misrepresented the extent of thesexual abuse by priests in the Archdiocese over the last severaldecades and his knowledge thereof. See, In RE: County InvestigatingGrand Jury, Misc. No. 03-00-239 (September 17, 2003).

116. Plaintiffs have been injured in their business and/or property byreason of their inability to pursue claims for monetary damages againstthe Defendants for personal injuries sustained as a result of the aboveconduct due to the Defendants’ assertion of a defense based on thestatute of limitations. The fraudulent racketeering activity set forthabove was conducted for the purpose of avoiding such civil liabilityand in order to deny the Plaintiffs said monetary damages which theywere otherwise lawfully entitled to.

117. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be injured in their businessand/or property by reason of Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962et seq. Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional and psychological stressand illness as a result of the sexual abuse, which prevented them fromperforming to their full capacity as productive, working adults, thuscausing them loss of earnings and earning capacity. Plaintiffs alsohave suffered and will continue to suffer out-of-pocket expensesrelating to medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counselingnecessitated by the acts of abuse.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointlyand severally, for compensatory damages in such sum as a jurydetermines to be just, reasonable and adequate, together with trebledamages, litigation costs, attorney fees and interest, and for suchother 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 toviolate the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) as described above.

120. As evidence of this agreement/conspiracy, Defendants and otherco-conspirators committed the acts described herein and conspired toconceal the pedophile priest’s criminal activity, or aided and abettedthe pedophile priests in concealing their criminal activity for overfifty (50) years.

121. As further evidence of the agreement/conspiracy, Defendants andother co-conspirators conspired with the pedophile priests to evadeand/or aided and abetted the pedophile priests in evading lawenforcement agencies, criminal prosecution, civil suits and the publicembarrassment 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, asalleged herein, by reason of the above violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointlyand severally, for compensatory damages in such sum as a jurydetermines to be just, reasonable and adequate, together with trebledamages, litigation costs, attorney fees and interest, and for suchother 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 atall relevant times minor children. The Defendants used and/or condonedthe use of Plaintiffs’ status as minor children, including theirobedience to adult authority and their susceptibility to the notion ofthe sanctity of the pedophile priests, as a way to conceal the factthat Plaintiffs had in fact been injured by the pedophile priests, toconceal the nature and extent of said injuries and to conceal theidentity of those responsible, including Defendants’ own culpability inperpetuating and concealing the horrific acts of abuse.

126. Alternatively, Plaintiffs are members of a protected class in thatthey were at all relevant times exercising their constitutional rightsas members of the Roman Catholic Church. The Defendants used and/orcondoned the use of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, including theirbelief in God and the sanctity of the pedophile priests, as a way toconceal the fact that Plaintiffs had in fact been injured by thepedophile priests, to conceal the nature and extent of said injuriesand to conceal the identity of those responsible, including Defendants’own culpability in perpetuating and concealing the horrific acts ofabuse.

127. Defendants, acting by and through their respective, agents,servants, and/or employees, conspired with each other and with thepedophile priests to conceal the illegal sexual abuse that wascommitted upon Plaintiffs, which concealment was done with the intentto injure Plaintiffs in their ability to seek legal redress.

128. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy thatincluded, but was not limited to, transferring priests to differentparishes and in some instances different states to conceal theircrimes.

129. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracyincluding but not limited to purposely and fraudulently tellingparishioners and law enforcement agents that accused pedophile priestswould be defrocked or that the accused pedophile priests were put onsick leave, when in fact they remained active within the Roman CatholicChurch and were simply transferred to another parish where they wouldcome in contact with more unsuspecting victims.

130. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracyincluding but not limited to not only failing to warn parishioners ofknown pedophile priests in their community, but in fact putting inplace strict policies that encouraged misinforming parishionersregarding a priest’s background and forbidding the informing ofparishioners – either those whose children had recently been exposed toa sexual offender in his old parish or the parents of potential victimsin a newly assigned parish – about the known predatory and pedophilicnature of a priest.

131. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracyincluding but not limited to threatening and/or retaliating againstmembers of the clergy who reported instances or suspicions of abuse.

132. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracyincluding but not limited to using their position within the Catholiccommunity to coerce victims, their families and law enforcement agentsnot to press charges against the pedophile priests and/or againstDefendants.

133. Defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracyincluding 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 includedbut was not limited to keeping the acts of sexual abuse secret byfailing to report known incidents to law enforcement agents, parents orvictims, keeping purposely vague records of reports of sexual abuse theincidents, destroying records documenting the sexual abuse.

135. Defendants’ actions in furtherance of their conspiracy includedbut 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 liesregarding whether there were other victims.

136. Defendants’ action in furtherance of their conspiracy included butwas not limited to allowing psychologists to render aid and/or therapyto the victims.

137. Defendants’ actions in furtherance of their conspiracy includedbut was not limited to concealing/limiting evidence of the pedophilepriests’ crimes and their own guilty knowledge of them by recordingreports of abuse and related information in ways that often masked thenature of the abuse and the actions taken in response. Written recordsof allegations often left out the names of potential victims, andincluded only vague euphemisms to obscure the actual heinous nature ofthe offenses.

138. Defendants’ actions in furtherance of their conspiracy includedbut was not limited to reporting and/or discussing reports of abuseorally rather than in written form, thus further limiting evidence ofthe 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 thechurch who committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, includingPlaintiffs, to prevent the filing of both criminal and civil complaintsagainst those priests, employees, and/or servants.

140. Defendants actively, deliberately, and with intent to injure,obstructed the prosecution of Plaintiffs’ causes of action against themthrough an intricate conspiracy which included concealment andmisrepresentations made to the public and to law enforcement agenciesregarding the criminal activity of the pedophile priests andDefendants’ knowledge thereof before, during, and after the time periodin which Plaintiff was sexually abused.

142. As such, the abuse perpetuated on the Plaintiffs constitutes aviolation of their substantive due process right to bodily integrity assecured by the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV. Thisconstitutional right is protected from private conspiracies under 42U.S.C. §1985.

143. The abuse perpetuated on the Plaintiffs further constitutes aviolation of substantive rights created under state law designed toprotect minor children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse,including but not limited to 18 Pa.C.S. §3121(c) (relating to rape of achild), 18 Pa.C.S. §3121(d) (relating to rape of a child with seriousbodily injury), 18 Pa.C.S. §3122.1 (relating to statutory sexualassault), 18 Pa.C.S. §3123(a)(7), (b) (relating to involuntary deviatesexual intercourse with a child), 18 Pa.C.S. §3123(c) (relating toinvoluntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child with serious bodilyinjury), 18 Pa.C.S. §3125(a)(7),(8) and (b) (relating to aggravatedindecent assault of a child) and 18 Pa.C.S. §3126(a)(7),(8) (relatingto indecent assault of a child). The substantive rights created bythese and similar state laws are likewise protected from privateconspiracies under 42 U.S.C. §1985.

144. Based on the conduct described herein, Defendants conspired withone another and with the pedophile priests for the purpose of impeding,hindering, obstructing, or defeating the due course of justice, withthe intent to deny Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws, and/orto injure Plaintiffs or their property for lawfully enforcing, orattempting to enforce, the right of Plaintiffs to the equal protectionof the laws, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(2).

145. Based on the conduct described herein, Defendants conspired withone another and with the pedophile priests to deprive Plaintiffs ofequal protection of the laws and equal privileges and immunities underthe laws, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3).

146. Based on the conduct described herein, Defendants conspired withone another and with the pedophile priests to prevent or hinder stateand local law enforcement agencies from giving or securing toPlaintiffs 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 ofDefendants, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages set forthherein.

148. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct and conspiracydescribed herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer aloss of enjoyment of life, severe emotional distress, severedepression, anxiety, embarrassment, pain and suffering, humiliation,loss of vocation and loss of earnings, loss of faith, their ability tolive a normal life, and have incurred, or will incur medical, hospital,and psychiatric expenses in connection therewith.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointlyand severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in such sum as ajury determines to be just, reasonable and adequate, including attorneyfees, costs and interest, and for such other relief as this HonorableCourt 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 minorsand the illegal tactics used to conceal such criminal actions, asalleged above, would continue to be committed.

151. Each Defendant had the power to prevent or aid in preventing thecommission of the sexual abuse by reporting the pedophile priests tolaw enforcement agencies, alerting the public about known pedophilepriests, and taking disciplinary actions including but not limited todefrocking the pedophile priests.

152. Each Defendant had the power to prevent or aid in preventing thecommission of illegal acts of concealment by refusing to participate insame, and by instructing their agents to refuse to participate in thesame.

153. Despite having the power to do so, Defendants failed to act,failed to warn, and neglected or refused to prevent or aid in thepreventing of the sexual abuse of minors and the illegal tactics usedto conceal the same.

154. Defendants neglected and refused to aid or prevent theabove-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 todeny Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws and/or to injurePlaintiffs or their property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting toenforce their rights to equal protection of the laws.

155. Defendants neglected and refused to aid or prevent theabove-alleged crimes and wrongs conspired to be done under 42 U.S.C.§1985(3), including conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs the equalprotection of the laws.

156. Defendants neglected and refused to aid or prevent theabove-alleged crimes and wrongs conspired to be done under 42 U.S.C.§1985(3), including conspiracy to prevent or hinder state and local lawenforcement agencies from giving or securing to Plaintiffs the equalprotection of the laws.

157. Defendants’ neglect and refusal to aid or prevent theabove-alleged conspiracies is in direct violation of 42 U.S.C. §1986.

158. As a direct and proximate result of the neglect to prevent theconspiracies described herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue tosuffer a loss of enjoyment of life, severe emotional distress, severedepression, anxiety, embarrassment, pain and suffering, humiliation,loss of vocation and loss of earnings, loss of faith, their ability tolive a normal life, and have incurred, or will incur medical, hospital,and psychiatric expenses in connection therewith.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointlyand severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in such sum as ajury determines to be just, reasonable and adequate, including attorneyfees, costs and interest, and for such other relief as this HonorableCourt 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 theforegoing Civil Action Complaint are true and correct to the best of myknowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statementsherein are made subject to the penalty of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relatingto unsworn falsification to authorities.

/s/Stewart J. Eisenberg, STEWART J. EISENBERG, ESQUIRE

Dated: June 14, 2006.


Having a problem accessing a file or finding what you are looking for? Email us for a listing of alternate locations.


Notify us of an article of interest

Register to take part in secure International polls


Publishing a story about TFYQA? - See our for the News Media page.

Want to share your news! Use Submit TFYQA News.

Pedophilia and sexual abuse of children in Australia