[Note: This webpage was created by BishopAccountability.org from the Application
to Amend filed with the court, and was checked against that original.
We made several nonsubstantive alterations to enhance this document for
the web: a table of contents and a list
of perpetrators were added; photographs of accused priests were supplied wherever possible; names of accused priests
were rendered in red at first significant mention; footnotes in the original
were converted to endnotes and note
numbers were hyperlinked; original page breaks were noted in [
]; several minor typos were corrected in square brackets; a link
to the report commissioned by the Franciscans was added to the section that discusses the report; underlining was removed from heads; and underlined
words were rendered as italic. For an important newspaper story about
this Application, see Suit
Brings Clergy Abuse Allegations into the Light, by Thomas Schultz,
Santa Barbara News-Press, September 27, 2004.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF PERPETRATORS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION
John Roe 4 applies to this court for permission to amend his complaint
to substitute the true names of defendants DOES 1 - 2.
AUTHORITY FOR APPLICATION
may amend his complaint to identify the defendants in this action, he
must first submit a Confidential Certificate of Corroborative Fact and
receive permission from the Court to amend the complaint based thereon.
Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 sets forth the contents, procedure
and standard for review of this application, and states as follows:
(n) At any time after the action is filed, the plaintiff may apply
to the court for permission to amend the complaint to substitute the
name of the defendant or defendants for the [page
2 begins] fictitious designation, as follows:
(1) The application shall be accompanied by a certificate of corroborative
fact executed by the attorney for the plaintiff. The certificate shall
declare that the attorney has discovered one or more facts corroborative
of one or more of the charging allegations against a defendant or
defendants, and shall set forth in clear and concise terms the nature
and substance of the corroborative fact. If the corroborative fact
is evidenced by the statement of a witness or the contents of a document,
the certificate shall declare that the attorney has personal knowledge
of the statement of the witness or of the contents of the document,
and the identity and location of the witness or document shall be
included in the certificate. For purposes of this section, a fact
is corroborative of an allegation if it confirms or supports the allegation.
The opinion of any mental health practitioner concerning the plaintiff
shall not constitute a corroborative fact for purposes of this section.
(2) Where the application to name a defendant is made prior to that
defendant's appearance in the action, neither the application nor
the certificate of corroborative fact by the attorney shall be served
on the defendant or defendants, nor on any other party or their counsel
determination of the merits of the application shall be based solely on
the certificate and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. In this
regard section 340.1 states in part:
(o) The court shall review the application and the certificate of
corroborative fact in camera and, based solely on the certificate
and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from the certificate, shall,
if one or more facts corroborative of one or more of the charging
allegations against a defendant has been shown, order that the complaint
may be amended to substitute the name of the defendant or defendants.
the stay of this action pending the coordination judge’s ruling
on Defendants’ Petition for Add On does not apply to this Application
and Certificate of Corroborative Fact, nor to the Court’s in
camera review of the same. Specifically, Paragraph 9.B. of the Initial
Case Management Order states in relevant part as follows:
9. Stay of Action Pending Ruling on Petitions for Add On. By Agreement of defendants, and order of this Court on July 18, 2003,
the following shall apply in any action filed against a defendant
for sexual abuse within the meaning of the Coordination Order: [page
A. Except as set forth in paragraph 9B below, if
any party has filed or files a Petition or Request for Add On to this
coordinated proceeding, that action is stayed in the court where originally
filed. Such stay shall remain in place unless vacated by this Court
upon motion of any party.
B. No stay shall be in place for any Plaintiff with respect
to obtaining rulings on his or her Certificates of Merit
or Affidavit of Corroborative Facts, and or serving
the summons and the complaint. (emphasis added)
A copy of relevant portions of the Initial Case Management Order is attached
hereto as Exhibit 1.
John Roe 4 respectfully requests this court: 1) review in camera the concurrently filed Confidential Certificate of Corroborative Fact
and the Declaration of Timothy C. Hale in support of this application;
2) find that facts corroborative of one or more of the charging allegations
against each defendant have been shown; and 3) order that the complaint
may be amended to substitute the names of the following defendants: DOES
1-2. These defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants.”
filed Confidential Certificate of Corroborative Fact and Declaration of
Timothy C. Hale demonstrate the following:
a. The Charging Allegations of
Childhood Sexual Abuse by the Perpetrator
13-14 of the Complaint charge that Fr. Matthew Kelly committed Childhood
Sexual Abuse against, among others, Plaintiff, as defined in Code of Civil
Procedure section 340.1. Section 340.1 defines Childhood Sexual Abuse
as any act under Penal Code sections 266j, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 289 and
647.6. Penal Code section 288 states in part:
(a) Any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or [page
4 begins] lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting
other crimes provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any
part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years,
with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust,
passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty
of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison
for three, six, or eight years.
Penal Code section 647.6 states in part:
(a) Every person who annoys or molests any child under the age of
18 shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year,
or by both the fine and imprisonment.
The corroborative facts set forth in the concurrently filed Confidential
Certificate of Corroborative Fact and the Declaration of Timothy C. Hale
(“Hale Declaration”) demonstrate Fr. Matthew Kelly assaulted
John Roe 4, and thereby subjected him to Childhood Sexual Abuse as defined
by Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1.
1. The Evidence Which
Corroborates the Charging Allegation of Childhood Sexual Abuse
committed by Fr. Kelly took place in Santa Barbara County at, among other
locations, Fr. Kelly’s cabin in the Santa Ynez mountains. Fr. Kelly
also may have assaulted John Roe 4 at locations outside of Santa Barbara
County. From approximately 1958 to at least 1970, and likely much earlier,
Fr. Kelly assaulted numerous young boys who attended church and/or school
at Our Lady of Guadalupe (“Our Lady”) and/or lived in the
neighborhood around Our Lady. See Confidential Certificate of
Corroborative Fact, Hale Declaration, Paras. 8, 50-53 and evidence cited
therein. The assaults by Fr. Kelly against Plaintiff constitute Childhood
Sexual Abuse as defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 pursuant
to Penal Code sections 288 and 647.6.
b. The Charging Allegations Against
DOES 1 - 2
4, 8-10, and 13-16 of the complaint contain the Charging Allegations which
are the foundation of Plaintiff’s complaint against the Defendants,
and which are incorporated into each cause of action against each of said [page 5 begins] Defendants.
Paragraphs 8 and 14 allege that Defendants knew or should have known of
Fr. Kelly’s and their other agents’ pedophilia/ephebophilia
and prior expressions of sexual attraction to and sexual contact with
young boys and of the unfitness of Fr. Kelly and their other agents to
serve as a priest, faculty member, instructor, rector, and/or counselor
or any other authority figure, or to work or have contact with children.
Additionally, Paragraphs 18-19 allege Defendants failed to terminate,
discharge, or at least discipline Fr. Kelly and/or other pedophilic and/or
ephebophilic agents for their criminal conduct. Paragraphs 4 and 13-14
of the complaint allege Defendants thereby ratified and adopted Fr. Kelly’s
and their other agents’ acts as their own. Finally, Paragraphs 9-10
allege Defendants knew or should have known of the history of sexual assaults
committed by their agents in Santa Barbara, and that any child exposed
to Defendants’ agents faced an undue and heightened risk of being
Paragraphs 127-130 allege, among other things, that Defendants created
and continue to foster the existence of a public nuisance by conspiring
and engaging in efforts to: 1) conceal from the general public the sexual
assaults committed by, and the pedophilic/ephebophilic tendencies of,
the Perpetrator and Defendants’ other pedophilic agents; and 2)
protect their pedophilic/ephebophilic agents from criminal prosecution
for their sexual assaults against children, all in violation of law. The
complaint further alleges this ongoing deception and concealment by Defendants
was and is injurious to the health of, indecent or offensive to the senses
of, and an obstruction to the free use of property by, the general public
who live in communities where Defendants conducted, and continue to conduct,
their work and/or ministry. Defendants’ conduct interferes with
the general public’s comfortable enjoyment of life in that children
cannot be left unsupervised in any location where there are agents of
Defendants present as the general public cannot trust Defendants to 1)
prohibit their pedophilic agents from supervising, caring for, or having
any contact with children; nor to 2) warn parents, [page
6 begins] school administrators or children of the presence of
the pedophilic agents of Defendants. This conduct by Defendants creates
an impairment of the safety of children in the neighborhoods where Defendants
conducted, and continue to conduct, their work and/or ministries.
this deception and concealment by Defendants was specially injurious to
Plaintiff’s health as he and his family were unaware of the danger
posed to young children left unsupervised with agents of Defendants such
as Fr. Kelly. As a result of this deception, Plaintiff was placed in the
custody and control of Fr. Kelly, an agent of Defendants, who subsequently
and repeatedly sexually assaulted Plaintiff.
the complaint alleges that this continuing public nuisance created by
Defendants was, and continues to be, the proximate cause of the injuries
and damages to the general public, and of Plaintiff’s special injuries
1. The Evidence Which
Corroborates the Charging Allegations Against DOES 1 - 2
facts and supporting evidence set forth in the Confidential Certificate
of Corroborative Fact, Paras. 6 - 127 support each of the charging allegations
against DOES 1 - 2. Specifically, these facts show that since
at least 1960, Santa Barbara County (“County”) has had one
of the highest – if not the highest – per capita concentrations
of clergy pedophiles/ephebophiles in the history of the clergy-abuse scandal
in the United States. Id. As illustrated by Exhibit
2, the ratio of perpetrators to the census population of the County far
exceeds even that of the ratio for the counties that make up three of
the most notorious Dioceses/Archdioceses in the history of this scandal
– Orange, Los Angeles and Boston. Using the Diocese of Orange as
a base, the per capita concentration of clergy pedophiles/ephebophiles
who Defendants have allowed to live in Santa Barbara County over the last
forty years is five times that of Orange, four times that of Los Angeles,
and nearly twice that even of Boston, arguably the [page
7 begins] most infamous Archdiocese in the history of the clergy-abuse
Defendants have transferred to and/or allowed to live in Santa Barbara
County at least thirty-one (31) child-abusing clergy,
with at least thirty (30) such men in the County since 1950. See Confidential Certificate of Corroborative Fact, Hale Declaration,
Paras. 6 - 127 and evidence cited therein. In a number of instances the
transfers occurred after Defendants had already received complaints of
misconduct about these men. In at least one instance the transfer to Santa
Barbara County occurred after the child-abusing clergy had been
convicted of childhood sexual abuse. And on repeated occasions Defendants
allowed such men to remain in the County after receiving complaints of
misconduct from victims, from members of the community, and even from
fellow priests. In none of these instances did Defendants ever warn County
residents of the identities of the child-abusing clergy in their midst
until they knew the truth was about to be made public.
of this pattern of conduct by Defendants’ is that at least sixty-two
(62) Santa Barbara County children have been sexually assaulted2 by clergy since 1957.3 The actual number of child-abusing
clergy and victims in Santa Barbara County is undoubtedly many times higher.
Because most victims of childhood sexual abuse are unwilling or unable
to discuss their abuse, the total number of victims in Santa Barbara County
will never be known. [page 8 begins]
with regards to the actual number of child-abusing clergy Defendants have
allowed to live in Santa Barbara, uncertainty of the actual number exists
for an altogether different reason. As demonstrated by the recent events
involving Br. Gerald Chumik, Defendants cannot be trusted to inform the
community when they allow a known pedophilic clergy member to live within
a short distance of a school or a neighborhood with families. Even when
that clergy member is, like Br. Chumik, a fugitive from criminal justice,
Defendants will not warn the public of the risk he poses until Defendants
know they cannot avoid the truth being made public. For instance, it was
not until the Dallas Morning News made clear its intention to publicize
the presence and history of Br. Chumik that Defendants’ agents –
in an obvious attempt at public relations damage control – finally
admitted to his presence in the community. Br. Chumik had already been
living at the Mission for over a year by that time, within easy walking
distance of two schools and the neighborhood surrounding the Old Mission.
This pattern of conduct by Defendants has created a dangerous situation
for any child exposed to one of Defendants’ priests or Religious
brothers as Defendants cannot be trusted to warn of the threat to children
some of these clergy pose. Consequently, as a direct result of Defendants’
pattern of conduct, no clergy can be trusted, and Defendants have created
a continuing public nuisance.
sets forth an extensive, albeit incomplete, history of the childhood sexual
abuse by Defendants’ agents committed around Santa Barbara County,
and evidences Defendants’ ongoing practice of transferring child-abusing
clergy into the County without any warning to the families in the communities
where the perpetrators are assigned. Locations within the county where
such practices have and/or continue to take place include in Goleta at
St. Raphael’s Church; in Lompoc at Mission La Purisima Concepcion;
in Montecito at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, in Santa Barbara at San Roque,
St. Mary’s Seminary, Our Lady of Sorrows, Our Lady of Guadalupe,
and the adjoining properties of St. Anthony’s Seminary (“St. [page 9 begins] Anthony’s”)
and the Old Mission Santa Barbara (“Old Mission”), in Santa
Maria at St. Mary’s Church of the Assumption; in Santa Ynez at San
Lorenzo Seminary, and in Solvang at the Old Mission Santa Ines.
also provides indisputable evidence – set forth in detail in the
Confidential Certificate of Corroborative Fact – that Defendants
were not only well aware of the abuse that was taking place and the risk
these men posed, but facilitated such abuse by refusing to disclose and/or
concealing their propensities and crimes from the communities in which
these men lived. As discussed in greater detail below, this pattern of
conduct by defendants, i.e., the uniform pattern and practice of harboring
and protecting the pedophilic clergy perpetrator while completely ignoring
and discarding the victims, was and is so rampant in the church that even
those many members of the clergy that chose to turn a blind eye to it
certainly knew or should have known of the prolific abuse of children
that was going on all around them
the sheer number of Perpetrators who Defendants have transferred to and
allowed to live in Santa Barbara County illustrates that the County has
been and continues to be a safe haven utilized by Defendants for problem
priests and Religious brothers.
SIX DECADES OF CHILD-ABUSING
CLERGY IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
provides insight into a pattern of criminal conduct that could not have
existed without the knowledge, support, and participation by priests at
all levels of the hierarchy of Defendants. From Defendants’ highest
ranking official to the lowest level priests and Religious brothers, there
was an active and concerted effort to conceal from the community the propensities
and/or pedophilic criminal acts of at least thirty-one (31) priests and
Religious brothers in Santa Barbara County. Further, the County –
which is located on the Northern-most outskirts of the Defendants’
boundaries – became and remains to this day a location that [page
10 begins] Defendants apparently are confident is so removed from
the center of Defendants’ business in Los Angeles that priests and
Religious brothers accused of sexually assaulting children in Los Angeles
may be transferred to Santa Barbara without incident as they will not
below, the acts of childhood sexual abuse by Defendants’ priests
in Santa Barbara County were widespread, regular, and quite often open
and obvious. Defendants’ agents assaulted County children in countless
different locations, including but not limited to priest living quarters;
parish confessionals; church vehicles; teachers’ offices; rectories;
various locations on parish grounds; local beaches such as Hendry’s;
historical sites such as the three Old Missions; camping trips to locations
including Cambria, Cachuma Lake and Carpinteria; and even in their victims’
homes. Some of the perpetrators brought children from outside of California
and assaulted them in Santa Barbara County. Other priests brought orphaned
children from Mexico under the pretense of “saving” them,
only to use these children for their own sexual gratification. More often
than not they took advantage of and preyed upon the children who were
most vulnerable, i.e. children who came from broken homes or lower income
families. They also used their victims’ strong religious faith against
them, knowing that these victims’ families considered clergy the
voice of God, and therefore would not believe a child who actually had
the courage to speak out about and against assaults by a Defendants’
priests and Religious brothers. See Confidential Certificate
of Corroborative Fact, Hale Declaration, Paras. 6 - 127 and evidence cited
A. The First Known
Instance of Clergy Abuse in Santa Barbara
The first known instance of childhood sexual abuse by one of Defendants’ priests in
Santa Barbara took place at St. Anthony’s and the Mission in [page
11 begins] approximately 1936-37.4 Specifically, Victim #1, was a student at St. Anthony’s. During his
freshman year he was called to St. Anthony’s music room by the choir
director at the time, Fr. Owen Da Silva –
Perpetrator #1. Without explanation Fr. Da Silva told Victim #1 to strip
naked from the waist down. Victim #1 complied, and Fr. Da Silva proceeded
to fondle and sexually assault Victim #1 for approximately five (5) minutes.
Eventually, when Victim #1 did not become aroused, the abuse stopped. It
is unknown how many other children Fr. Da Silva assaulted in this manner. See Confidential Certificate of Corroborative Fact, Hale Declaration,
Para. 13 and evidence cited therein.
Fr. Owen Da Silva
also was an altar boy at the Mission and recalls being grabbed and touched
inappropriately by a Br. Lewis. Victim #1 remembers knowing the behavior
was inappropriate, and consequently warning his fellow altar boys to stay
away from Br. Lewis. Id. at Para. 14.
B. The 1940's-1950's:
Fr. Kelly and Our Lady of Guadalupe
In 1942 Fr.
Matthew Kelly – Perpetrator #2 – was ordained by Defendants.
By 1943 he had been assigned by Defendants to Our Lady of Guadalupe (“Our
Lady”) in Santa Barbara, where he remained until approximately 1952.
Although no victims of Fr. Kelly from the 1940's have come forward, even
Defendants’ agents have acknowledged that the assaults by such pedophiles
and ephebophiles are never isolated events. Further, plaintiff’s investigation
to date has revealed Fr. Kelly had a voracious appetite for young boys in
the 1950's, 60's and 70's. It is highly unlikely Fr. Kelly waited fifteen
years before he first sexually assaulted a child at Our Lady. More important,
multiple witnesses recall there were rumors in the community in the early
1950's that Fr. Kelly was accused of child abuse, and that such [page
12 begins] accusations led Defendants to transfer him out of Santa
Barbara in 1952. See Confidential Certificate of Corroborative
Fact, Hale Declaration, Para. 15 and evidence cited therein.
Fr. Matthew Kelly
in approximately 1956, Defendants allowed Fr. Kelly to return to Our Lady
in Santa Barbara. Around this time Fr. Kelly purchased a cabin in the
Santa Ynez mountains. The cabin was one of the locations Fr. Kelly used
to assault numerous young boys from the school and/or the parish at Our
Lady. Id. at Para. 16.
i. Fr. Kelly’s Assaults
Against Victim #3
and his family lived around the corner from Our Lady and attended mass
there regularly. Victim #3 was an altar boy and a member of the Blue Jackets,
a club formed by Fr. Kelly for teenage Catholic boys. Unlike many of Fr.
Kelly’s other victims, Fr. Kelly did not assault Victim #3 at Fr.
Kelly’s cabin. Beginning in approximately 1958 or 1959, one of the
assaults took place when Fr. Kelly took Victim #3 for a ride to Hendry’s
Beach. Fr. Kelly had asked Victim #3 to go to the cabin and Victim #3
had agreed to go. However, Victim #3 ultimately did not show up at the
agreed upon meeting place. Later that evening, around dusk, Fr. Kelly
found Victim #3 and asked him if he wanted to take a ride to the beach.
Victim #3 agreed and Fr. Kelly drove them to Hendry’s. It became
dark while they were there and Fr. Kelly suggested they go swimming naked,
“the way that god put us into the world.” At that time Hendry’s
was desolate and private. After the two swam they sat on a towel Fr. Kelly
had brought. Fr. Kelly then violently assaulted Victim #3, stopping only
when Victim #3 began to cry out in pain. Fr. Kelly assaulted Victim #3
at least two more times within the next approximately thirty days. The
second assault took place at the rectory at Our Lady. Fr. Kelly lured
Victim #3 to this location under the pretense of asking Victim #3 to help
him (Fr. Kelly) move something. The third assault took place on another
trip to Hendry’s. Fr. Kelly suggested they take a ride. Once in
Fr. Kelly’s car, Fr. Kelly took Victim #3 to [page
13 begins] Hendry’s again. When they arrived at Hendry’s
they sat on the sand where Fr. Kelly assaulted Victim #3. After the assault
Victim #3 felt so sick and disgusted that he vomited. In the years that
followed, Victim #3 became bolemic and used his memory of this assault
to induce himself to vomit. Id. at Paras. 18-21.
another friend of Victim #3’s, Victim #4, would admit to Victim
#3 that Fr. Kelly had sodomized him at the cabin many times. Id. at Para. 22.
ii. Fr. Kelly’s Assaults
Against Victim #2
time of Fr. Kelly’s assaults against Victim #3, Fr. Kelly also was
grooming and/or assaulting numerous other boys, including Victim #2. Fr.
Kelly continued taking boys from Our Lady on overnight trips to his cabin
in Santa Ynez. It was during these trips that Fr. Kelly assaulted, among
others, Victim #2. Before he was assaulted Victim #2 recalls it was not
unusual for one of the boys to sleep with Fr. Kelly in his room. In this
regard, Fr. Kelly’s favorite boy at the time was Victim #2’s
friend, Victim #5. Another one of Victim #2's friends, Victim #6, also
frequently slept with Fr. Kelly. One boy recalls that on his trips to
the cabin, Fr. Kelly always asked one of the boys to sleep in his (Kelly’s)
room. Victim #2 never questioned this as Victim #2 trusted Fr. Kelly completely
because of Kelly’s status as a priest. One night Victim #5 informed
Victim #2 that Fr. Kelly wanted to sleep with him because Kelly did not
like to sleep alone. Shortly after Victim #2 got into bed with Fr. Kelly,
Fr. Kelly began to sexually assault Victim #2. Victim #2 jumped from the
bed and ran for the door and into the living room where he huddled next
to Victim #5. An enraged Fr. Kelly followed Victim #2 to the door and
said “how dare you?!?!” Victim #2 was paralyzed with fear,
and said nothing. Fr. Kelly then went back to his bedroom and Victim #5
eventually joined him, taking Victim #2's place. Id. at Paras.
#2 went home the next day he told his mother that Fr. Kelly had tried
to touch him. Victim #2's mother responded by telling him never to speak
that way about a priest again, and to wash his mouth out with soap. She
also [page 14 begins] encouraged
him to spend time with Fr. Kelly at the cabin. Id. at Para. 26.
giving Fr. Kelly the benefit of the doubt because he was a priest, Victim
#2 went to the cabin on another overnight trip. This time only Victim
#2, Fr. Kelly, and one other boy – either Victim #5 or Victim #6
– went. That evening Victim #2 recalls Fr. Kelly telling them how
he hated to sleep alone, and recalls sleeping in Fr. Kelly’s bed.
Shortly after getting in to bed Fr. Kelly sexually assaulted Victim #2.
Victim #2 discussed these incidents with Victim #6 who informed Victim
#2 that Fr. Kelly liked sleeping with and touching boys. Id. at Para. 27.
iii. Express Notice to Defendants
of Fr. Kelly’s Assaults and Propensities in 1957 and/or 1958
continued to take boys up to the cabin, and Victim #2 was ostracized and
made fun of for refusing to go. An associate pastor at Our Lady, Fr. Edward
Landreau, noticed this, and asked Victim #2 why he had stopped going to
the cabin. In response, sometime in the late 1950's, Victim #2 told Fr.
Landreau what had happened and how Fr. Kelly had assaulted him. Fr. Landreau
responded by downplaying the significance of the assault and stating that
perhaps Victim #2 misunderstood Fr. Kelly’s intentions. Thus, an
agent of Defendants was informed of conduct by Fr. Kelly placing Defendants
on actual notice that he was sexually assaulting, and was a risk to, children. Id. at Para. 29.
#2, Victim #3 also spoke to Fr. Landreau about Fr. Kelly. Fr. Landreau
was a younger and friendlier priest, and many of the boys felt more comfortable
talking with him. In this instance, Fr. Kelly had asked for assistance
with something and Fr. Landreau asked Victim #3 to help. When Victim #3
refused Fr. Landreau asked why. Although Victim #3 did not go into detail
regarding the abuse, he did tell Fr. Landreau that he did not trust Fr.
Kelly and never wanted to see Fr. Kelly again, thus providing further
warning signs to one of Defendants’ agents that Fr. Kelly was engaging
in inappropriate conduct with young boys. Id. at Para. 30. [page
C. The 1960's: the
Assaults by Fr. Kelly Continue, and a New Set of Clergy Perpetrators –
Fr. Mario Cimmarrusti, Fr. Martin McKeon and Fr. John Hanley – Continue
the Cycle of Abuse in Santa Barbara County
Kelly continued to groom and assault children from Our Lady, other agents
of Defendants continued to assault children at various locations throughout
Santa Barbara County. For instance, in 1962 at St. Anthony’s and
the Old Mission, Fr. Martin McKeon –
Perpetrator #3 – sexually abused then St. Anthony’s student
Robert Van Handel – Victim #7 – while Van Handel was resting
in the school’s infirmary. Van Handel himself would go on to become
a priest and a perpetrator, ultimately returning to St. Anthony’s
and sexually assaulting numerous other young boys, thus continuing the
pattern of clergy abuse in the County which had commenced in at least
1936, if not earlier. Id. at Paras. 31-32.
St. Anthony’s Prefect of Discipline, also assaulted at least two
other students, Victim #8 (Class of ‘65) and Victim #9 (Class of
‘66). Fr. McKeon has been named as a perpetrator in a recent lawsuit
filed on by Victim #9. During this same decade at least two other priests,
Fr. Mario Cimmarrusti – Perpetrator #4 – and Fr. Kelly, repeatedly
subjected countless boys to sexual abuse in Santa Barbara, and many to
both violent sexual and physical abuse. Id. at Para. 33.
i. Fr. Kelly’s Pedophilic
Propensities are Discovered by his Neighbors; Defendants Continue to
Ignore the Risk Fr. Kelly Poses to Children in Santa Barbara
In the early
to mid 1960's, Fr. Kelly’s neighbors at the cabin in Santa Ynez
made some disturbing discoveries which further confirmed Fr. Kelly’s
pedophilia and/or ephebophlia. Specifically, sometime during the 1961-62
school year one neighbor inadvertently discovered some of Fr. Kelly’s
mail. One day he went to get the mail. The mailboxes for the cabins were
all next to each other, and there was an oversized package placed on top
of Fr. Kelly’s mailbox. It had been raining, and, consequently,
the package was beginning to fall apart. The neighbor attempted to [page
16 begins] put the package back together. In doing so he noticed
there were numerous photographs of naked boys in the package, and believes
there may have been a photo of at least one sex act between boys. Id. at Para. 34.
and wife purchased a neighboring cabin in approximately 1958, and lived
next to Fr. Kelly’s cabin until approximately 1983. They recall
that Fr. Kelly occasionally came to the cabin by himself, but more often
was with young boys. Sometime in the mid-1960's, possibly in 1965, they
had an experience at the mailboxes for the cabins which was quite similar
to that previously described. Specifically, the wife had taken her children
to get the mail. One of her children looked at the base of the mailboxes
and saw a package with pictures/slides sticking out. She walked over to
look at them and observed pictures of naked boys in various poses. The
boys appeared to be teenagers. She recalls there were about thirty slides
in the plain brown envelope that was addressed to Fr. Kelly. Ultimately,
the couple reported and turned over the slides to the postmaster without
knowing whether any action was ever taken by law enforcement against Fr.
Kelly. Years later, in approximately 2000, they returned to the cabins
to visit their old home. In doing so they spoke with a woman at Fr. Kelly’s
old cabin, presumably the wife of the man who had purchased Fr. Kelly’s
cabin. She informed them that when she purchased the cabin she discovered
pictures of naked boys on the walls of the basement. Id. at Paras.
ii. At Least Two Priests from Our
Lady Complain to One of Defendants’ Auxillary Bishops About Fr.
Kelly’s Excessive Drinking and “Strange Behavior”
decade at least two priests from Our Lady had the courage to complain
to Defendants’ hierarchy about Fr. Kelly’s behavior. Specifically,
in approximately 1958 Priest #1 began attending St. John’s Seminary
in Camarillo. During three summer breaks and a few holidays from school
Priest #1 lived at Our Lady, and thus came to know Fr. Kelly. During this
time Priest #1 lived in the rectory [page
17 begins] at Our Lady with Fr. Kelly and observed that Fr. Kelly
had a severe drinking problem and engaged in what Priest #1 describes
as “strange behavior.” Priest #1 recalls thinking right away
that something was wrong with Fr. Kelly. The “strange behavior”
Priest #1 observed was Fr. Kelly taking what Priest #1 describes as “young
men,” all Hispanic, to the cabin on a regular basis. Priest #1 is
uncertain of the ages of these men, but estimates they were anywhere from
fifteen to twenty-five years-old. Priest #1 has reviewed photos of some
of these men, discussed below, taken by Fr. Kelly. Priest #1 confirms
these photos depict young men who appear to be around the age of the young
men Fr. Kelly took to the cabin. Plaintiff’s investigation has confirmed
most, if not all, of the young men depicted in these photographs were
minors. Id. at Paras. 39-44.
to explain why he described Fr. Kelly’s behavior as strange, Priest
#1 cited Kelly’s cabin and the fact he was taking young men there
on a weekly basis. Priest #1 recalls the existence of the cabin and Fr.
Kelly’s taking young men there was something that was simply ignored
at Our Lady, a fact Priest #1 found very disturbing. According to Priest
#1, nobody at the parish wanted to talk about Fr. Kelly’s use of
the cabin because it was “an embarrassing situation.” However,
everyone was aware of the situation, and of the fact the only people Fr.
Kelly ever took to the cabin were these young men. Priest #1 specifically
recalls observing young men coming to the rectory to drive with Fr. Kelly
to the cabin. Priest #1 remembers he was shocked at Fr. Kelly’s
audacity in allowing them to meet him at the rectory before driving them
to the cabin. Priest #1 also recalls the young men occasionally came to
Fr. Kelly’s room in the rectory. Id.
subsequently was ordained as a priest in 1961. In 1968 he was assigned
to and served as an associate pastor under Fr. Kelly at Our Lady for a
little over one year. In this regard, Priest #1 was assigned to replace
Priest #2. Priest #1 recalls Priest #2 telling him (Priest #1) he could
not stand to work with Fr. Kelly any more, and that he (Priest #2) had
complained to a high-ranking member of [page
18 begins] Defendants’ hierarchy, an Auxillary Bishop, and
in fact told this Bishop that “that man [Kelly] is not normal.”
The Bishop’s response was to replace Priest #2 (with Priest #1),
and leave Fr. Kelly at Our Lady where he (Kelly) continued to assault
adolescent boys. Id.
one year as Fr. Kelly’s associate pastor, Priest #1 also was compelled
to voice his concerns to the Auxillary Bishop about Fr. Kelly’s
excessive drinking and unusual use of the cabin. Priest #1 voiced his
concerns to the Auxillary Bishop in Defendants’ Los Angeles office.
In response, the Auxillary Bishop stated “I know that he [Fr. Kelly]
has problems.” It was clear to Priest #1 that the Auxillary Bishop
was not surprised by what Priest #1 was saying about Fr. Kelly. According
to Priest #1, the Auxillary Bishop further stated that “if every
priest who was an alcoholic and had problems was dismissed, there would
not be enough priests to run the parishes.” If this matter goes
to trial, plaintiff will offer expert testimony from Richard Sipe and/or
Fr. Thomas Doyle that the references to “strange behavior”
and Fr. Kelly’s “problems” was code language used by
Defendants to describe pedophilic priests such as Fr. Kelly. In short,
when confronted with yet another red flag regarding Fr. Kelly’s
behavior, Defendants took no action, and Fr. Kelly continued to abuse
Santa Barbara children. Priest #1 states he is not surprised by and does
not question the allegations of childhood sexual abuse as Fr. Kelly was
“a very weird person.” So frustrated was Priest #1 by the
Auxillary Bishop’s response he asked for and was granted a one year
leave of absence from the church. Priest #1 never returned to the priesthood. Id.
will further testify that the Auxillary Bishop’s response to his
complaints about Fr. Kelly epitomized Defendants’ approach to problem
priests. He recalls that Defendants’ attitude was that priests were
the mouthpieces for God, and that so long as they were doing a good job
of conveying God’s message, their human failings could be tolerated
and/or ignored. Id.
Priest #1 also observed there were numerous other assistant priests [page
19 begins] who had problems with Fr. Kelly’s behavior and
his drinking. However, rather than do something about Fr. Kelly, Defendants
repeatedly reassigned to other parishes the priests who disapproved and/or
complained of Fr. Kelly’s behavior. Id.
[Note: There is no section iii.]
iv. Fr. Kelly’s Assaults
Against Victim #10
the child pornography delivered to Fr. Kelly’s cabin did not satiate
his sexual appetite for young boys. Like so many victims before him, Victim
#10 attended mass at Our Lady of Guadalupe, from approximately 1967-70.
With Victim #10, Fr. Kelly used his knowledge of rock and roll music and
artists to impress Victim #10 and the children he was grooming for assaults.
Fr. Kelly eventually began inviting Victim #10, as he had so many other
victims, to his cabin in the Santa Ynez mountains under the pretense of,
among other things, doing yard work, playing in the river, and working
out in the cabin’s basement gym. During these trips Fr. Kelly would
also allow the boys to smoke cigarettes and drink, sometimes encouraging
them to drink. Id. at Paras. 45-49.
to Victim #10, Fr. Kelly would either pick Victim #10 up at his home,
or, as with Victim #2, would have Victim #10 come by the Rectory where
they would leave from in Fr. Kelly’s car from the parking area directly
across the street from Our Lady. On the way to the cabin Fr. Kelly would
buy Victim #10 alcohol which he would then induce Victim #10 to consume
at the cabin. Once Victim #10 was sufficiently intoxicated, Fr. Kelly
would then sexually assault Victim #10 in Fr. Kelly’s bed. Fr. Kelly
took Victim #10 to the cabin and assaulted Victim #10 at least seventy-five
(75) times. After each assault Fr. Kelly would give Victim #10 money,
generally around twenty-five (25) dollars. Id.
when Fr. Kelly sold the cabin in 2000, the cabin’s new owner found
thirty-five (35) photo slides in the basement of naked or nearly naked
boys at a beach that appears to be Hendry’s, and of boys –
in some cases naked or wearing nothing but pink thong undergarments –
taken in the living room and basement of Fr. Kelly’s cabin. A number
of the boys in the photo slides have been located and [page
20 begins] have identified themselves or other victims. They also
have confirmed the photographs were taken by Fr. Kelly, either at Fr.
Kelly’s request or with Kelly making no request whatsoever and simply
taking the pictures. Id.
only was Fr. Kelly sexually assaulting young boys, he was exploiting them
to create child pornography for his own sexual gratification. This abuse
could and should have been prevented altogether had Defendants heeded
– rather than ignored or dismissed – the numerous warning
signs presented by Fr. Kelly’s conduct with boys, and the complaints
by priests assigned to work with Fr. Kelly. More important, had Defendants
warned the community in response to the express notice they received from
victims such as Victim #2 – almost ten years before Fr. Kelly’s
assaults against Victim #10 and Victim #11 began – they would have
saved countless children from childhood sexual abuse by Fr. Kelly. Id.
v. Fr. Kelly’s Assaults
Against Plaintiff, Victim #11
the plaintiff in this case, was another one of Fr. Kelly’s victims.
Victim #11 and his siblings attended mass at Our Lady, and came to know
Fr. Kelly. He recalls meeting Fr. Kelly through his older brother, Joe,
and recalls that Joe always had money despite the fact their family was
not wealthy. Id. at Paras. 50-53.
seeking Fr. Kelly’s advice in approximately 1968 after he (Joe)
got a young woman pregnant. Fr. Kelly invited Joe to the cabin to discuss
the problem. After this it became common for Joe to go to the cabin with
Fr. Kelly where he and Fr. Kelly would “get drunk as all hell.”
Joe recalls Fr. Kelly would give him Seagram’s Seven and 7-up and
“beer like it was popping out of my ears.” Joe recalls that
on one occasion after exercising in the weight room in the cabin he decided
to take a bath. While Joe was in the bath and without saying a word or
offering an explanation, Fr. Kelly entered the bathroom and began photographing
Joe naked in the bath tub. Joe recalls covering himself up, and thinking
that Fr. Kelly’s actions were caused by the excessive amounts of
scotch he (Kelly) had been drinking. Joe eventually introduced his brothers
to Fr. Kelly, including Victim #11. [page
21 begins] Id.
recalls going to Fr. Kelly’s cabin for the first time with Joe,
and believes he was in junior high at the time. Victim #11 went to Fr.
Kelly’s cabin countless times after this, sometimes with other boys
and other times only with Fr. Kelly. Victim #11 recalls there was usually
alcohol and cigarettes available to the boys at the cabin, and that Fr.
Kelly would offer to buy these for the boys. Victim #11 also recalls seeing
photographs of nearly naked boys around the cabin. In the early 1970's,
while Victim #11 was still a minor, Fr. Kelly admitted to Victim #11 to
having taken many of these pictures, and asked Victim #11 if he would
pose for such a picture. Id.
assaulted Victim #11 numerous times at the cabin, and generally in Fr.
Kelly’s bed. He recalls Fr. Kelly would give the boys the option
of sleeping in bed with him or in a very uncomfortable cot. Eventually
Fr. Kelly would sexually assault Victim #11. Many of the assaults by Fr.
Kelly took place at the cabin. However, Victim #11 also traveled with
Fr. Kelly while still a minor. For instance, Fr. Kelly took Victim #11
to Ensenada, Mexico numerous times while Victim #11 was still a minor.
They would stay in the same hotel every time, a Best Western, drink until
they were intoxicated, and then sleep in the same bed. After the assaults
at the cabin, Fr. Kelly would pay Victim #11 substantial sums of money,
usually close to $100. Id.
Mario Cimmarrusti’s Violent Sexual Assaults Against Countless
Boys at St. Anthony’s Seminary
continued to ignore the actual and constructive notice they received of
the assaults committed by Fr. Kelly, yet another Priest in Santa Barbara
was violently sexually assaulting boys less than three miles from Our Lady.
Specifically, throughout the 1960's Perpetrator #4, Fr.
Mario Cimmarrusti, Fr. McKeon’s successor as St. Anthony’s
Prefect of Discipline, employed numerous schemes and pretenses, and utilized
his status as an authority figure, to allow him to groom and assault St.
Anthony’s students. His first step was to “screen” the
student [page 22 begins] to see if that student was susceptible to abuse. The screening process involved
Fr. Cimmarrusti fondling the student; if the student became aroused and
embarrassed, Fr. Cimmarrusti used this against the student to force his
silence as the abuse continued. If the student did not become aroused, Cimmarrusti
was less likely to sexually abuse that student further. For instance, with
both Victim #12 and Victim #13, Fr. Cimmarrusti informed them they were
overweight. Despite the fact he had no medical licenses, Cimmarrusti then
used this as a pretense to order both boys to Cimmarrusti’s room (at
different times) for weigh-ins and purportedly to check their thyroid glands.
Fr. Cimmarrusti assaulted both during the so-called exams. Id. at Paras. 54 - 69.
Fr. Mario Cimmarrusti OFM
to the thyroid ploy, Fr. Cimmarrusti used a number of other fabrications
to force Victim #12 and other victims into Cimmarrusti’s room. For
instance, Cimmarrusti would order students to his room to conduct supposed
hernia exams. Fr. Cimmarrusti assaulted Victim #14 (Class of ‘68)
numerous times during these “hernia exams.” Cimmarrusti repeatedly
sexually assaulted Victim #14 under the pretense of conducting a medical
examination. These faux exams were done for Fr. Cimmarrusti’s own
sexual gratification as Cimmarrusti had no medical training and no legitimate
basis, reason, authority or right to conduct any such exam or to even
touch Victim #14 or any other student. According to Victim #15, Fr. Cimmarrusti
conducted so called hernia exams of every freshman at least three to four
times a month. Victim #15 recalls the assaults taking place in the infirmary,
in Cimmarrusti’s office, and at least once in the changing room
of the pool at the Mission. With another student, Victim #16 (Class of
‘71), Cimmarrusti took advantage of Victim #16 developing a case
of athlete’s foot and used it as an excuse to assault Victim #16
on the ridiculous grounds he was making sure it (athlete’s foot)
had not spread to Victim #16’s genitals. Cimmarrusti also engaged
in other inappropriate behavior such as requiring an entire class of students,
including Victim #14, to strip to their underwear while taking a test.
The class was [page 23 begins] paraded through the school in their underwear, and was done so in full
view of other students, teachers and priests. Additionally, Fr. Cimmarrusti
would order Victim #14 to come to his room, order Victim #14 down on his
knees directly in front of Cimmarrusti, order Victim #14 to place his
arms around Cimmarrusti’s waist, all while simultaneously giving
a blessing and pressing his groin area into Victim #14. Id.
to Victim #12, if a student injured himself, it was not uncommon for Fr.
Cimmarrusti to order the student to take a whirlpool bath, and then to
assault the student while drying off the student who was perfectly capable
of drying himself off. Additionally, if a student contracted poison oak,
Cimmarrusti used this as an excuse to apply lotion to the student’s
genitals and assault the student while doing so. When Fr. Cimmarrusti
was feeling less creative, he would simply order his victims to his office
purportedly for counseling or to discuss their grades. Id.
If a student
was ill and in the infirmary, Fr. Cimmarrusti would give them a sponge
bath and assault them while doing so. Victim #17 recalls spending a week
in the infirmary after having his tonsils removed. Three times Victim
#17 awoke to Cimmarrusti with his hands under the sheets and assaulting
Victim #17. On another occasion Fr. Cimmarrusti gave Victim #17 a sponge
bath and assaulted him. Once, he ordered Victim #17 to take a shower.
When Victim #17 finished Fr. Cimmarrusti was standing naked in front of
Victim #17 and urging Victim #17 to get back in the shower. Victim #17
refused so Cimmarrusti dried Victim #17 off and assaulted him. Victims
#12 and 17 also recall Fr. Cimmarrusti kissing them on a regular basis,
and having to grit their teeth to prevent Fr. Cimmarrusti from inserting
his tongue in their mouths. Id.
Worst of all
was the pretense of punishment. On at least three occasions, Fr. Cimmarrusti
ordered Victim #12 to Cimmarrusti’s room to receive punishment for
misconduct fabricated by Cimmarrusti which Victim #12 did not commit.
Once there, Cimmarrusti ordered Victim #12 to strip naked from the waist
down, and bent Victim [page 24
begins] #12 over Cimmarrusti’s lap as Cimmarrusti sat in
his chair. Cimmarrusti then violently beat/spanked Victim #12’s
naked buttocks/upper thighs over a period of approximately fifteen to
twenty minutes. Cimmarrusti struck Victim #12 with such force, approximately
fifteen to twenty-five times, that by the end of each beating his buttocks/upper
thighs were black and blue. Throughout the beating, Fr. Cimmarrusti was
sexually aroused and Victim #12 could feel Cimmarrusti’s erection.
Additionally, with each blow Victim #12 cried and screamed in pain with
such volume other priests, faculty and students had to of known what was
taking place. In fact, Victim #12 himself recalls hearing Fr. Cimmarrusti
beat Victim #19 in Cimmarrusti’s room, and recalls being able to
hear each of Cimmarrusti’s blows and Victim #19’s screams
of pain. Cimmarrusti’s beating of Victim #19 lasted for approximately
ten minutes. So loud were 1) the screams by Victim #19 and 2)
Fr. Cimmarrusti’s blows that Victim #12 was able to hear both from
the St Anthony’s parking lot. Any claim by Defendants
that they or there agents were unaware of the abuse taking place is preposterous. Id.
to Victim #12 and Victim #19, Fr. Cimmarrusti also stripped and beat many
other students for his own sexual gratification. Victim #12’s brother,
Victim #17 (Class of ‘68), recalls seeing bruising on student Victim
#20's (Class of ‘68) buttocks/upper thighs nearly identical to that
on Victim #12’s. It was also common knowledge around the school
that Fr. Cimmarrusti had beaten Victim #12, and Victim #12 recalls at
least one student seeing the bruising and commenting “what a mean
bastard” Fr. Cimmarrusti was. Fr. Cimmarrusti also subjected Victim
#17’s and Victim #12’s brother, Victim #18, to such sexually-charged
beatings on at least three occasions. After at least one of the beatings
Cimmarrusti kissed Victim #18 on the lips. Victim #15 (Class of ‘70)
heard at least one of the beatings of Victim #18 by Cimmarrusti, and recalls
seeing the wounds on the buttocks of at least two victims. Id.
also was sexually assaulted and beaten by Cimmarrusti so badly [page
25 begins] he bruised like Victim #12 and also bled from his wounds.
Victim #15 recalls Fr. Cimmarrusti requiring him to strip completely naked
during one of the beatings, and then proceeding to strike Victim #15 thirty-three
times, “once for each year of our Lord’s life.” During
these beatings Victim #15 could feel Fr. Cimmarrusti’s erection.
Victim #15 also recalls the entire school was aware of the beatings. After
the beatings, Cimmarrusti had the sobbing victims drop to their knees;
caressed, stroked and blessed them while pulling their heads into his
crotch; and frequently threatened them with eternal damnation if they
told anyone. In addition to sitting outside Fr. Cimmarrusti’s office
and hearing Cimmarrusti beat Victim #18, Victim #15 also observed a number
of his classmates, including Victim #21 (Class of ‘71) with the
same injuries from Cimmarrusti’s beatings, and recalls the screams
during the beatings were so loud other priests, faculty and students had
to of heard them. Id.
(Class of ‘67), the brother of Victim #8, suffered some of the most
violent and vicious beatings by Fr. Cimmarrusti, as well as numerous sexual
assaults. Fr. Cimmarrusti’s beatings and sexual abuse of Victim
#22 were especially brutal as Cimmarrusti not only beat but kicked Victim
#22, and made sure only to do so on Victim #22’s torso so that the
bruises would not be visible when Victim #22 was fully clothed. Cimmarrusti
required Victim #22 to come to his room twice a week, and Victim #22 recalls
being beaten and/or sexually assaulted by Fr. Cimmarrusti in Cimmarrusti’s
With at least
one student, Victim #12, Fr. Cimmarrusti used the bruising and injury
he caused as yet another pretense to order Victim #12 back to Cimmarrusti’s
room so that Cimmarrusti could apply lotion to the wound, and in doing
so assault Victim #12. Id.
Victim #9 (Class of ‘66), was the victim of at least one violent
attempted rape by Fr. Cimmarrusti and numerous other assaults. Additional
victims of Fr. Cimmarrusti are former St. Anthony’s students Victim
#25 and Victim [page 26 begins] #26. Id.
countless number of victims, and the fact Fr. Cimmarrusti was conducting
numerous purported “medical exams” for which he had no training,
Defendants knew or at least should have known of Cimmarrusti’s misconduct.
In light of the numerous students who were able to hear Fr. Cimmarrusti’s
ongoing sexually-charged beatings of students, Defendants had to of known,
for years, of the ongoing sexual abuse of children by Fr. Cimmarrusti.
And in fact Defendants did know of the risk posed to students by, among
others, Fr. Cimmarrusti long before many, if not most, of the assaults
took place. In approximately 1965, Victim #9 went to St. Anthony’s
rector, Xavier Harris, and reported the attempted rape by Cimmarrusti.
Fr. Harris responded promptly by questioning Victim #9’s “vocation”
and expelling him from St. Anthony’s. Meanwhile, Fr. Cimmarrusti’s
abuse of St. Anthony’s students continued. Id.
same year, 1965, Victim #22 recalls being sexually assaulted by Cimmarrusti
in Cimmarrusti’s room and seeing another priest come to Cimmarrusti’s
door in a position to see Victim #22 on Cimmarrusti’s bed. Approximately
one year later in 1966, Victim #22 also reported to Fr. Harris the weekly
beatings and sexual abuse he was receiving from Fr. Cimmarrusti, and told
Harris he could not take it any more and wanted to leave St. Anthony’s.
Fr. Harris first told Victim #22 he had imagined the abuse. When Victim
#22 insisted the abuse had happened and that he wished to drop out of
school, Fr. Harris offered to make him, among other things, class president
and captain of the football team if Victim #22 agreed to stay. When Victim
#22 still refused, Fr. Harris threatened to report this to Victim #22's
very traditional catholic family. He reminded Victim #22 he would be seen
as a quitter and a failure, and that his family would be ostracized as
they lived in a small town and everyone would know. He told Victim #22
this would eventually lead to his parents' divorce and that this would
be Victim #22's fault. Victim #22 still insisted on, and ultimately did,
leave St. Anthony's. However, Fr. Harris and Defendants [page
27 begins] allowed Fr. Cimmarrusti to continue his brutal and twisted
reign as St. Anthony’s Prefect of Discipline until 1970. Id.
in approximately 1967-68, Fr. Gino Piccoli walked in on Fr. Cimmarrusti
orally copulating yet another victim, had a clear view of the abuse, and
turned around and walked out. Fr. Piccoli and Defendants took no action
against Fr. Cimmarrusti, and Cimmarrusti’s abuse of students continued.
Years later, when a member of the laity told Fr. Piccoli of Victim #14’s
anger at Fr. Cimmarrusti, Fr. Piccoli responded by attacking Victim #14's
credibility and stating Victim #14 should not be believed because he was
severely mentally disturbed. Id.
in approximately 1970 Victim #15 told Br. Kevin Dunne – who later
was identified as a perpetrator himself – of the beatings by Fr.
abuse of St. Anthony’s students spanned most of the 1960s, and could
and should have been stopped by Defendants’ agents at least as early
as 1965. Instead, they allowed him to become one of the most prolific
abusers of children in Santa Barbara County, with no less than sixteen
(16) of his victims identified to date. There can be no denying the Defendants
were well aware of the risk of childhood sexual abuse any child faced
when exposed to their agents. By concealing the threat posed by, among
others, Fr. Cimmarrusti, Defendants continued and fostered a public nuisance
which placed children in Santa Barbara County at great risk to be sexually
vii. Fr. John Hanley’s
assaults in Lompoc at Mission La Purisima Concepcion
same time yet another agent of Defendants was assaulting children in Northern
Santa Barbara County. Specifically, in the mid-1960's Fr.
John J. Hanley (Perpetrator #5) assaulted at least two children
at Mission La Purisima Concepcion in Lompoc. Fr. Hanley’s two known
victims were a sister and brother, Victim #28 and Victim #29. Fr. Hanley
became close to their parents as a result of his status as a priest. Id. at Paras. 70-71. [page
and Victim #29 were very young at the time of the abuse. Victim #28 was
approximately four or five years old, and most likely was the first of
the two to be abused by Fr. Hanley. Victim #29 was around six or seven
years old when the abuse by Fr. Hanley began. Fr. Hanley abused both children
during roughly the same time period. Fr. Hanley’s assaults took
place on the parish grounds. At some point after the abuse started Fr.
Hanley suddenly disappeared, and was purportedly sent back to Ireland. Id.
D. The 1970's: After Years of Assaults
and Reports of Abuse, Defendants Transfer Fr. Kelly and Fr. Cimmarrusti
out of Santa Barbara, and Allow a New Generation of Child-Abusing Clergy
Access to Children in Santa Barbara
decade saw Fr. Kelly’s abuse of Victim #10 and Victim #11 continue
at least until Defendants transferred Kelly to St. Marianne’s in
Pico Rivera. Further, even after being transferred, Fr. Kelly maintained
ownership of the cabin and continued to bring boys – including Victim
#11 – to the cabin, albeit it not as frequently. Additionally, Fr.
Cimmarrusti was transferred from St. Anthony’s only to be replaced
by a new and larger group of pedophilic priests and Religious brothers,
a number of whom themselves had been abused as children by Defendants’
priests. Id. at Paras. 72 - 89.
new priests – many of whom were themselves victims of childhood sexual
abuse by clergy – continued grooming and sexually abusing children
at various locations around Santa Barbara County. The seeds planted by Fr.
McKeon’s abuse of [Robert] Van
Handel began to b[ea]r fruit as Van Handel found himself attracted
to young boys, thus becoming Perpetrator #6. While still in school and shortly
before being hired by and/or granted faculties by Defendants, Van Handel
twice in 1970 told an agent of Defendants’ of his attraction to young
boys. Defendants’ response to this information was to grant faculties
to and/or hire Van Handel and allow him to begin forming boys choirs as
part of his ministry. These [page
29 begins] choirs, along with the students from St. Anthony’s,
became a constant source of victims for Van Handel. Fourteen (14) victims
of Fr. Van Handel have been identified, a total exceeded only by Fr. Cimmarrusti.
However, there is good reason to believe Fr. Van Handel’s actual number
of victims in Santa Barbara far exceeds Fr. Cimmarrusti’s as Defendants
allowed Van Handel to spend in excess of twice the number of years in Santa
Barbara as Fr. Cimmarrusti. Id.
Fr. Robert Van Handel OFM
Defendants’ agents sent Van Handel to St. Anthony’s and allowed
him to form the Santa Barbara Boys Choir (“SBBC”). Shortly
thereafter he began assaulting young boys, photographing them nude, and
making them available for assaults to at least one of his fellow pedophiles. Id.
approximately 1970-71, Br. Kevin Dunne –
Perpetrator #7 – violently sexually assaulted Victim #30 (Class of
‘72). Dunne had been at St. Anthony’s since at least 1965. Id.
Br. Kevin Dunne OFM
Br. Samuel Cabot OFM
at least 1970 to 1974, Fr. John H. Dawson – Perpetrator #8 – was assigned to Mt. Carmel in Montecito.
In 1975 defendants transferred Fr. Dawson to Our Lady of Refuge in Long
Beach, and, later, to St. Bernadette. Fr. Dawson has been identified as
the perpetrator of childhood sexual abuse in currently filed lawsuits
by no less than six victims, including two from St. Bernadette and four
from Our Lady of Refuge. At least one Santa Barbara victim, Victim #31
has previously settled a claim for abuse by Fr. Dawson. Id.
1973, if not earlier, Defendants’ agents assigned Brother
Samuel Cabot – Perpetrator #9 – to the Mission. Br.
Cabot – who was supervised by Br. Dunne – would go on to sexually
abuse two cousins, when the girls – Victim #32 and Victim #33 –
were between the ages of five and ten years old, for approximately five
years from the late 1970's into the mid 1980s. Id.
June 6, 1970, Defendants assigned Fr. Donald Patrick
Roemer – Perpetrator #10 – to serve as an associate
pastor at St. Raphael’s Church in Goleta. Prior to his ordination
and assignment to Santa Barbara in 1970, Fr. Roemer studied [page
30 begins] at St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo to become
a priest. Fr. Roemer has been identified as the perpetrator in a currently
filed lawsuit for childhood sexual abuse against a young boy from 1962-65.
Thus, Fr. Roemer commenced his assaults against children well before defendants
assigned him to Santa Barbara. Id.
Fr. Roemer has admitted that during his eight years in Santa Barbara County
he struggled with feelings of sexual confusion and sought assistance in
this regard from a psychologist employed by Defendants’, thus placing
Defendants on notice of his propensities. During this time Defendants
also received complaints from concerned parents regarding a number of
priests in Santa Barbara, including Fr. Roemer. Specifically, in approximately
1976 a number of parents who served as the directors of Youth Ministry
at Santa Barbara parishes were so concerned by the conduct of priests
such as Fr. Roemer that they confronted priests who were members of Defendants’
hierarchy in Los Angeles. Those parents were aware that Fr. Roemer had
been engaging in inappropriate conduct with minors. Consequently, they
confronted the associate directors of Defendants’ Office of Confraternity
of Christian Doctrine in Los Angeles. Two of those parents recall the
group described misconduct by priests in Santa Barbara, including Fr.
Roemer, and asked why Defendants were sending priests like this to Santa
Barbara. The parents also asked how they could be expected to run a youth
ministry with priests like Fr. Roemer in their midst. In response, the
associate directors stated there simply were not enough priests, and that
the parents were blowing things out of proportion. Id.
this notice, during his eight years in Santa Barbara Defendants assigned
Fr. Roemer to and allowed him to work at locations giving him unfettered
access to countless adolescent and pre-adolescent boys. These assignments
included St. Raphael’s, an assignment as an associate pastor at
San Roque in 1974, and, most disturbingly, assignments to work with the
most vulnerable youth in 1975 as the chaplain at Santa Barbara Juvenile
Hall, and in 1977 at Los Prietos Boy’s Camp. In 1976 Defendants
assigned him to serve as the [page
31 begins] Coordinator for Confraternity of Christian Doctrine
in Santa Barbara. Even worse, from 1975-77 Defendants assigned Fr. Roemer
to its Vocations Board. This assignment required him to go to junior high
school and high schools to recruit boys to attend Defendants’ seminaries,
and often involved Fr. Roemer arranging for overnight stays for these
boys. During his eight years in Santa Barbara County Fr. Roemer was accused
of sexually assaulting boys in Santa Barbara. Included among his victims
was Victim #34. Another current plaintiff is Victim #35, who also was
assaulted by Fr. Roemer in the 1970s. Defendants subsequently transferred
Fr. Roemer from Santa Barbara to a parish in Thousand Oaks. Ultimately,
in 1981, Fr. Roemer pled nolo contendre to three counts of childhood sexual
abuse under Penal Code section 288(a). He later admitted to sexually assaulting
at least thirty boys from 1970 to 1981. Fr. Roemer is the subject of no
less than eight currently pending civil lawsuits, two of which involve
assaults against the abovementioned Santa Barbara victims at San Roque
and St. Raphael’s. The identities of Fr. Roemer’s other Santa
Barbara victims are unknown at this time. Id.
to the numerous assaults, reports of abuse, and the open and obvious nature
of the assaults being committed by Defendants’ agents such as Fr.
Roemer, Defendants had to of known of the rampant sexual assaults that had
been committed and were continuing to be committed by other clergy in Santa
Barbara. For instance, beginning in the mid-1970's, three brothers, Victim
#36, Victim #37 and Victim #38 were victimized by numerous priests as members
of Fr. Van Handel’s Santa Barbara Boys Choir (“SBBC”)
and, subsequently, as students at St. Anthony’s. Victim #36 was repeatedly
sexually assaulted by as many as five different priests, including Fr. Van
Handel, Fr. Steven Kain (Perpetrator #11), Fr. Philip Wolfe5 (Perpetrator #12), pre-novitiate candidate Ed Byrom (Perpetrator #13), [page 32 begins] and pre-novitiate candidate Tom Thing (Perpetrator
#14). Victim #37 was repeatedly assaulted by Fr. Van Handel and Fr. Steve
Kain. Victim #38 was able to fight off an assault by Fr. Van Handel. Id.
Fr. Stephen Kain OFM
Br. David Johnson OFM
Fr. David Carriere OFM
approximately 1977, Br. Dave Johnson (Perpetrator
#15) – yet another St. Anthony’s alum (Class of [redacted])
who also was a pedophile – was assigned to St. Anthony’s.
Br. Johnson eventually became a priest. Johnson has admitted he, too,
like Fr. Van Handel, was a victim of childhood sexual abuse by a priest
while he (Johnson) was a student at St. Anthony’s. Fr. Johnson assaulted
Victim #39 (Class of ‘79) in, among other locations, Johnson’s
room at St. Anthony’s on at least three occasions in the fall of
#39’s experience at St. Anthony’s and the Mission was one
of the most horrific. After the assaults by Johnson ended, Fr.
David Carriere (Perpetrator #16), a priest stationed at the Mission,
began to assault Victim #39 on a weekly basis in various locations around
the Mission, including the Mission pool’s changing room and unused
living quarters in the Mission. The assaults by Fr. Carriere went on for
most of Victim #39’s junior and senior years. During Victim #39’s
senior year, he was assaulted by St. Anthony’s Spanish teacher,
Francisco Moreno, in Moreno’s office. Moreno also began to summon
Victim #39 to Moreno’s office and on at least three occasions brought
in men from the community who then assaulted Victim #39. Moreno is not
identified as a perpetrator of childhood sexual abuse because Victim #39
was eighteen at the time of these assaults. However, Victim #39’s
age does not change the fact that a teacher (Moreno) was so comfortable
in the St. Anthony’s environment as to essentially pimp out a student
to men from the community for sexual assaults during school hours on the
grounds at St. Anthony’s. This boldness was reflective of and fostered
by an environment of childhood sexual abuse created by Defendants. The
assaults by Carriere, Moreno and others against Victim #39 [page
33 begins] continued until Victim #39 finally graduated in 1979. Id.
approximately 1977-78, Defendants assigned Fr. Willebaldo
Castro (Perpetrator #17) to St. Mary’s Church of the Assumption
in Santa Maria. Shortly thereafter Victim #40, began seeing Fr. Castro
for counseling. Fr. Castro took advantage of Victim #40's vulnerability
and began introducing sex education into the counseling sessions. Fr.
Castro then began assaulting Victim #40, who was an adolescent at the
time. Fr. Castro sexually assaulted Victim #40, at, among other locations,
the grounds of the parish. The assaults by Fr. Castro are now the subject
of a currently filed lawsuit. Additionally, Fr. Castro has been identified
as the perpetrator in no less than three (3) [c]urrently filed lawsuits
from his time while assigned to St. Mary’s in Santa Maria, and St.
Alphonsus in Los Angeles. Id.
Castro was not the only perpetrator Defendants assigned to St. Mary’s
in Santa Maria. Specifically, Defendants assigned Fr.
John Wishard (Perpetrator #18) there in 1994. Fourteen years earlier,
in 1980, Fr. Wishard had pleaded no contest to “felony oral copulation”
of a young boy. Despite this conviction, Defendants allowed Fr. Wishard
to serve at St. Mary’s until at least 1998. Defendants did not warn
the community of Fr. Wishard’s propensities or criminal record. Id.
if not earlier, Br. Gus Krumm6 (St. Anthony’s Class of ‘72) began work at St. Anthony’s.
Br. Krumm (Perpetrator #19) would go on to assault a number of students
at St. Anthony’s before finally being transferred out of Santa Barbara
during this time a priest candidate by the name of Paul
Conn (Perpetrator #20) studied at St. Anthony’s in a pre-novitiate
program, and worked as a teacher in St. Anthony’s Social Sciences
department. Fr. Conn eventually would move to the state of Washington
where he worked in Port Angeles at a parish, Queen of Angels. In 1988,
Fr. Conn pleaded guilty to assaulting at least six altar [page
34 begins] boys at Queen of Angels, and was sentenced to four years
in prison. Id.
1979 Fr. Roemer’s abuse of children in Santa Barbara had necessitated
Defendants transferring him to the unsuspecting community in Thousand
Oaks. However, just as Defendants transferred one perpetrator from San
Roque, they replaced him with another. Specifically, in 1979 Fr.
Michael Terra (Perpetrator #21) assumed Fr. Roemer’s position
at San Roque. Whereas Fr. Roemer preferred young boys, Fr. Terra’s
victims of choice were young girls. Shortly after he was assigned to San
Roque he began sexually assaulting Victim #41. Victim #41 sought counseling
from Fr. Terra. Fr. Terra recognized and took advantage of Victim #41’s
vulnerability and began sexually assaulting her. The assaults took place
in, among other locations, Fr. Terra’s office in the rectory at
San Roque; the Santa Barbara Botanical Gardens; and at a local beach.
Worst of all, Fr. Terra would tell Victim #41 to attend confession at
San Roque on Saturday afternoons. After hearing her confession, Fr. Terra
would assault Victim #41 within the confessional. Fr. Terra’s abuse
of Victim #41 continued for approximately a year and a half. Defendants
transferred Fr. Terra from San Roque and out of Santa Barbara in 1981. Id.
E. The 1980's: Defendants’
Transfers of Perpetrators in and Out of Santa Barbara County Continues,
and Spreads to New Locations
During the summer
of 1980, if not earlier, Fr. [Gus] Krumm – yet another St. Anthony’s alum who became a priest-pedophile
– commenced his assaults against St. Anthony’s students. Specifically,
Fr. Krumm invited a St. Anthony’s student, Victim #42, to visit St.
Anthony’s for a weekend during the summer break. Krumm then proceeded
to buy Victim #42 liquor, induce Victim #42 to drink until Victim #42 was
intoxicated, and then violently assaulted Victim #42 in the St. Anthony’s
infirmary. By the time Krumm assaulted Victim #42 Defendants had been receiving
actual and constructive notice for at least twenty-two years of numerous
acts of childhood sexual abuse committed by priests in Santa Barbara County. Id. at Paras. 90 - 119. [page
Fr. Gustave Krumm OFM
following school year, Fr. Krumm twice assaulted another St. Anthony’s
student, Victim #43, in Fr. Krumm’s office, and later threatened
Victim #43 with violence when Victim #43 fled from Fr. Krumm after Fr.
Krumm ordered Victim #43 to his office yet again. A few days later Victim
#43 was questioned by no less than three priests about the assaults by
Fr. Krumm. Shortly thereafter Fr. Krumm disappeared, and Victim #43 heard
Krumm had been sent to a program for troubled priests in Arizona or New
Mexico. Id. Victim #43 filed a lawsuit against Defendants and
their agents. Defendants’ agents denied Fr. Krumm’s acts constituted
sexual abuse, but settled the lawsuit for an undisclosed amount[.]
knowledge of Fr. Krumm’s propensities, Defendants continued to allow
him to spend time with children. Consequently, from 1984-87, Fr. Krumm
also assaulted Victim #44. Victim #44 met Fr. Krumm while Fr. Krumm was
a priest at St. John’s Catholic Church in Overton, Nevada in approximately
1983 when Victim #44 was 11 years old. Fr. Krumm took a strong interest
in Victim #44, became a very good friend of the family, baptized Victim
#44 in approximately 1985, and became Victim #44’s godfather. Victim
#44 became Fr. Krumm’s personal altar boy for approximately 2.5
years, assisting Fr. Krumm both at St. John’s in Overton and at
St. John’s in Las Vegas in performing weddings and baptisms. Krumm
would also take Victim #44 on overnight trips to stay in a cabin on Mt.
Charlston, Nevada. Victim #44 has specific recollections of being plied
with alcohol and being sexually abused when at this cabin. In 1986 Fr.
Krumm took Victim #44 with him to St. Anthony’s, where Victim #44
lived for approximately one month. Defendants made no efforts to stop
Victim #44 from having contact with Fr. Krumm. During this time, Victim
#44 recalls that he was sexually abused by Fr. Krumm while at St. Anthony’s
in a similar manner to the abuse he endured at the cabin at Mt. Charlston.
Fr. Krumm has admitted to assaulting Victim #42 and Victim #44, among
same period, a former teacher at St. Anthony’s recalls that various
priests would come to him after the boys were in bed at night and say
“I need to [page 36 begins] counsel this kid,” or “I need to have a discussion with this
child.” The priest would then go off with the child for an hour
or so. The teacher recalls Fr. Krumm was the priest who most often did
this. The teacher recalls Fr. Van Handel doing this occasionally also. Id.
a St. Anthony’s student in the late 1970's recalls that at times
he and some of his classmates would observe a freshmen student leaving
Fr. Van Handel’s room around 1:00 am, and that they would tease
the freshman about being in Fr. Van Handel’s room for sexual reasons.
The freshman would claim he was simply in the room for “counseling.” Id.
another pedophile priest who assaulted young boys during this time was Fr.
Chris Berbena (Perpetrator #22). Fr. Berbena assaulted St. Anthony’s
student Victim #45 (Class of ‘83) on the grounds at St. Anthony’s
on multiple occasions in the early 1980s. Id. These assaults are
the subject of a currently filed lawsuit.
Fr. Christopher Berbena OFM
boys were the primary victims of Defendants’ pedophilic agents,
these agents continued to victimize young girls in the Santa Barbara community
as well. For instance, Br. Samuel Cabot (Perpetrator #9) sexually assaulted
two cousins, when the girls – Victim #32 and Victim #33 –
were between the ages of five and ten years old, on a regular basis from
approximately 1979 to 1985. Id.
recalls Br.7 Dave Johnson – the St.
Anthony’s alum who also assaulted, among others, Victim #39 –
attempting to grope the student on the way to the showers in the early
80's. When the student challenged Br. Johnson, Br. Johnson backed off.
A different student walked in on Br. Johnson in bed with Victim #46 (Class
of ‘85). The student believed Br. Johnson was having sex with Victim
#46. When Victim #46 stood up the student observed Victim #46 was wearing
only a towel or underwear. Id.
approximately 1971 Fr. Roger Anderson (Perpetrator
#23) was assigned to [page 37
begins] the Old Mission Santa Ines. In 1978 Victim #47 began attending
catechism classes there, and became an altar boy. When Victim #47 was
approximately twelve years old in 1981, Fr. Anderson began sexually assaulting
Victim #47. The assaults took place in, among other locations, Fr. Anderson’s
office and in the confessional at the Old Mission Santa Ines. Victim #47
recalls that on one occasion either a priest or Religious Brother walked
in on an assault taking place. On another occasion, it was apparent to
Victim #47 that someone had either been watching the abuse, or had entered
the room and observed the abuse only to turn around and leave. Sometime
later another perpetrator took Victim #47 to a storage area and assaulted
him. Victim #47 has not been able to identify this second perpetrator
at the Old Mission Santa Ines, but believes he (Perpetrator
#24) was either a priest or a Religious Brother. The assaults against
Victim #47 took place from approximately 1981-83. Id.
to 1993, Fr. Van Handel assaulted numerous members of the Santa Barbara
Boys Choir and St. Anthony’s students. In 1977 Victim #63 was assaulted
by Fr. Van Handel while in the infirmary. During the 1979-80 school year,
Fr. Van Handel assaulted St. Anthony’s student Victim #48. Id.
On SBBC trips,
he assaulted two brothers, Victim #49 and Victim #50. On one trip to Europe
Fr. Van Handel assaulted Victim #50 and then photographed him nude. During
this same trip Fr. Van Handel repeatedly assaulted Victim #49; he also
assaulted Victim #49 on multiple occasions at St. Anthony’s. Van
Handel also photographed, among others, Victim #36 naked at various locations
around St. Anthony’s. During this same time-frame a St. Anthony’s
alum (Class of ‘82) recalls seeing Fr. Van Handel taking an SBBC
member into a room at the top of the tower at St. Anthony’s. The
former student recalls thinking at the time that this was unusual. Fr.
Van Handel has admitted to taking “dozens of photos” of nude
boys during his time in Santa Barbara, some in the tower at St. Anthony’s.
Van Handel also has admitted to developing the photographs at St. Anthony’s
school lab. Id. [page
Fr. Van Handel assaulted SBBC member, Victim #51, on two separate occasions.
The first assault took place at St. Anthony’s while the SBBC was
watching a movie. Victim #51 was approximately nine years old and recalls
Fr. Van Handel was sitting behind Victim #51 and was massaging his shoulders.
There was another priest sitting behind Victim #51, on Victim #51’s
left, who was in a position to see what Fr. Van Handel was doing. Fr.
Van Handel began reaching around Victim #51 and assaulting him. Victim
#51 resisted and tried to get Fr. Van Handel to stop, but was afraid to
make any noises because there were so many other people around. Id.
assault took place during a SBBC camp in Cambria. Victim #51 was approximately
ten years old at the time. A group of boys had been playing baseball and
Victim #51 had gone back to a cabin to take a nap. Victim #51 had fallen
asleep, and he remembers waking up to find the covers had been pulled
back, his underpants were down around his ankles, and Fr. Van Handel was
masturbating himself. Fr. Van Handel then sat on the bed and forcefully
sexually assaulted Victim #51. Victim #51 recalls trying to push Fr. Van
Handel’s hands away and trying to get him to stop, but Van Handel
would not. Id.
filed a lawsuit against Defendants in 1999. After Defendants’
agents publicly denied the abuse took place, and argued – during
the litigation – that a priest had a right to privacy with regards
to sexual activities with children, Defendants settled the lawsuit
for $1.7 million.
Victim #52 was a student at St. Anthony’s where he was repeatedly
molested by Fr. Steve Kain and Fr. Robert Van Handel. These attacks occurred
in the dormitory cubicles at St. Anthony’s. During this same time
Victim #53 was a member of the Santa Barbara Boys’ Choir and, eventually,
a student at St. Anthony’s. He was also molested by Fr. Van Handel
in the boys’ dormitory.
Victim #54 was a member of the SBBC and, subsequently, a student at St.
Anthony’s. He was molested by Fr. Wolfe – yet another St.
Anthony’s [page 39 begins] alum who became a priest pedophile – and Fr. Van Handel under circumstances
where Defendants knew or should have known that such misconduct was occurring.
Victim #54 reported the abuse by Fr. Wolfe to Br. Jeff McNabb. Id.
or 89 Victim #55 was a member of the SBBC. Defendants allowed Fr. Van
Handel to take Victim #55 and other boys, such as Victim #57, on numerous
trips to places such as Yosemite, Long Beach, Washington, San Francisco,
Cambria, Vancouver and others. Many of these trips involved no adult supervision
other than Fr. Van Handel. Sometimes Van Handel would only take a small
number (two to three) of his favorite boys. Additionally, Defendants allowed
Victim #55 to spend the night in Fr. Van Handel’s living quarters.
Initially, Victim #55 stayed with Fr. Van Handel in the general living
quarters for the priests in the seminary. Later, when Fr. Van Handel became
the rector of St. Anthony’s, Victim #55 would stay with Van Handel
at the Casa, Fr. Van Handel’s residence on the St. Anthony’s
property. Victim #43 also lived at the Casa during this time, and recalls
seeing Victim #55 and other young boys with Van Handel in the Casa on
a regular basis. From 1983-84, Victim #55 was repeatedly sexually assaulted
by Fr. Van Handel, who either took Victim #55 into his room or climbed
into bed with him in the dormitories and sexually abused him. The assaults
also happened on the trips Victim #55 took with Van Handel and the SBBC.
Victim #55 has also testified that he was allowed to eat dinner at the
special table for priests, taken to a priest’s room for the night
and brought to breakfast the next morning. With regards to Victim #55,
Van Handel recalls he was “really out of control” and would
basically do whatever his imagination came up with. Van Handel has stated
with regards to Victim #36 “it was as though I felt I could do anything
to him that I wanted.” Id.
Victim #56 was a member of the Santa Barbara Boys’ Choir and, subsequently,
a student at St. Anthony’s. He was repeatedly molested by both Fr.
Van Handel and Fr. Philip Wolfe. Id.
Victim #57 was a member of the Santa Barbara Boys’ Choir. [page
40 begins] He was repeatedly molested by Fr. Van Handel, who watched
and assaulted Victim #57 while showering in the dormitories or while in
Van Handel’s room. Id.
approximately 1985, Fr. Stephen E. Specialle (Perpetrator #25) was assigned to Our Lady of Sorrows in Santa Barbara.
On at least two occasions Fr. Specialle sexually assaulted Victim #58
on the grounds of Our Lady of Sorrows. These assaults occurred when Victim
#58 was approximately 11 years old, and caused great emotional harm and
distress to Victim #55 and his mother. Id.
the Fall of 1986 Victim #59 enrolled at St. Anthony’s. Br.
Berard Connolly (Perpetrator #26) served as, among other things,
the school’s Vocation Director. Br. Connolly would often walk the
halls of the school at night, purportedly to ensure that lights were turned
off and students were in bed. Much like Fr. Krumm, Br. Connolly would spend
extra time with his favorite students, including Victim #59. Br. Connolly
would enter the room, sit on Victim #59’s bed, and make conversation
with him while placing his hand on Victim #59’s thigh. Eventually,
after one such conversation, Br. Connolly began sexually assaulting Victim
#59. These assaults continued into Victim #59's sophomore year at St. Anthony’s. Id.
Br. Berard Connolly OFM
approximately 1987, Defendants assigned Perpetrator #27 – Fr.
Carlos Rene Rodriguez – to work in Defendants’ Office
of Family Life in Santa Barbara, and allowed him to live at St. Mary’s
Seminary in the foothills above St. Anthony’s and the Old Mission.
During this time Defendants allowed Rodriguez to conduct couples’
retreats in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. Fr. Rodriguez used these
retreats to gain access to children for his own sexual gratification.
On March 12, 2004, Fr. Rodriguez was sentenced to eight years in prison
after admitting to molesting two brothers in Ventura County. Id.
assigned Fr. Rodriguez to Santa Barbara he abused at least one altar boy
at St. Vincent de Paul Church in downtown Los Angeles. After this abuse,
Defendants sent Fr. Rodriguez for treatment in 1987 to St. Luke Institute
in Maryland, one of the many pedophile priest treatment facilities opened
by [page 41 begins] Defendants
years before they informed the public of the threat posed by such clergy.
After nearly a year of treatment at St. Luke, Defendants transferred him
to Santa Barbara without warning to the community. Fr. Rodriguez abused
at least two of his victims, Victim #s 60 and 61, in the County at St.
Mary’s Seminary. At least one victim recalls Fr. Rodriguez always
being in the company of boys from various locations, including Santa Maria,
Simi Valley and Ventura. Defendants are currently the subject of no less
than four civil lawsuits alleging abuse by Fr. Rodriguez and concealment
of his propensities. Id.
before Defendants transferred Fr. Rodriguez to Santa Barbara, then Auxillary
Bishop Patrick Ziemann (Perpetrator #28) was appointed the Regional
Bishop for the Santa Barbara Pastoral Region. Fr. Ziemann’s offices
were located in Santa Barbara. Before Defendants assigned Fr. Ziemann to
Santa Barbara, he spent time at Queen of the Angels Junior Seminary in Los
Angeles in the 1970s. Plaintiff John Doe 5 has filed a lawsuit alleging
Fr. Ziemann sexually assaulted him on seminary grounds during this time.
In that same lawsuit plaintiff John Doe 6 alleges he was the victim of childhood
sexual abuse by Fr. Ziemann from 1968-69 at a parish and school in Huntington
Park. Fr. Ziemann later was appointed Bishop of Santa Rosa, a position he
ultimately was forced to resign because of allegations he blackmailed a
younger priest into having sex with him. Id.
Bishop G. Patrick Ziemann
i. Defendants Continue to Ignore
Reports of Abuse
Victim #14 reported his abuse by Fr. Cimmarrusti to Defendants’
agents’ Provincial Minister at the time, Fr. Louis Vitale. Victim
#14 told Fr. Vitale all about the sexual assaults, violence, and other
abusive behavior that occurred at St. Anthony’s when Victim #14
was a student. Fr. Vitale said that he “was not surprised,”
and that “others had complained” about Fr. Cimmarrusti. Vitale
also said that Defendants’ agents had sent Fr. Cimmarrusti to Mexico
but that he got into similar trouble with the Mexican authorities who
wanted to throw Fr. Cimmarrusti in prison for events that took place in
Guaymas. Vitale did not specify what events [page
42 begins] except that they were of a sexual nature with kids and
that – in keeping with the official and unofficial practice of Defendants
in denying the truth about their pedophilic priests, and their corporate
practice of concealing childhood sexual abuse from the civil authorities,
the faithful and the unsuspecting public – Defendants’ agents
had made arrangements with the Mexican authorities to have Fr. Cimmarrusti
deported in lieu of serving prison time. Fr. Vitale told Victim #14 that
Fr. Cimmarrusti had been placed at St. Mary of Assumption Church in Stockton,
which was a place where Fr. Cimmarrusti would not come in contact with
children. Id. at Paras. 118-19.
later learned, in the early 1990's, that Fr. Vitale had not told him the
truth as Fr. Cimmarrusti had in fact been transferred to a parish duties
in the San Juaquin Valley. Shortly thereafter Victim #14 confronted the
Provincial Minister at the time, Fr. Joseph Chinnici, in the provincial
offices in Oakland. Victim #14 restated what he had told the last Provincial
Minister, Fr. Vitale, and said that it was unreasonable for Fr. Cimmarrusti
to be stationed as pastor of a parish and allowed to minister. Chinnici
claimed he was unaware of Fr. Cimmarrusti’s history of abuse. Id.
F. The 1990's to the Present: Defendants
Close St. Anthony’s but Continue to Send Child-Abusing Clergy and
Brothers to Santa Barbara County
Anthony’s closure in 1987, Fr. Van Handel’s assaults against
young boys continued at least until he was forced to leave the seminary
in 1992. Fr. Van Handel’s assaults against Victim #57 continued
until at least 1992. Additionally, from approximately 1990-92 Van Handel
repeatedly assaulted, among others, choir member Victim #62, and also
allowed him to be abused by Van Handel’s an Englishman who was Van
Handel’s friend and fellow pedophile. Victim #49 also was abused
by this Englishman during a SBBC trip to Magic Mountain, and recalls being
terrified in a hotel room in his sleeping bag as the man lay on top of
him, stroked and kissed his head, and told him how beautiful he (Victim
#49) was. In [page 43 begins] another instance, the Englishman asked a young choir boy whether he wanted
a foot rub. When the boy said yes, Van Handel’s friend instead placed
his hands down the boys pants and assaulted the boy. In short, Van Handel
gave his fellow pedophile access to members of the SBBC Van Handel had
selected for his sexual gratification. Fr. Van Handel assaulted an unknown
but undoubtedly high number of SBBC members in the early 1990's before
being sent to prison for eight years in 1994 for childhood sexual abuse. Id. at Para. 120.
i. The Board of Inquiry
Defendants’ agents formed their so-called “Independent”
Board of Inquiry (“Board”) to investigate the abuse that had
been going on at St. Anthony’s. The Board was anything but “independent”
of Defendants’ agents as Board members were reporting to one of
Defendants’ agents who could approve/disapprove of the report. Not
surprisingly, no reference is made in the Board’s report
to the reports of abuse made to Defendants’ agents. [See
the full text of the Board's Report
to Father Joseph P. Chinnici, O.F.M.] Victim #22 has confirmed he
told the Board of reporting Cimmarrusti’s criminal conduct to Fr.
Harris. A truly independent report would have referenced and addressed
this fact, as well as the numerous other incidents of actual notice to
Defendants of the acts of childhood sexual abuse committed by priests
and Religious brothers. Instead, the Board’s report continued the
concealing and covering up of the truth, publicizing as little information
as possible, and utterly ignoring the responsibility of Defendants’
hierarchy for allowing and enabling the abuse of children by priests and
Religious brothers. Id. at Paras. 121-26.
conduct in this regard – protecting and concealing their pedophilic
brethren while sacrificing the children in Santa Barbara County –
was not a mistake or the result of misinformation on the part of the hierarchy.
Rather, the conduct by the hierarchy represents a complete moral, ethical
and spiritual failure which resulted in the consummate misuse and abuse
of the tremendous power they wield as Defendants’ representatives.
Defendants made and continue to make [page
44 begins] deliberate decisions to protect pedophilic priests while
placing the children of Santa Barbara County, among other locations, at
risk. Defendants also continue to mischaracterize this conduct as “mistakes,”
or “errors of judgement.” Id. Arguing, as Defendants’
agents have, that a priest has a right to privacy when he sexually assaults
a child is not a “mistake” or an “error of judgment.”
the aforementioned moral, ethical and spiritual failure on the part of
Defendants has continued into the 21st Century. From the late 1960s until
the early 1980's Fr. Christopher Kearney (Perpetrator #29) was assigned to St. Francis High School in La Canada,
located within Defendants’ boundaries. Fr. Kearney has been identified
as the perpetrator in multiple currently filed lawsuits alleging abuse
of at least ten different victims from 1968 to at least 1983. In 1995,
without warning to the community, Defendants transferred Fr. Kearney to
San Lorenzo Seminary and Prayer Center in Santa Ynez. Defendants allowed
Fr. Kearney to live and work in the County for almost seven years without
any warning or word of caution to the community. In 2003, Defendants transferred
Fr. Kearney from Santa Ynez. Id.
James M. Ford (Perpetrator #30) has been assigned to multiple locations
throughout Santa Barbara County, including St. Raphael’s in Goleta
from approximately 1972 to 1976, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel from approximately
1977 to 1981 and, currently, at San Roque since 1995. Prior to Fr. Ford’s
transfer to Santa Barbara in approximately 1971, the plaintiff in a currently
filed lawsuit – involving allegations of abuse by Fr. Ford between
1968-71 – told three priests about Fr. Ford. Two of those priests
– Fr. David LaPierre and Fr. Patrick Ziemann – are the subject
of currently filed lawsuits for childhood sexual abuse. Despite receiving
such reports, Defendants transferred Fr. Ford to Santa Barbara without warning
to the community. Further, Defendants continue to allow Fr. Ford to serve
in Santa Barbara at San Roque while the prosecution of the current lawsuit
goes forward. Id.
Fr. James M. Ford
over one year ago, in July of 2003, it was revealed Defendants’
agents had assigned an admitted perpetrator – Fr. Gus Krumm –
to a parish in Sacramento [page
45 begins] which was next door to a school. Again, Defendants assigned
Fr. Krumm without any warning to the community. In fact, one priest readily
admitted he was aware of Fr. Krumm’s prior abuses but did not think
it was appropriate to share the information even with the parish’s
own parishioners. Even worse, despite the fact Defendants claim Fr. Krumm
was forbidden contact with young children, he did in fact have direct
contact with young children while at this assignment. Id.
most recent such case to which Defendants have admitted – albeit only after Defendants learned a reporter from the Dallas Morning News, Brooks
Egerton, intended to make the facts public – involves a Religious
brother. Specifically, in the early to mid-1970's Br.
Gerald Chumik (Perpetrator #31) assaulted at least one victim in
Canada. Canadian authorities attempted to prosecute Br. Chumik in the 1990s,
but Br. Chumik fled Canada to the United States. Now, Defendants’
agents harbor Br. Chumik, a fugitive from justice, behind the walls of the
Mission. They do so with the full support of Defendants. Most important,
despite the fact Br. Chumik has lived in the Santa Barbara community for
over a year, it was not until Mr. Egerton’s story was about to be
published that Defendants provided any warning to the public, much less
to neighboring schools or families with children in the neighborhood around
the Mission, of the threat Br. Chumik poses. Instead, Defendants’
agents have taken the position that they “can’t ask him (Br.
Chumik) to do something he doesn’t want to do,” i.e. turn himself
over to Canadian authorities. In short, Defendants’ pattern of conduct
– placing perpetrators of childhood sexual abuse into communities
without any warning to families or schools – is ongoing, and creates
a continuing public nuisance. Id.
Br. Gerald Chumik OFM
even if there were no evidence of this pattern of conduct the number of
assaults – not to mention the numerous locations of the assaults
– committed by Defendants’ agents since 1936 make it impossible
and unbelievable for Defendants to claim they were and/or are not aware
of the risk a child in Santa Barbara County faces when he or she comes
into contact with Defendants’ agents. At the least, [page
46 begins] Defendants’ should have known of and protected
children from the risk they faced in Santa Barbara due to the rampant
acts of pedophilia and/or ephebophilia of Defendants’ agents. In
fact, saying Defendants should have known is not accurate,
as the evidence shows that not only should Defendants have known of the
criminal acts of their priests, they repeatedly received actual
notice of the commission of these acts, and constructive
notice of the likelihood of such acts. Unfortunately, the evidence
shows Defendants failed to act in response to this actual notice and took
no steps to protect the children they placed at risk. Instead, Defendants
increased that risk exponentially by concealing from the community the
pedophilic and/or ephebophilic propensities of their agents.
In John Roe
4's case, had Defendants heeded the constructive notice provided by Fr.
Kelly regularly and openly taking adolescent boys to his cabin, or the
actual notice provided by individuals who observed or suffered Fr. Kelly’s
pedophilic behavior, Fr. Kelly’s assaults against John Roe 4 never
would have occurred. For these reasons, plaintiff respectfully requests
the Court grant this Application to Amend his complaint to identify DOES
1 and 2. [page 47 begins]
REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY
further request that the Court keep the concurrently filed Confidential
Certificate of Corroborative Fact under seal and confidential from the
public and all the parties to the litigation pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure § 340.1 which states:
(p) The court shall keep under seal and confidential from the public
and all parties to the litigation, other than the plaintiff, any and
all certificates of corroborative fact filed pursuant to subdivision
|DATED: August 18, 2004
NYE, PEABODY & STIRLING, LLP
|DATED: March 29, 2008
LAW OFFICES OF R. THOMAS GRIFFITH
1. It seems likely the numbers for Los Angeles
are behind those of Boston only because the criminal and civil proceedings
in Los Angeles are in their infancy, and have been delayed and/or stayed
altogether for the last two years.
2. Rather than describe in graphic detail every known
instance of abuse, this Application will simply refer to “sexual
assaults.” The assaults against the victims included fondling, masturbation,
digital penetration, forced oral copulation, and rape.
3. No Santa Barbara County victims have come forward
to date for six of the thirty-one perpetrators identified: Fr. John Wishard;
Fr. Paul Conn; Bishop Patrick Ziemann; Fr. Christopher Kearney; Br. Gerald
Chumik; and Fr. James Ford. However, all of these men have been identified
as perpetrators of childhood sexual abuse in previous and/or current criminal
investigations/prosecutions (Wishard; Conn; Chumik) and/or civil litigation
(Ziemann; Kearney; Ford).
4. For the court's information, the following is being
presented in a more-or-less chronological sequence to outline for the
court the horrendous pattern and practice of priestly abuse to which the
citizens of Santa Barbara County have been subjected over the past decades.
Because many of the victims have not publicly identified themselves as
victims, their identities will remain anonymous in this Application.
5. Both Wolfe and Van Handel would later serve sentences
in state prison for the childhood sexual abuse they committed while at
St. Anthony’s. These two men, along with Fr. Specialle, are the
only perpetrators to have been criminally prosecuted in Santa Barbara
County. Three others (Wishard, Conn and Rodriguez) were prosecuted in
6. Brother Krumm would eventually become Father Krumm.
7. Like Fr. Krumm, Br. Johnson also would go on to become