DAVID L. NYE (Bar #67009) R. THOMAS GRIFFITH (State Bar#118703) Attorneys for Plaintiff |
 |
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
For the County of Santa Barbara, Anacapa Division
JOHN ROE 4 , an individual; Plaintiff, v. Does 1 through 100, Inclusive. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Case No. 1156450 IN CAMERA APPLICATION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO IDENTIFY FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1(m - p) |
[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.
LIST OF PERPETRATORS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION
Plaintiff John Roe 4 applies to this court for permission to amend his complaint to substitute the true names of defendants DOES 1 - 2.
Before Plaintiff 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 of record.
The court’s 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.
Finally, 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 3 begins]
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.
ORDER REQUESTED
Plaintiff 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.”
The concurrently 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
Paragraphs 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
The assaults 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
Paragraphs 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 sexually assaulted.
Additionally, 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.
Further, 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.
Finally, 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 and damages.
1. The Evidence Which Corroborates the Charging Allegations Against DOES 1 - 2
The corroborative 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 scandal.1
Since 1936 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.
The result 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]
However, 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.
The following 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.
This Application 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
Finally, 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
The following 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 be recognized.
As illustrated 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 therein.
A. The First Known Instance of Clergy Abuse in Santa Barbara
 Fr. Owen Da Silva |
Victim #1 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
 Fr. Matthew Kelly |
Unfortunately, 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.
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.
Years later, 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.
Around the
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.
23-25.
When Victim
#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.
Eventually, 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
Fr. Kelly 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.
Like Victim
#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
15 begins]
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
While Fr. 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.
Fr. McKeon, 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.
A husband 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. 36-38.
ii. At Least Two Priests from Our Lady Complain to One of Defendants’ Auxillary Bishops About Fr. Kelly’s Excessive Drinking and “Strange Behavior”
During this 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.
When asked 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.
Priest #1 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.
After approximately 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.
Priest #1 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.
Finally, 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.]
Unfortunately, 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.
With regards 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.
Years later, 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.
Thus, not 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.
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.
Joe recalls 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.
Victim #11 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.
Fr. Kelly 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.
vi. Fr. Mario Cimmarrusti’s Violent Sexual Assaults Against Countless Boys at St. Anthony’s Seminary
 Fr. Mario Cimmarrusti OFM |
In addition 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.
According 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.
In addition 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.
Victim #15 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.
Victim #22 (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 room. Id.
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.
Another student, 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.
Given the 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.
During that 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.
Additionally, 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.
Finally, in approximately 1970 Victim #15 told Br. Kevin Dunne – who later was identified as a perpetrator himself – of the beatings by Fr. Cimmarrusti. Id.
Fr. Cimmarrusti’s 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 assaulted. Id.
vii. Fr. John Hanley’s assaults in Lompoc at Mission La Purisima Concepcion
During this 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 28 begins]
Victim #28 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
The following 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.
 Fr. Robert Van Handel OFM |
In 1975, 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.
|
From 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.
In 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.
On 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.
Not surprisingly,
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.
Despite receiving
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.
|
In approximately 1977, Br. Dave Johnson (Perpetrator #15) – yet another St. Anthony’s alum (Class of ‘67) 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 1977. Id.
Victim #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.
In 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.
Fr. 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.
In 1979, 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 county. Id.
Also 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.
By 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
 Fr. Gustave Krumm OFM |
During the 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[.]
Despite their 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 others. Id.
During this 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.
Similarly, 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.
 Fr. Christopher Berbena OFM |
While young 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.
Another student 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.
In 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.
From 1975 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 38 begins]
From 1982-83 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.
The second 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.
Victim #51 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.
In 1981-82 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.
From 1982-86 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