DAVID L. NYE (Bar #67009)
TIMOTHY C. HALE (Bar #184882)
33 West Mission St., Suite 201
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 963-2345
Facsimile: (805) 563-5385

R. THOMAS GRIFFITH (State Bar#118703)
Post Office Box 20002
Santa Barbara, CA 93120
Telephone: (805) 965 4323
Facsimile: (805) 965 4323

Attorneys for Plaintiff


For the County of Santa Barbara, Anacapa Division

JOHN ROE 4 , an individual;



Does 1 through 100, Inclusive.


Case No. 1156450


Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1(m - p)

[Note: This webpage was created by 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.







a. The Charging Allegations of Childhood Sexual Abuse by the Perpetrator


1. The Evidence Which Corroborates the Charging Allegation of Childhood Sexual Abuse


b. The Charging Allegations Against DOES 1 - 2


1. The Evidence Which Corroborates the Charging Allegations Against DOES 1 - 2




A. The First Known Instance of Clergy Abuse in Santa Barbara


B. The 1940's-1950's: Fr. Kelly and Our Lady of Guadalupe


i. Fr. Kelly’s Assaults Against Victim #3


ii. Fr. Kelly’s Assaults Against Victim #2


iii. Express Notice to Defendants of Fr. Kelly’s Assaults and Propensities in 1957 and/or 1958


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


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


ii. At Least Two Priests from Our Lady Complain to One of Defendants’ Auxillary Bishops About Fr. Kelly’s Excessive Drinking and “Strange Behavior”


iv. Fr. Kelly’s Assaults Against Victim #10


v. Fr. Kelly’s Assaults Against Plaintiff, Victim #11


vi. Fr. Mario Cimmarrusti’s Violent Sexual Assaults Against Countless Boys at St. Anthony’s Seminary


vii. Fr. John Hanley’s assaults in Lompoc at Mission La Purisima Concepcion


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


E. The 1980's: Defendants’ Transfers of Perpetrators in and Out of Santa Barbara County Continues, and Spreads to New Locations


i. Defendants Continue to Ignore Reports of Abuse


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


i. The Board of Inquiry







  1 Fr. Owen Da Silva OFM   11 Fr. Steven Kain OFM   21 Fr. Michael Terra
  2 Fr. Matthew Kelly   12 Fr. Philip Wolfe OFM   22 Fr. Chris Berbena OFM
  3 Fr. Martin McKeon OFM   13 Ed Byrom   23 Fr. Roger Anderson
  4 Fr. Mario Cimmarrusti OFM   14 Br. Tom Thing OFM   24 Name Unknown
  5 Fr. John J. Hanley   15 Br. David Johnson OFM   25 Fr. Stephen E. Specialle
  6 Fr. Robert Van Handel OFM   16 Fr. David Carriere OFM   26 Br. Berard Connolly OFM
  7 Br. Kevin Dunne OFM   17 Fr. Willebaldo Castro   27 Fr. Carlos Rene Rodriguez
  8 Fr. John H. Dawson   18 Fr. John Wishard   28 Bishop Patrick Ziemann
  9 Br. Samuel Cabot OFM   19 Br. Gus Krumm OFM   29 Fr. Christopher Kearney OFM Cap
10 Fr. Donald Patrick Roemer   20 Fr. Paul Conn   30 Fr. James M. Ford
            31 Br. Gerald Chumik OFM]

          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.



          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.


          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
          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.

          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
          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.

          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.

i. Fr. Kelly’s Assaults Against Victim #3

          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.

ii. Fr. Kelly’s Assaults Against Victim #2

          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.]

iv. Fr. Kelly’s Assaults Against Victim #10

          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.

v. Fr. Kelly’s Assaults Against Plaintiff, Victim #11

          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
          As Defendants 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.

          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
          These 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.

          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.

Br. Kevin Dunne OFM

Br. Samuel Cabot OFM

          In 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.

          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.

Fr. Stephen Kain OFM

Tom Thing

Br. David Johnson OFM

Fr. David Carriere OFM

          Due 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.

          In 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 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 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 35 begins]

          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
          Yet 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.

          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 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.

          From 1983-88 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.

          From 1984-87 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.

          From 1985-92 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.

          In 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.

Br. Berard Connolly OFM
          In 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.

          In 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.

          Before Defendants 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.

Bishop G. Patrick Ziemann
          Shortly 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.

i. Defendants Continue to Ignore Reports of Abuse

          In 1982, 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.

          Victim #14 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

          Despite St. 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

          In 1992, 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.

          Defendants’ 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.”

          Meanwhile, 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.

Fr. James M. Ford
          Fr. 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.

          A little 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.

Br. Gerald Chumik OFM
          The 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.

          Finally, 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]



          Plaintiffs 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 (n).

DATED: August 18, 2004

Respectfully submitted,


DATED: March 29, 2008




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 other counties.

6. Brother Krumm would eventually become Father Krumm.

7. Like Fr. Krumm, Br. Johnson also would go on to become Fr. Johnson.















Any original material on these pages is copyright © 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.