Ken L. v. Jehovah's Witnesses — Court Documents (2012)

Download: PDF — Ken L. v. Jehovah's Witnesses — Court Documents (2012)

Not a Watch Tower publication

Papers of a civil suit in the United States brought by people who were abused as children by members of Jehovah's Witness congregations: complaints, motions, depositions and rulings, often with the Society's internal letters to elders attached as exhibits.

Court Records: Child Abuse Cases: Court records and official inquiries about how allegations of child sexual abuse were handled in congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses: the exhibits and hearing transcripts of Case Study 29 of Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2015), the 2013 hearing before a committee of the Parliament of Victoria, the papers of civil suits in the United States (including Conti and Lopez) and a judgment of the High Court in London (2015). A handbook for lawyers prepared by former members (2016) summarises these cases from the plaintiffs' side. The court papers are public documents. For a student of the organisation they are among the few sources that show, under oath and with internal letters and instructions attached as evidence, how the written policies for elders — the "two-witness" rule, judicial committees, reporting to authorities, confidentiality — were applied in real cases, and how the Society responded in court and later revised its policies. Petitions and complaints state the plaintiffs' allegations, not findings of a court. They contain distressing accounts of abuse; victims are often named by pseudonyms or initials, as in the originals. The Society's own statements on the subject are in its publications in this archive.

About the Related Works section

Court Documents

Ken L vs Jehovah's Witnesses

Secrets of Pedophilia in an American Religion

Jehovah’s Witnesses in Crisis

BARBARA ANDERSON

Court Documents

Ken L

Jehovah’s Witnesses Rudy Nolen, Esq., SBN 59808

Jonathan Saul, Esq., SBN 189271

William L. Brelsford, Esq.,

SBN 202839

NOLEN SAUL BRELSFORD

350 University Avenue, Suite 280

Sacramento, CA 95825

Telephone: (916) 564-9990

Facsimile: (916) 564-9991

Attorneys for Plaintiff KEN L.

COUNTY OF PLACER

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

KEN L.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROES 1 through 100, inclusive and DOES 110 through 120, inclusive.

Defendants.

CASE NO: 5CV16600

Jury Trial Demanded

Complaint for Damages:

Sexual Battery

Common Law Negligence

Negligent Appointment, Retention, and Supervision

Gross Negligence - Wilful Misconduct

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Breach of Fiduciary Duty 6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Fraud - Intentional Misrepresentation

Fraud - Concealment

Conspiracy

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

COMES NOW KEN L., Plaintiff in the above entitled cause, and files this, his Original Complaint, and alleges as follows:

PARTIES

Plaintiff KEN L., born January 17, 1970, is and at all mentioned herein, was a resident of Placer County, California. At all material times, Plaintiff was also a child entrusted to the Defendants' care within the State of California. As a child, Plaintiff was sexually abused by an elder appointed by the Defendants' organization within the State of California.

Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that at all relevant times, defendants ROES 1 through 100, are business or corporate entities incorporated in and/or doing business in California and DOES 110 through 120, are individuals.

The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of defendants ROES 1 through 100 and DOES 110 through 120, inclusive, are known and unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious names in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§ 340.1 (m) , and will amend the complaint to show the true names and capacities of each known ROE and DOE defendant pursuant to Court Order and to show the true names and capacities of each unknown ROE and DOE defendant when ascertained. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that each defendant designated as a ROE and DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the events, happenings, and/or tortuous, and unlawful conduct that caused the injuries and damages alleged in this complaint.

Defendant designated herein as ROE 1 is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos. ROE 1 is, based upon best information and belief, a corporate religious entity that has engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of ROE 1 is known by Plaintiff and his attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§ 340.1 (m) to plead the true identity of ROE 1.

Defendant designated herein as ROE 2 is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos. ROE 2 is, based upon best information and belief, a corporate religious entity that has engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of ROE 2 is known by Plaintiff and his attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§ 340.1 (m) to plead the true identity of ROE 2.

Defendant designated herein as ROE 3 is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos. ROE 3 is, based upon best information and belief, a corporate religious entity that has engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of ROE 3 is known by Plaintiff and his attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§ 340.1 (m) to plead the true identity of ROE 3.

Defendant designated herein as ROE 4 is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos. ROE 4 is, based upon best information and belief, a corporate religious entity that has engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of ROE 4 is known by Plaintiff and his attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§340.1(m) to plead the true identity of ROE 4.

Defendant DOE 110 is a resident of California and is believed to reside in Colfax, California. DOE 110 is and was, based upon best information and belief, an individual who sexually abused and molested children within the religious organization that he was an agent of, which engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of DOE 110 is known by Plaintiff and his attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§340.1(m) to plead the true identity of DOE 110.

The Defendant entities are collectively referred to herein as the "ROE DEFENDANTS" and each is the agent, servant and alter ego of each other and operates as a single business enterprise. Each Defendant was acting within the scope and course of his or its authority as an agent, servant, and/or alter ego of the other and each of them engaged in, joined in and conspired with the other wrongdoers in carrying out the unlawful activities alleged in this complaint.

11.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount exceeding the minimum jurisdictional requirements of this Court.

Venue is proper in Placer County, California because most of the acts or omissions that give rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in Placer County, California and Defendant ROE 4 is a resident of Placer County.

III.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

In the past, certain Elders, Ministerial Servants, Pioneers, agents, volunteers and other leaders and representatives of the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization, including DOE 110, have used their appointed positions of authority within the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization to sexually abuse minors, including Plaintiff. The ROE DEFENDANTS were notified of the abuse of these minors by their appointed Elder, DOE 110, and others, but intentionally concealed this information and continued to place DOE 110 in positions of authority where he could abuse children while pursuing activities within the scope of his appointment. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of Plaintiff and other minor children entrusted to their care and to prevent future acts of molestation. This suit seeks compensation for Plaintiff who was a victim of this sexual abuse.

All paragraphs of this Complaint are based on information and belief, except for those allegations, which pertain to the Plaintiff and his counsel. Plaintiff's information and belief are based upon, inter alia, the investigation conducted to date by Plaintiff and his counsel. Each allegation in this Complaint either has, or is likely to have, evidentiary support upon further investigation and discovery.

The ROE DEFENDANTS' organization has a hierarchical structure in which the GOVERNING BODY, consisting of a small group of men who operate out of various entities within the hierarchical structure, sits at the top of a chain of command that extends over each individual and Defendant entity in the organization including its worldwide operations. These individuals and entities act as agents, servants and alter egos of each other. Authority for actions by the organization and its members derive from the GOVERNING BODY.

All of the Defendants are the agents and servants of each other and are vicariously liable for each other's acts. The ROE DEFENDANTS are so organized and controlled and their affairs are so conducted that they are alter egos of each other and operate as a single business enterprise.

Through its hierarchical structure, the ROE DEFENDANTS assume responsibility for the development, protection and discipline of its membership, especially the children of members. Elders, Ministerial Servants, Pioneers and other leaders are appointed and empowered by the GOVERNING BODY to carry out this responsibility.

To further their goals, the ROE DEFENDANTS authorize male Elders, Ministerial Servants, Pioneers and other appointed male leaders to develop relationships of trust with women, children and families and to assume a role of counselor and advocate for problems that might arise, including claims of child abuse. It is the responsibility of the Elders and those higher in the chain of command, including the GOVERNING BODY, to decide if abuse has occurred and how it should be handled.

Despite knowledge of a problem with sexual abuse of minors by appointed leaders in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization, the ROE DEFENDANTS acted to continue to appoint these sexual offenders to positions of authority with the opportunity to abuse children through activities within the scope of their appointment. The ROE DEFENDANTS demonstrated willful indifference and/or reckless and/or intentional disregard for the interest and safety of the children entrusted to their care. Rather than implement measures to redress and prevent the sexual molestation of these children,the ROE DEFENDANTS engaged in a systematic pattern and practice of suppression of information to cover-up and hide incidents of child molestation from law enforcement and their membership in order to protect the ROE DEFENDANTS' reputation as well as those within the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization who committed acts of sexual molestation against children.

The ROE DEFENDANTS have likewise engaged in the routine practice of maintaining secret archival files regarding sexual abuse by Elders, Ministerial Servants, Pioneers and other appointed leaders in the organization. The existence of these files and the contents thereof were not disclosed or made available to law enforcement authorities or others in order for law enforcement to investigate the crimes of these leaders in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization. The ROE DEFENDANTS furthered this conspiracy of concealment by, among other things, failing to properly report complaints of sexual misconduct to law enforcement authorities, failing to remove molesting leaders or prevent their access to children. Known molesting leaders were reaffirmed as leaders in good standing in the organization and were given authority that permitted continued frequent and unsupervised access to children in the organization.

At all material times, the ROE DEFENDANTS prohibited the victim and/or accuser from warning others or speaking about the matter to anyone under penalty of discipline. Victim/accusers were not permitted to report suspected abuse to outside authorities or to other Publishers within the organization, despite secular laws and duties regarding the reporting of sexual Abuse. Violation of this policy would lead to severe sanctions.

The ROE DEFENDANTS also failed to provide Plaintiff and his family with any notice or warning regarding the past misconduct of, and abuse by, DOE 110. The ROE DEFENDANTS represented to Plaintiff, members and the public that DOE 110 and other leaders were fit to lead, when in fact they were predator pedophiles. The ROE DEFENDANTS knew or had reason to know that DOE 110 and other leader molesters would continue to sexually molest children, using their leadership positions to gain access to and control over their victims.

Prior to 1984, the ROE DEFENDANTS appointed DOE 110 to the leadership position of Elder with authority over women and children in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization.

Beginning by at least 1984, the ROE DEFENDANTS' agent, DOE 110, used his position as an Elder to gain access to children under the care of the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization and to sexually abuse them.

Beginning in 1984 and continuing through approximately 1987,DOE 110 used his position as an Elder and leader in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization to gain access to and sexually abuse Plaintiff, KEN L. KEN L. was approximately fourteen (14) years old when the abuse began. Using his delegated authority as a leader in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization, DOE 110 repeatedly sexually abused KEN L. on ROE DEFENDANTS' premises and during ROE DEFENDANT activities. This sexual abuse included repeated fondling of genitalia and oral sex and occurred regularly in the Kingdom Hall bathroom.

When Plaintiff, KEN L. reported to the ROE DEFENDANTS that their agent, DOE 110, was using his appointed position as an Elder in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization to sexually abuse Plaintiff who was under the organizations' care, they disfellowshipped DOE 110 for having a "poor attitude" but took no other steps to hold him accountable or to otherwise notify members and the families of the children whom they had placed under the authority of their agent, DOE 110. They did not report the abuse to authorities and instructed Plaintiff and his family to keep silent.

Plaintiff's position as a minor in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization, as well DOE 110'S position as a spiritual leader and authority figure in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization allowed him to maintain control and influence over Plaintiff. The ROE DEFENDANTS enabled DOE 110 to abuse Plaintiff and others by appointing him to positions of authority to engage in activities that gave him access to children, and then actively concealing his ongoing sexual abuse.

The ROE DEFENDANTS, each of them, used their positions in the organization to aid and abet DOE 110 and other leaders in the sexual abuse and exploitation of minors in the organization and in furtherance of the conspiracy to conceal the sexual molestation occurring within the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization.

The ROE DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that their appointed agent, DOE 110 was using his position of authority in the organization to gain access to and sexually molest and physically abuse adolescents under the care of the organization on ROE DEFENDANTS' premises and during ROE DEFENDANT activities. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to notify anyone that their agent, DOE 110 had sexually molested Plaintiff who was under the ROE DEFENDANTS' care. They further failed to take any steps to protect Plaintiff from his abuse. Instead, they knowingly concealed this information from Plaintiff and others, thereby aiding and abetting the abuse.

When the ROE DEFENDANTS received reports of their agent's acts of sexual abuse against Plaintiff who was entrusted to their care, the ROE DEFENDANTS assumed the exclusive responsibility for dealing with the problem. They instructed Plaintiff and his family that they should leave the matter to the ROE DEFENDANTS to handle. The ROE DEFENDANTS chose not to report the abuse to law enforcement authorities nor did they warn any other members of the organization that they had appointed a dangerous pedophile to positions of leadership with authority over children. They did not act to help Plaintiff or his family deal with the trauma of abuse and actively prevented them from obtaining help from trained professionals and other available sources. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to take appropriate steps to hold their agent, DOE 110, accountable for his conduct or to assist him in addressing his propensities.

DOE 110 used the authority of his position in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization to gain access to and sexually abuse Plaintiff. The ROE DEFENDANTS directly and vicariously caused foreseeable harm to Plaintiff by, among other things:

a. aiding and abetting the abuse of children by their appointed agents; b.

blaming, humiliating, sanctioning and/or disciplining victims/accusers of sexual abuse instead of the perpetrator;

c. refusing to report such sexual abuse, including the abuse by DOE 110 to law enforcement and governmental child welfare agencies and requiring that members not make such reports;

d. refusing to warn Plaintiff, his family, and others of the risk of abuse by DOE 110 after they knew or should have known of his propensities to use his positions of leadership to engage in acts of sexual abuse against children entrusted to the ROE DEFENDANTS' care;

e. negligently failing to train its Elders, Overseers, Ministerial Servants and other appointed leaders to identify, investigate, prevent and respond to or report child abuse;

f. negligently failing to adopt adequate policies and procedures for the protection of children and other members and/or to implement and comply with such procedures that did exist;

g. failing to properly investigate matters brought to the ROE DEFENDANTS' attention involving child sexual abuse and/or suspicions of child sexual abuse;

h. negligently failing to provide child abuse victims and their families with assistance in coping with the trauma of abuse and preventing Plaintiff and his family from reporting the abuse to outside authorities and obtaining outside help to deal with the trauma of abuse;

I. negligently appointing, retaining and failing to properly supervise DOE 110 as a leader in the organization or to monitor his activities after they knew or should have known of his propensities to use his position of leadership to engage in acts of sexual abuse.

IV.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

SEXUAL BATTERY

Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff alleges that for a number of years, beginning in 1986, Defendant DOE 110 repeatedly engaged in un-permitted, harmful, and offensive sexual contact upon the person of Plaintiff, as described herein, without Plaintiff's consent, committing sexual abuse upon the person of Plaintiff in the State of California as referenced in Code of Civil Procedure \§ 340.1.

As a legal result of Defendant DOE 110'S conduct as described hereinabove,

Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of selfesteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, Plaintiff was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 32 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff alleges, at all times herein mentioned, that the ROE DEFENDANTS assumed a duty to protect Plaintiff from sexual predators within the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization. The ROE DEFENDANTS further knew or should have known that Plaintiff was at risk of foreseeable harm by their agent, DOE 110, but failed to act to protect him from said harm.

The ROE DEFENDANTS breached their duty to Plaintiff, thereby causing great harm to Plaintiff.

As a legal result of Defendants' conduct as described hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of selfesteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, Plaintiff was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. Plaintiff has incurred and will incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT APPOINTMENT, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION

Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 35 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff alleges, at all times herein mentioned, that the ROE DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of their agents, DOE 110'S, propensities to use his position as a leader in the local congregation to engage in acts of sexual abuse. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to adequately investigate, evaluate, and otherwise research the background of their agent, DOE 110, prior to appointing him to leadership positions and entrusting children to his care.

Plaintiff further alleges that after DOE 110 was appointed by ROE DEFENDANTS acting on behalf of and under the supervision of the ROE DEFENDANTS, ROE DEFENDANTS failed to adequately investigate, evaluate, monitor and supervise the conduct of their agent, DOE 110, during his interactions with children entrusted to his care by ROE DEFENDANTS.

Plaintiff further alleges that ROE DEFENDANTS failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff and his family of their agent's dangerous propensities and unfitness to lead.

Plaintiff further alleges the ROE DEFENDANTS negligently investigated, appointed, retained and supervised DOE 110 in the organization at a time when they knew or should have known of his propensities to use his appointed position to engage in acts of sexual abuse against Plaintiff and other young children under the ROE DEFENDANTS' care.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION GROSS NEGLIGENCE/WILFUL MISCONDUCT

Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff alleges, at all times herein mentioned, that the ROE DEFENDANTS demonstrated a conscious indifference to the safety and welfare of Plaintiff, who knew or should have known of the dangerous propensities of their agent, DOE 110, yet failed to act to protect the health, safety and welfare of children in the custody and care of ROE DEFENDANTS, thereby allowing Plaintiff to be sexually abused. But for the ROE DEFENDANTS' wilful misconduct and gross negligence in failing to implement safeguards to protect Plaintiff, in violation of ROE DEFENDANTS' duty to protect the children entrusted to their and DOE 110'S care and custody, the sexual abuse would have been prevented. 44. Plaintiff further alleges that ROE DEFENDANTS' actions, constituting wilful misconduct and gross negligence described hereinabove, caused significant mental, emotional, and physical injuries as a result of the acts of sexual abuse described hereinabove.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff alleges, at all times herein mentioned, that by holding DOE 110 out as a qualified Elder and leader in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization, and by undertaking the religious instruction and spiritual and emotional counseling of Plaintiff, the ROE DEFENDANTS, created a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. The ROE DEFENDANTS were in positions of trust and confidence with Plaintiff and such relationship imposed on them a duty to act to protect Plaintiff's best interests.

Plaintiff further alleges that because of this special relationship, Plaintiff and his family placed their trust and confidence in the ROE DEFENDANTS to protect him from harm and to warn Plaintiff of potential harm. This conduct was a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiff by ROE DEFENDANTS.

Plaintiff has sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. Plaintiff has incurred and will incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference and re-alleges paragraphs 1 though 49 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff alleges ROE DEFENDANTS purposefully, intentionally, and after much deliberation, engaged in a pattern of conduct, as described more fully hereinabove, designed and intended to cover up allegations, acts, and investigations pertaining to sexual abuse suffered by children in their organization including, but not limited to, Plaintiff.

Plaintiff further alleges ROE DEFENDANTS' conduct of quelling complaints of sexual abuse by Plaintiff and others created a dangerous environment for Plaintiff and others to be sexually abused by members and agents in good standing within ROE DEFENDANTS' organization.

Plaintiff further alleges that after ROE DEFENDANTS were on notice that their members and agents, including Defendant DOE 110, were sexually abusing Plaintiff and others, ROE DEFENDANTS purposefully, intentionally and deliberately took action to prohibit and prevent Plaintiff and his family from reporting the acts of sexual abuse to legal or secular authorities, where Plaintiff and his family could have obtained assistance to address, prevent and/or resolve the continuous sexual abuse and its residual aftereffects.

Plaintiff further alleges that ROE DEFENDANTS' conduct was extreme and outrageous and exceeded the bounds tolerated by any civilized community because they purposefully, intentionally and deliberately engaged in a pattern and practice of quelling complaints by Plaintiff and his family of the sexual abuse inflicted by ROE DEFENDANTS' members and agents. Additionally, their conduct was outrageous based on their knowledge, imputed or otherwise, that their member Defendant DOE 110 sexually abused other organization members since at least 1980, yet refrained from taking any action whatsoever to prevent or prohibit Defendant DOE 110 from sexually abusing Plaintiff, or to protect Plaintiff from being sexually abused by Defendant DOE 110.

Plaintiff further alleges that ROE DEFENDANTS intended to cause Plaintiff emotional distress by engaging in the above described conduct in order to prevent harm their organization's reputation and to avoid civil liability.

Plaintiff further alleges that ROE DEFENDANTS acted with reckless disregard of the of the probability that Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress, knowing that Plaintiff was present when the conduct was occurring, on-going and continuing to occur because of inaction on the part of ROE DEFENDANTS to protect Plaintiff entrusted to their care from sexual abuse.

As a result of ROE DEFENDANTS' extreme and outrageous conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continue to suffer extreme emotional distress and that ROE DEFENDANTS' conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress.

As a legal result of Defendants' conduct as described hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of selfesteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, Plaintiff was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD - INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION

Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff alleges that after receiving reports that their member Defendant DOE 110, who remained in good standing at all times mentioned herein, was sexually abusing adolescents prior to abusing Plaintiff, the ROE DEFENDANTS willfully and intentionally kept the information from Plaintiff, Plaintiff's family, other victims similarly situated and the community-at-large. The ROE DEFENDANTS intentionally misrepresented to Plaintiff and his family that Defendant DOE 110 was a member in good standing, could be trusted, and could interact with Plaintiff and other children, and could be safe during these interactions. The ROE DEFENDANTS further intentionally misrepresented that they would act in the best interests of Plaintiff and other children entrusted to their care. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to disclose that they knew of Defendant DOE 110'S propensities to use his position of authority to sexually abuse Plaintiff and others and that they were doing nothing to protect the children, including Plaintiff, entrusted their care. Plaintiff did not know of the falsity of the ROE DEFENDANTS' representations, and were entitled to rely upon them, and did in fact rely upon them causing them serious injury and harm.

Plaintiff further alleges that by holding out Defendant DOE 110 as a member in good standing and allowing him to maintain a position of authority in the organization, allowed to interact with Plaintiff, and representing to Plaintiff and his families that Defendant DOE 110 could be trusted by Plaintiff to be free from being sexually abused, the ROE DEFENDANTS and each of them entered into a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff based on their direction and guidance required to be followed based on Plaintiff's membership in the organization.

Plaintiff further alleges that as fiduciaries to Plaintiff, the ROE DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had a duty to obtain and disclose information relating to sexual misconduct by their member and agent, Defendant DOE 110, who at all times mentioned herein was held out to Plaintiff to be a member in good standing and leader who could be trusted. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to disclose and later conspired to conceal such information from Plaintiff.

Plaintiff further alleges that ROE DEFENDANTS representations that Defendant DOE 110 was member in good standing and a leader who could be trusted by other members of the congregations, including Plaintiff, were false.

Plaintiff further alleges that ROE DEFENDANTS knew that by protecting Defendant DOE 110 and holding him out as a member in good standing and a leader who could be trusted despite knowing he was a sexual abuser, they were intentionally deceiving their other congregation members, including Plaintiff, and did so recklessly without regard for the truth.

Plaintiff further alleges that ROE DEFENDANTS intended for Plaintiff to rely on their misrepresentations regarding Defendant DOE 110'S propensities to sexually abuse and molest children entrusted to their care.

Plaintiff further alleges that they reasonably relied on ROE DEFENDANTS' misrepresentations regarding Defendant DOE 110 and that their reliance was a substantial factor in causing their harm.

As a legal result of Defendants' conduct as described hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of selfesteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, Plaintiff was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD - CONCEALMENT

Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 67 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff alleges he had a fiduciary and special relationship with ROE DEFENDANTS, who agreed to look out for his best interest and protect him from dangers of the world, including from sexual abuse from known sexual molesters, as described more fully above.

Plaintiff further alleges ROE DEFENDANTS intentionally failed to disclose important facts to Plaintiff, namely that Defendant DOE 110, a known sexual abuser, was safe be around and that they could interact with Defendant DOE 110 despite ROE DEFENDANTS' knowledge of Defendant DOE 110'S propensities to sexual molest and abuse children such as Plaintiff.

Plaintiff further alleges ROE DEFENDANTS intentionally failed to disclose important facts regarding Defendant DOE 110'S propensities to sexually molest and abuse children, which was known by ROE DEFENDANTS and their agents. Plaintiff was not able to discover by their own means that Defendant DOE 110 was prone to sexually molest and abuse children, until after the sexual abuse, described more fully above, had already occurred.

Plaintiff further alleges ROE DEFENDANTS actively concealed important facts regarding Defendant DOE 110'S propensities to sexually molest and abuse children, such as Plaintiff, and prevented Plaintiff from discovering these facts.

Plaintiff further alleges he did not know of the facts concealed by ROE DEFENDANTS regarding Defendant DOE 110'S propensities to sexually abuse children, such as Plaintiff.

Plaintiff further alleges he reasonably relied on ROE DEFENDANTS deception regarding their concealing the facts pertaining to Defendant DOE 110'S propensities to sexually abuse children and interacted with Defendant DOE 110 believing him to be safe and in good standing, as conveyed by ROE DEFENDANTS' holding out Defendant DOE 110 to be a member in good standing and a leader who could be trusted.

Plaintiff further alleges he was harmed by ROE DEFENDANTS' concealment of these important facts, which were substantial factors in causing harm to Plaintiff.

Further, Plaintiff was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION CONSPIRACY

Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 76 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

The ROE DEFENDANTS, in concert with each other and with the intent to conceal, defraud, and misrepresent, conspired to misrepresent, conceal and fail to disclose information relating to the sexual misconduct of their member and appointed agent who they held out to be in good standing and to be trusted, Defendant DOE 110 to Plaintiff. By concealing such information, the ROE DEFENDANTS and each of them committed at least one act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

As a legal result of Defendants' conduct as described hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of selfesteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, Plaintiff was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the ROE DEFENDANTS individually, jointly and severally as follows:

For general damages according to proof;

For past and future loss of earnings according to proof;

For past and future medical expenses according to proof;

For prejudgment interest;

For costs of suit incurred herein; and

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: 10/31/03

NOLEN SAUL BRELSFORD

Rudy Nolen, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Ken L. v. Jehovah's Witnesses — Court Documents (2012)