Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 56

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 8, 2013

Six More Men File Lawsuits Against the Archdiocese of Santa Fe Ten total now claim child sexual abuse by northern New Mexico Priest, Fr. Michael OBrien.

For more information, contact:

Attorney Brad D. Hall at 505.255.6300 or 505.400.1192 or brad@bhallfirm.com Attorney Kelly Clark at 503.306.0224 or 503.407.7381 or kellyc@oandc.com Albuquerque, New Mexico Six more former catholic youths have filed complaints against the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, for the alleged sexual abuse they suffered by a Catholic priest, Fr Michael OBrien, who was assigned to several parishes in Northern New Mexico during the 1970's and 1980's. Four earlier suits were filed in April with similar allegations arising from OBriens tenure at churches in Questa, Las Vegas, and Taos. The six new lawsuits, like the first four, allege that the Archdiocese was negligent in failing to properly screen, train, and supervise Fr. O'Brien, while fostering a culture that allowed pedophiles to flourish, resulting in the boys abuse. All six of the new complaints were filed in Bernallilo County by Albuquerque attorney Brad D. Hall, who will associate on the cases with attorney Kelly Clark, of the Portland, Oregon law firm of ODonnell Clark & Crew LLP. Hall remarked, "It is now clear that there are O'Brien victims spread over half the state, from Estancia to Taos, from Peasco to Vegas to Questa. These six more suits represent brave individuals who have come forward. They are hurting after years of silent suffering, and we believe we can get them to the professionals they need as a result of filing these claims for them. Kelly Clark, who has twenty years of representing victim of sexual abuse, stated, "These people often feel that they are the only one, but then they come to learn that there were others. Then they feel emboldened to speak out, and often to take steps to seek justice for themselves. The six new suits are on behalf of men who range in age from their late thirties to mid 50s, who all claim a similar pattern of abuse. The abuse of the boys ranged from molestation to rape, and was carried out on various occasions and

locations. This abuse took its toll on each of the young victims. For example, after being raped by OBrien on one occasion, one of the boys contemplated committing suicide with his fathers gun, only to decide that he needed to keep living, somehow. Anyone who has information regarding this matter is encouraged to contact Brad Hall or Kelly Clark at the numbers listed below: Attorney Brad D. Hall at 505.255.6300 or 505.400.1192 email brad@bhallfirm.com Attorney Kelly Clark at 503.306.0224 or 503.407.7381 email kellyc@oandc.com

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO JOHN DOE 5, Plaintiff, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FE, and SAN FRANCISCO DE ASIS PARISH, Ranchos de Taos, Defendants. D-202-CV-2013-03934

FILED IN MY OFFICE DISTRICT COURT CLERK 5/6/2013 10:33:06 AM GREGORY T. IRELAND Catherine Chavez

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PREVENT SEXUAL ABUSE, SEXUAL ABUSE, AND RELATED CLAIMS Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, states as his complaint: 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Taos County, New Mexico. Plaintiff is John Doe 5 among multiple victims of childhood sexual abuse who are bringing claims as part of their efforts at recovery and healing. Plaintiff John Doe 5 lives in Taos County. 2. On information and belief Defendant Archdiocese of Santa Fe (hereinafter Archdiocese) is a New Mexico corporation which operates or has operated facilities in northern New Mexico, including in Taos County, New Mexico, including San Francisco de Asis in Ranchos de Taos, and also has offices and does business in Bernalillo County. 3. On information and belief, San Francisco de Asis Parish (hereinafter the Parish) is a Roman Catholic Church, which operates or has operated facilities at St. Francis Plaza, in Ranchos De Taos, Taos County, New Mexico. 4. Father Michael OBrien was a Roman Catholic priest employed by the Archdiocese and assigned to San Francisco de Asis Parish in the early1980s, after working in other 1

parishes in northern New Mexico. Father OBrien was assigned to the Parish well after the Archdiocese knew or should have known about his troubling relationships with boys in other New Mexico communities. 5. Father Michael OBrien, or Father Mike, was a pedophile priest in the 1970s and 1980s. He groomed, abused and raped Plaintiff in Taos County in 1980-1981 when Plaintiff was fifteen and sixteen years old, after having abused numerous other boys in other northern New Mexico communities. 6. The Defendant Archdiocese knew or should have known that Father Mike was a pedophile priest, and certainly knew that Father OBrien had complete and unbridled access to children, like Plaintiff, who attended its Parish churches in northern New Mexico. 7. Defendant San Francisco de Asis Parish knew, or should have known, that Fr. OBrien was a pedophile priest. Likewise, the Parish knew, or should have known, that Fr. OBrien had unbridled access to children, like Plaintiff, who attended the Parish church in Taos. 8. Plaintiffs mother trusted that Plaintiff would be safe from harm caused by sexual predators like Father Mike while on the premises of the Parish, and while on trips and pilgrimages with the priest, and that he would be safe from harm caused specifically by employees, agents and other representatives of the Catholic Church employed by Defendants. 9. After Plaintiff was groomed, fondled and abused in 1980 as a teenager by Fr. OBrien, Plaintiff was sexually abused seven more times, ultimately including rape. The abuse typically began with what Fr. OBrien called massage time for practicing the 2

pilgrimages. The abuse of John Doe 5 took place in the rectory, and at Ojo Caliente Hot Springs. Later, after two years in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Germany in the Gulf War, Plaintiff confronted Father OBrien and demanded he leave the priesthood, who responded to the effect of I know, Im working on it, pray for me. 10. Although the actions giving rise to this complaint occurred in the early1980s, the damages inflicted amount to a lifetimes worth of emotional harm and turmoil. Plaintiff could not and did not fully articulate what occurred to him as a boy until recently, and is only now seeking professional help, and beginning to realize and connect the harm caused him by the actions of Defendants in sheltering and housing a pedophile priest. 11. Each sexual act performed by Fr. OBrien with Plaintiff was, as a matter of law then and now, criminal sexual contact or criminal sexual penetration (rape). The rapes of Plaintiff by the Catholic priest caused profound harm to Plaintiff. The survival strategies used by children may have worked to help get him through his 20s and 30s, but no longer work, especially as Plaintiff has begun to realize the extent of the harm caused to his entire family by the Catholic priest. 12. Plaintiff is only now realizing and coming to grips with: the nature of the abuse, the superior knowledge of Defendants of the existence of pedophilia and abuse in their organization, and the fact that he sustained severe injury as a result of horrific childhood sexual abuse. A brother in the mid-1980s slit his wrists, and Plaintiff is only now beginning to connect events from his family life with the pernicious involvement of Father OBrien. Plaintiff is only now obtaining for the first time in over thirty years, professional mental health counseling specifically regarding these criminal acts of abuse by a priest, and the acts of Defendants in connection with negligently allowing or 3

fostering sexual abuse of children as a matter of institutional culture. 13. Defendants Archdiocese and Parish knew or should have known of Fr. OBriens sexual abuse of children, and did nothing to stop it, or warn or provide counseling to the Plaintiff or his family members, in the late 1970s or early1980s, or anytime thereafter. Indeed, Defendants were part and parcel involved with the development and maintenance of a culture that negligently or recklessly allowed and fostered sexual criminals and crimes against children. 14. The Archdiocese of Santa Fe knew that priests who engaged in sexual abuse of children could not be treated or cured with prayer, were a continued danger to the safety of children, and should never be introduced to a parish setting where they would have unsupervised access to children. Indeed, upon information and belief, a few suspicious parents and church elders in other communities where Defendant had assigned Fr. Mike raised concerns about his behavior with boys, specifically in Taos, but Defendant merely transferred Fr. Mike to other New Mexico parishes. 15. Despite the known danger pedophile priests posed to the catholic children of northern New Mexico, Defendants not only agreed to place known or likely pedophile priests into New Mexico parishes, including San Francisco de Asis Parish in Taos County, but deliberately chose to conceal the fact of the priests problems, including likely pedophilia, from parish communities. 16. Whether or not the Archdiocese and Parish knew horrid details about Fr. OBriens crimes against young males, Defendants had a duty to keep the Church premises safe for use by the Plaintiff, and did not do so, and had a duty to protect its children from pedophile priests, but failed. 4

17. In an historical era of rampant, unchecked sexual abuse of minor children by Catholic priests, and given the historical backdrop of same, the Archdiocese and Parish had duties to conduct careful background checks and screening of priests, to keep children safe from the harms caused by pedophilia and child rape. Defendants did not do so, or ignored what was learned in the background checks. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the childhood sexual abuse, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer, severe emotional distress including suicide attempts, embarrassment, humiliation, utter destruction and loss of faith, loss of sexual capacity and intimacy, loss of self-esteem, alcoholism, and other damages. He has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for psychological treatment, therapy and counseling. Plaintiff is entitled to all compensation allowable under New Mexico jury instructions for harms caused by Defendants.

COUNT 1 BATTERY 19. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 20. The conduct of Fr. OBrien occurred while he was employed and/or under the supervision and control of the Archdiocese and Parish, and while acting within the course and scope of his employment. The Defendants and each of them are responsible for the injuries to Plaintiff proximately resulting from the conduct by Fr. OBrien. 21. Father OBriens criminal sexual contacts and rapes of Plaintiff are legally cognizable as battery, among other things. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the batteries, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to 5

suffer damages as described above. 23. The batteries were willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including Plaintiff, and subject the Defendants, and each of them, to punitive damages, to the extent conduct of Defendants caused the batteries. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants in an amount sufficiently reasonable to compensate Plaintiff for damages as described above, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT II FAILURE TO USE ORDINARY CARE TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE 24. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 25. Defendants failed to guard against or warn the Plaintiff or his parents of the dangers which Defendants knew or reasonably should have known existed at their church arising from placement of Father OBrien at the Parish, including, but not limited to the risk of harm posed to Plaintiff. 26. The Archdiocese and Parish had an obligation to keep the premises safe and failed to do so. 27. Defendants duties regarding theories of premises liability were enhanced by special relationships, and by awareness of the existence of an institutional culture that allowed and even fostered pedophilia. 28. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 6

29. The conduct was willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages as described above, including punitive damages, for interest including pre-judgment interest, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT III NEGLIGENCE 30. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 31. The Archdiocese and Parish were negligent by, among other things: (a) supervision, hiring and retention of Fr. OBrien; (b) by allowing children to be unsupervised around Father Mike in a culture where a significant number of priests in New Mexico were engaged in pedophilia and sex crimes against children; (c) by keeping Fr. OBrien employed as a priest and protected within a culture of other priests with tendencies to sexually molest children or commit crimes against children; (d) by fostering a culture and employment climate that attracted pedophiles, as a matter of pattern and practice, because the pedophiles knew they would be protected and never prosecuted; (e) by failing to warn parents and children of the danger of pedophile priests and by failing to train parents and children in measures to protect themselves against harm caused by such priests; (f) by sometimes failing to learn who the pedophiles even were, during a time when apparently a quarter or more of the priests being sent into New Mexicos parishes were pedophiles; (g) by pretending they did not know who the pedophiles even were that 7

came directly from treatment centers in the east, or from treatment centers in Jemez Springs, with certain code words in their files and history; or (h) were negligent per se and otherwise acted in an unsafe and unreasonable manner. 32. In addition to direct negligence, the Archdiocese and Parish are vicariously liable for the conduct of Fr. OBrien via the doctrine of respondeat superior, especially given Fr. OBriens awareness of the harm he was causing, as admitted to Plaintiff herein. 33. Defendants are directly negligent regardless of their denial of knowledge of the specific details of pedophilia by this or any other pedophile priest. Plaintiff understands that bishops and employees of the Archdiocese were not present when their priest raped him. 34. Defendants are negligent vicariously for the particular conduct of this priest. 35. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 36. The conduct outlined above was willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT IV NEGLIGENT AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 37. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 8

38. The conduct of the Archdiocese and the Parish regarding the predatory acts of Fr. OBrien, constitutes negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress on the Plaintiff. 39. As a direct and proximate result of such conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages as described above. 40. Such actions were willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. KELLY CLARK O'Donnell Clark & Crew LLP 1650 NW Naito Parkway, Suite 302 Portland, OR 97209-2534 (503) 306-0224, (503) 306-0257 Fax -andLAW OFFICE OF BRAD D. HALL /s/ Brad D. Hall 05/06/13 BRAD D. HALL 320 Gold Av SW #1218 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 255-6300, (505) 255-6323 Fax

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO JOHN DOE 6, Plaintiff, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FE, and SAN FRANCISCO DE ASIS PARISH, Ranchos de Taos, Defendants. D-202-CV-2013-03935

FILED IN MY OFFICE DISTRICT COURT CLERK 5/6/2013 10:45:55 AM GREGORY T. IRELAND

Catherine Chavez

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PREVENT SEXUAL ABUSE, SEXUAL ABUSE, AND RELATED CLAIMS Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, states as his complaint: 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Taos County, New Mexico. Plaintiff is John Doe 6 among multiple victims of childhood sexual abuse who are bringing claims as part of their efforts at recovery and healing. Plaintiff John Doe 6 lives in Taos County. 2. On information and belief Defendant Archdiocese of Santa Fe (hereinafter Archdiocese) is a New Mexico corporation which operates or has operated facilities in northern New Mexico, including in Taos County, New Mexico, including San Francisco de Asis in Ranchos de Taos, and also has offices and does business in Bernalillo County. 3. On information and belief, San Francisco de Asis Parish (hereinafter the Parish) is a Roman Catholic Church, which operates or has operated facilities at St. Francis Plaza, in Ranchos De Taos, Taos County, New Mexico. 4. Father Michael OBrien was a Roman Catholic priest employed by the Archdiocese and assigned to San Francisco de Asis Parish in the 1970s and 1980s, after working in other 1

parishes in northern New Mexico. Father OBrien was assigned to the Parish well after the Archdiocese knew or should have known about his troubling relationships with boys in other New Mexico communities. 5. Father Michael OBrien, or Father Mike, was a pedophile priest in the 1970s and 1980s. He groomed, abused and raped Plaintiff in Taos County from about 1975-1980 starting when Plaintiff was fifteen years old, after having abused numerous other boys in other northern New Mexico communities. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, after approximately twenty counts of criminal sexual contact and penetration of Plaintiff, Father OBrien began abusing a younger relative of Plaintiff. 6. The Defendant Archdiocese knew or should have known that Father Mike was a pedophile priest, and certainly knew that Father OBrien had complete and unbridled access to children, like Plaintiff, who attended its Parish churches in northern New Mexico. 7. Defendant San Francisco de Asis Parish knew, or should have known, that Fr. OBrien was a pedophile priest. Likewise, the Parish knew, or should have known, that Fr. OBrien had unbridled access to children, like Plaintiff, who attended the Parish church in Taos. 8. Plaintiffs mother trusted that Plaintiff would be safe from harm caused by sexual predators like Father Mike while on the premises of the Parish, and while on trips and pilgrimages with the priest, and that her son would be safe from harm caused specifically by employees, agents and other representatives of the Catholic Church employed by Defendants. 9. After Plaintiff was groomed, fondled and abused in about 1976 as a teenager by Fr. 2

OBrien, Plaintiff was sexually abused approximately twenty more times. The abuse typically began with what Fr. OBrien called massage time for practicing the pilgrimages, and usually involved plying the teen with alcohol. The abuse of John Doe 6 took place in the rectory at the Defendant Parish premises, and at Ojo Caliente Hot Springs. 10. Although the actions giving rise to this complaint occurred in the late 1970s, the damages inflicted amount to a lifetimes worth of emotional harm and turmoil. Plaintiff could not and did not fully articulate what occurred to him as a boy until recently, and is only now seeking professional help, and beginning to realize and connect the harm caused him by the actions of Defendants in sheltering and housing a pedophile priest. 11. Each of about twenty oral penetrations performed by Fr. OBrien with Plaintiff was, as a matter of law then and now, criminal sexual contact and criminal sexual penetration (rape). The rapes of Plaintiff by the Catholic priest caused profound harm to Plaintiff. The survival strategies used by children may have worked to help get him through his 20s, 30s and 40s, but no longer work, especially as Plaintiff has begun to realize the extent of the harm caused to his entire family by the Catholic priest. 12. Plaintiff is only now realizing and coming to grips with: the nature of the abuse, the superior knowledge of Defendants of the existence of pedophilia and abuse in their organization, and the fact that he sustained severe injury as a result of horrific childhood sexual abuse. Plaintiff is only now obtaining for the first time in over thirty years, professional mental health counseling specifically regarding these criminal acts of abuse by a priest, and the acts of Defendants in connection with negligently allowing or fostering sexual abuse of children as a matter of institutional culture. 3

13. Defendants Archdiocese and Parish knew or should have known of Fr. OBriens sexual abuse of children, and did nothing to stop it, or warn or provide counseling to the Plaintiff or his family members, in the 1970s or 1980s, or anytime thereafter. Indeed, Defendants were part and parcel involved with the development and maintenance of a culture that negligently or recklessly allowed and fostered sexual criminals and crimes against children. 14. The Archdiocese of Santa Fe knew that priests who engaged in sexual abuse of children could not be treated or cured with prayer, were a continued danger to the safety of children, and should never be introduced to a parish setting where they would have unsupervised access to children. Indeed, upon information and belief, a few suspicious parents and church elders in other communities where Defendant had assigned Fr. Mike raised concerns about his behavior with boys, specifically in Taos, but Defendant merely transferred Fr. Mike to other New Mexico parishes. 15. Despite the known danger pedophile priests posed to the catholic children of northern New Mexico, Defendants not only agreed to place known or likely pedophile priests into New Mexico parishes, including San Francisco de Asis Parish in Taos County, but deliberately chose to conceal the fact of the priests problems, including likely pedophilia, from parish communities. 16. Whether or not the Archdiocese and Parish knew horrid details about Fr. OBriens crimes against young males, Defendants had a duty to keep the Church premises safe for use by the Plaintiff, and did not do so, and had a duty to protect its children from pedophile priests, but failed. 17. In an historical era of rampant, unchecked sexual abuse of minor children by Catholic 4

priests, and given the historical backdrop of same, the Archdiocese and Parish had duties to conduct careful background checks and screening of priests, to keep children safe from the harms caused by pedophilia and child rape. Defendants did not do so, or ignored what was learned in the background checks. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the childhood sexual abuse, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer, severe emotional distress including suicide attempts, embarrassment, humiliation, utter destruction and loss of faith, loss of sexual capacity and intimacy, loss of self-esteem, alcoholism, and other damages. He has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for psychological treatment, therapy and counseling. Plaintiff is entitled to all compensation allowable under New Mexico jury instructions for harms caused by Defendants.

COUNT 1 BATTERY 19. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 20. The conduct of Fr. OBrien occurred while he was employed and/or under the supervision and control of the Archdiocese and Parish, and while acting within the course and scope of his employment. The Defendants and each of them are responsible for the injuries to Plaintiff proximately resulting from the conduct by Fr. OBrien. 21. Father OBriens criminal sexual contacts and rapes of Plaintiff are legally cognizable as battery, among other things. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the batteries, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages as described above. 5

23. The batteries were willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including Plaintiff, and subject the Defendants, and each of them, to punitive damages, to the extent conduct of Defendants caused the batteries. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants in an amount sufficiently reasonable to compensate Plaintiff for damages as described above, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT II FAILURE TO USE ORDINARY CARE TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE 24. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 25. Defendants failed to guard against or warn the Plaintiff or his parents of the dangers which Defendants knew or reasonably should have known existed at their church arising from placement of Father OBrien at the Parish, including, but not limited to the risk of harm posed to Plaintiff. 26. The Archdiocese and Parish had an obligation to keep the premises safe and failed to do so. 27. Defendants duties regarding theories of premises liability were enhanced by special relationships, and by awareness of the existence of an institutional culture that allowed and even fostered pedophilia. 28. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 29. The conduct was willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety 6

of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages as described above, including punitive damages, for interest including pre-judgment interest, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT III NEGLIGENCE 30. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 31. The Archdiocese and Parish were negligent by, among other things: (a) supervision, hiring and retention of Fr. OBrien; (b) by allowing children to be unsupervised around Father Mike in a culture where a significant number of priests in New Mexico were engaged in pedophilia and sex crimes against children; (c) by keeping Fr. OBrien employed as a priest and protected within a culture of other priests with tendencies to sexually molest children or commit crimes against children; (d) by fostering a culture and employment climate that attracted pedophiles, as a matter of pattern and practice, because the pedophiles knew they would be protected and never prosecuted; (e) by failing to warn parents and children of the danger of pedophile priests and by failing to train parents and children in measures to protect themselves against harm caused by such priests; (f) by sometimes failing to learn who the pedophiles even were, during a time when apparently a quarter or more of the priests being sent into New Mexicos parishes were pedophiles; (g) by pretending they did not know who the pedophiles even were that came directly from treatment centers in the east, or from treatment centers in Jemez 7

Springs, with certain code words in their files and history; or (h) were negligent per se and otherwise acted in an unsafe and unreasonable manner. 32. In addition to direct negligence, the Archdiocese and Parish are vicariously liable for the conduct of Fr. OBrien via the doctrine of respondeat superior, especially given Fr. OBriens awareness of the harm he was causing, as admitted to Plaintiff herein. 33. Defendants are directly negligent regardless of their denial of knowledge of the specific details of pedophilia by this or any other pedophile priest. Plaintiff understands that bishops and employees of the Archdiocese were not present when their priest raped him. 34. Defendants are negligent vicariously for the particular conduct of this priest. 35. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 36. The conduct outlined above was willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT IV NEGLIGENT AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 37. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 38. The conduct of the Archdiocese and the Parish regarding the predatory acts of Fr. 8

OBrien, constitutes negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress on the Plaintiff. 39. As a direct and proximate result of such conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages as described above. 40. Such actions were willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. KELLY CLARK O'Donnell Clark & Crew LLP 1650 NW Naito Parkway, Suite 302 Portland, OR 97209-2534 (503) 306-0224, (503) 306-0257 Fax -andLAW OFFICE OF BRAD D. HALL /s/ Brad D. Hall 05/06/13 BRAD D. HALL 320 Gold Av SW #1218 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 255-6300, (505) 255-6323 Fax

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO JOHN DOE 7, Plaintiff, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FE, and SAN FRANCISCO DE ASIS PARISH, Ranchos de Taos, Defendants.

FILED IN MY OFFICE DISTRICT COURT CLERK 5/6/2013 10:51:56 AM GREGORY T. IRELAND Catherine Chavez

D-202-CV-2013-03937

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PREVENT SEXUAL ABUSE, SEXUAL ABUSE, AND RELATED CLAIMS Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, states as his complaint: 1. Plaintiff is a resident of California. Plaintiff is John Doe 7 among multiple victims of childhood sexual abuse who are bringing claims as part of their efforts at recovery and healing. Plaintiff John Doe 7 grew up in Taos County. 2. On information and belief Defendant Archdiocese of Santa Fe (hereinafter Archdiocese) is a New Mexico corporation which operates or has operated facilities in northern New Mexico, including in Taos County, New Mexico, including San Francisco de Asis in Ranchos de Taos, and also has offices and does business in Bernalillo County. 3. On information and belief, San Francisco de Asis Parish (hereinafter the Parish) is a Roman Catholic Church, which operates or has operated facilities at St. Francis Plaza, in Ranchos De Taos, Taos County, New Mexico. 4. Father Michael OBrien was a Roman Catholic priest employed by the Archdiocese and assigned to San Francisco de Asis Parish in the 1970s and 1980s, after working in other 1

parishes in northern New Mexico. Father OBrien was assigned to the Parish well after the Archdiocese knew or should have known about his troubling relationships with boys in other New Mexico communities. 5. Father Michael OBrien, or Father Mike, was a pedophile priest in the 1970s and 1980s. 6. The Defendant Archdiocese knew or should have known that Father Mike was a pedophile priest, and certainly knew that Father OBrien had complete and unbridled access to children, like Plaintiff, who attended its Parish churches in northern New Mexico. 7. Defendant San Francisco de Asis Parish knew, or should have known, that Fr. OBrien was a pedophile priest. Likewise, the Parish knew, or should have known, that Fr. OBrien had unbridled access to children, like Plaintiff, who attended the Parish church in Taos. 8. Plaintiffs parents trusted that Plaintiff would be safe from harm caused by sexual predators like Father Mike while on the premises of the Parish, and while on trips and pilgrimages with the priest, and that their son would be safe from harm caused specifically by employees, agents and other representatives of the Catholic Church employed by Defendants. 9. Plaintiff was groomed, fondled and abused starting in about 1975 as a teenager by Fr. OBrien. He groomed Plaintiff as a teenager with mutual massages after pilgrimages and walks from Estancia to Chimayo, including a trip to Ojo Caliente Hot Springs. The grooming efforts led to OBriens sexual fondling of Plaintiff. Father OBrien then attempted to seduce and rape Plaintiff in Taos County at Holy Cross Hospital and at the 2

rectory when Plaintiff was dealing with a family emergency in 1981. 10. Although the actions giving rise to this complaint occurred in the late 1970s, the damages inflicted amount to a lifetimes worth of emotional harm and turmoil. Plaintiff could not and did not fully articulate what occurred to him as a teen until recently, and is only now seeking professional help, and beginning to realize and connect the harm caused him by the actions of Defendants in sheltering and housing a pedophile priest. 11. The sexual acts performed by Fr. OBrien with Plaintiff were, as a matter of law then and now, criminal sexual contact and attempted criminal sexual penetration (rape). The crimes against Plaintiff committed by the Catholic priest caused profound harm to Plaintiff. The survival strategies used by children may have worked to help get him through his 20s, 30s and 40s, but no longer work, especially as Plaintiff has begun to realize the extent of the harm caused to his entire family by the Catholic priest. 12. Plaintiff is only now realizing and coming to grips with: the nature of the abuse, the superior knowledge of Defendants of the existence of pedophilia and abuse in their organization, and the fact that he sustained severe injury as a result of childhood sexual abuse. Plaintiff is only now obtaining for the first time in over thirty years, professional mental health counseling specifically regarding these criminal acts of abuse by a priest, and the acts of Defendants in connection with negligently allowing or fostering sexual abuse of children as a matter of institutional culture. 13. Defendants Archdiocese and Parish knew or should have known of Fr. OBriens sexual abuse of children, and did nothing to stop it, or warn or provide counseling to the Plaintiff or his family members, in the 1970s or 1980s, or anytime thereafter. Indeed, Defendants were part and parcel involved with the development and maintenance of a 3

culture that negligently or recklessly allowed and fostered sexual criminals and crimes against children. 14. The Archdiocese of Santa Fe knew that priests who engaged in sexual abuse of children could not be treated or cured with prayer, were a continued danger to the safety of children, and should never be introduced to a parish setting where they would have unsupervised access to children. Indeed, upon information and belief, a few suspicious parents and church elders in other communities where Defendant had assigned Fr. Mike raised concerns about his behavior with boys, specifically in Taos, but Defendant merely transferred Fr. Mike to other New Mexico parishes. 15. Despite the known danger pedophile priests posed to the catholic children of northern New Mexico, Defendants not only agreed to place known or likely pedophile priests into New Mexico parishes, including San Francisco de Asis Parish in Taos County, but deliberately chose to conceal the fact of the priests problems, including likely pedophilia, from parish communities. 16. Whether or not the Archdiocese and Parish knew horrid details about Fr. OBriens crimes against young males, Defendants had a duty to keep the Church premises safe for use by the Plaintiff, and did not do so, and had a duty to protect its children from pedophile priests, but failed. 17. In an historical era of rampant, unchecked sexual abuse of minor children by Catholic priests, and given the historical backdrop of same, the Archdiocese and Parish had duties to conduct careful background checks and screening of priests, to keep children safe from the harms caused by pedophilia and child rape. Defendants did not do so, or ignored what was learned in the background checks. 4

18. As a direct and proximate result of the childhood sexual abuse, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer, severe emotional distress including suicide attempts, embarrassment, humiliation, utter destruction and loss of faith, loss of sexual capacity and intimacy, loss of self-esteem, alcohol abuse, and other damages. He has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for psychological treatment, therapy and counseling. Plaintiff is entitled to all compensation allowable under New Mexico jury instructions for harms caused by Defendants.

COUNT 1 BATTERY 19. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 20. The conduct of Fr. OBrien occurred while he was employed and/or under the supervision and control of the Archdiocese and Parish, and while acting within the course and scope of his employment. The Defendants and each of them are responsible for the injuries to Plaintiff proximately resulting from the conduct by Fr. OBrien. 21. Father OBriens criminal acts against Plaintiff are legally cognizable as battery, among other things. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the batteries, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages as described above. 23. The batteries were willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including Plaintiff, and subject the Defendants, and each of them, to punitive damages, to the extent conduct of Defendants caused the batteries. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants in an amount 5

sufficiently reasonable to compensate Plaintiff for damages as described above, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT II FAILURE TO USE ORDINARY CARE TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE 24. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 25. Defendants failed to guard against or warn the Plaintiff or his parents of the dangers which Defendants knew or reasonably should have known existed at their church arising from placement of Father OBrien at the Parish, including, but not limited to the risk of harm posed to Plaintiff. 26. The Archdiocese and Parish had an obligation to keep the premises safe and failed to do so. 27. Defendants duties regarding theories of premises liability were enhanced by special relationships, and by awareness of the existence of an institutional culture that allowed and even fostered pedophilia. 28. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 29. The conduct was willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages as described above, including punitive damages, for interest including pre-judgment interest, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem 6

appropriate.

COUNT III NEGLIGENCE 30. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 31. The Archdiocese and Parish were negligent by, among other things: (a) supervision, hiring and retention of Fr. OBrien; (b) by allowing children to be unsupervised around Father Mike in a culture where a significant number of priests in New Mexico were engaged in pedophilia and sex crimes against children; (c) by keeping Fr. OBrien employed as a priest and protected within a culture of other priests with tendencies to sexually molest children or commit crimes against children; (d) by fostering a culture and employment climate that attracted pedophiles, as a matter of pattern and practice, because the pedophiles knew they would be protected and never prosecuted; (e) by failing to warn parents and children of the danger of pedophile priests and by failing to train parents and children in measures to protect themselves against harm caused by such priests; (f) by sometimes failing to learn who the pedophiles even were, during a time when apparently a quarter or more of the priests being sent into New Mexicos parishes were pedophiles; (g) by pretending they did not know who the pedophiles even were that came directly from treatment centers in the east, or from treatment centers in Jemez Springs, with certain code words in their files and history; or (h) were negligent per se and otherwise acted in an unsafe and unreasonable manner. 32. In addition to direct negligence, the Archdiocese and Parish are vicariously liable for the conduct of Fr. OBrien via the doctrine of respondeat superior, especially given Fr. 7

OBriens awareness of the harm he was causing, as admitted to Plaintiff herein. 33. Defendants are directly negligent regardless of their denial of knowledge of the specific details of pedophilia by this or any other pedophile priest. Plaintiff understands that bishops and employees of the Archdiocese were not present when their priest raped him. 34. Defendants are negligent vicariously for the particular conduct of this priest. 35. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 36. The conduct outlined above was willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT IV NEGLIGENT AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 37. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 38. The conduct of the Archdiocese and the Parish regarding the predatory acts of Fr. OBrien, constitutes negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress on the Plaintiff. 39. As a direct and proximate result of such conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages as described above. 8

40. Such actions were willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. KELLY CLARK O'Donnell Clark & Crew LLP 1650 NW Naito Parkway, Suite 302 Portland, OR 97209-2534 (503) 306-0224, (503) 306-0257 Fax -andLAW OFFICE OF BRAD D. HALL /s/ Brad D. Hall 05/06/13 BRAD D. HALL 320 Gold Av SW #1218 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 255-6300, (505) 255-6323 Fax

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO JOHN DOE 8, Plaintiff, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FE, and SAN ANTONIO de PADUA, Peasco, N.M., Defendants.

FILED IN MY OFFICE DISTRICT COURT CLERK 5/6/2013 1:00:46 PM GREGORY T. IRELAND Catherine Chavez

D-202-CV-2013-03943

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PREVENT SEXUAL ABUSE, SEXUAL ABUSE, AND RELATED CLAIMS Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, states as his complaint: 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Taos County. Plaintiff is John Doe 8 among multiple victims of childhood sexual abuse who are bringing claims as part of their efforts at recovery and healing. 2. On information and belief Defendant Archdiocese of Santa Fe (hereinafter Archdiocese) is a New Mexico corporation which operates or has operated facilities in northern New Mexico, including in Taos County, New Mexico, including San Antonio de Padua in Peasco, and also has offices and does business in Bernalillo County. 3. On information and belief, San Antonio de Padua (hereinafter the Parish) is a Roman Catholic Church, which operates or has operated facilities on State Road 75, in Peasco, Taos County, New Mexico. 4. Father Michael OBrien was a Roman Catholic priest employed by the Archdiocese and assigned to San Antonio de Padua in the 1970s. Father OBrien was assigned to the 1

Parish after the Archdiocese knew or should have known about his troubling relationships with boys in other New Mexico communities. 5. 6. Father Michael OBrien, or Father Mike, was a pedophile priest in the 1970s. The Defendant Archdiocese knew or should have known that Father Mike was a pedophile priest, and certainly knew that Father OBrien had complete and unbridled access to children, like Plaintiff, who attended its Parish churches in northern New Mexico. 7. Defendant San Antonio de Padua knew, or should have known, that Fr. OBrien was a pedophile priest. Likewise, the Parish knew, or should have known, that Fr. OBrien had unbridled access to children, like Plaintiff, who attended the church in Peasco. 8. Plaintiffs parents trusted that Plaintiff would be safe from harm caused by sexual predators like Father Mike while on the premises of the churches in Peasco and Dixon, and while on trips with the priest, and that their son would be safe from harm caused specifically by employees, agents and other representatives of the Catholic Church employed by Defendants. Plaintiff worked summers on the church premises, and Father OBrien told the parents his reward was to go on trips with him. 9. Plaintiff was an alter boy who was groomed, fondled and abused starting in about 1975 as a teenager. OBrien groomed Plaintiff as a teenage altar boy with mutual massages on these reward trips to Ojo Caliente Hot Springs and a family cabin in Grand Lake, Colorado. The grooming efforts led to OBriens sexual fondling of Plaintiff, followed by approximately twenty criminal sexual penetrations. 10. Although the actions giving rise to this complaint occurred in the mid-1970s, the damages inflicted amount to a lifetimes worth of emotional harm and turmoil. Plaintiff 2

could not and did not fully articulate what occurred to him as a teen until recently, and is only now seeking professional help, and beginning to realize and connect the harm caused him by the actions of Defendants in sheltering and housing a pedophile priest. 11. The sexual acts performed by Fr. OBrien with Plaintiff were, as a matter of law then and now, criminal sexual contact and attempted criminal sexual penetration (rape). The crimes against Plaintiff committed by the Catholic priest caused profound harm to Plaintiff. The survival strategies used by children may have worked to help get Plaintiff through his 20s, 30s and 40s, but simply no longer work, especially as Plaintiff has begun to realize the extent of the harm caused by the Catholic priest. 12. Plaintiff is only now realizing and coming to grips with: the nature of the abuse, the superior knowledge of Defendants of the existence of pedophilia and abuse in their organization, and the fact that he sustained severe injury as a result of childhood sexual abuse. Plaintiff is only now obtaining for the first time in over thirty years, professional mental health counseling specifically regarding these criminal acts of abuse by a priest, and the acts of Defendants in connection with negligently allowing or fostering sexual abuse of children as a matter of institutional culture. On one occasion, Plaintiff was passed as an alter boy groomed for sex from Fr. OBrien to another priest in northern New Mexico, and was abused by both priests on the same evening. 13. Defendants Archdiocese and Parish knew or should have known of Fr. OBriens sexual abuse of children, and did nothing to stop it, or warn or provide counseling to the Plaintiff or his family members, in the 1970s or 1980s, or anytime thereafter. Indeed, Defendants were part and parcel involved with the development and maintenance of a culture that negligently or recklessly allowed and fostered sexual criminals and crimes 3

against children. 14. The Archdiocese of Santa Fe knew that priests who engaged in sexual abuse of children could not be treated or cured with prayer, were a continued danger to the safety of children, and should never be introduced to a parish setting where they would have unsupervised access to children. Indeed, upon information and belief, a few suspicious parents and church elders in other communities where Defendant had assigned Fr. Mike raised concerns about his behavior with boys, specifically in Taos County, but Defendant merely transferred Fr. Mike to other New Mexico parishes when questions arose. 15. Despite the known danger pedophile priests posed to the catholic children of northern New Mexico, Defendants not only agreed to place known or likely pedophile priests into New Mexico parishes, including San Antonio de Padua in Taos County, but deliberately chose to conceal the fact of the priests problems, including likely pedophilia, from parish communities. 16. Whether or not the Archdiocese and Parish knew horrid details about Fr. OBriens crimes against young males, Defendants had a duty to keep the Church premises safe for use by the Plaintiff, and did not do so, and had a duty to protect its children from pedophile priests, but failed. 17. In an historical era of rampant, unchecked sexual abuse of minor children by Catholic priests, and given the historical backdrop of same, the Archdiocese and Parish had duties to conduct careful background checks and screening of priests, to keep children safe from the harms caused by pedophilia and child rape. Defendants did not do so, or ignored what was learned in the background checks. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the childhood sexual abuse, Plaintiff suffered and will 4

continue to suffer, severe emotional distress including extreme embarrassment, humiliation, utter destruction and loss of faith, loss of sexual capacity and intimacy, loss of self-esteem, alcohol abuse, and other damages. He has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for psychological treatment, therapy and counseling. Plaintiff is entitled to all compensation allowable under New Mexico jury instructions for harms caused by Defendants.

COUNT 1 BATTERY 19. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 20. The conduct of Fr. OBrien occurred while he was employed and/or under the supervision and control of the Archdiocese and Parish, and while acting within the course and scope of his employment. The Defendants and each of them are responsible for the injuries to Plaintiff proximately resulting from the conduct by Fr. OBrien. 21. Father OBriens criminal acts against Plaintiff are legally cognizable as battery, among other things. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the batteries, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages as described above. 23. The batteries were willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including Plaintiff, and subject the Defendants, and each of them, to punitive damages, to the extent conduct of Defendants caused the batteries. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants in an amount sufficiently reasonable to compensate Plaintiff for damages as described above, including 5

punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT II FAILURE TO USE ORDINARY CARE TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE 24. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 25. Defendants failed to guard against or warn the Plaintiff or his parents of the dangers which Defendants knew or reasonably should have known existed at their church arising from placement of Father OBrien at the Parish, including, but not limited to the risk of harm posed to Plaintiff. 26. The Archdiocese and Parish had an obligation to keep the premises safe and failed to do so. 27. Defendants duties regarding theories of premises liability were enhanced by special relationships, and by awareness of the existence of an institutional culture that allowed and even fostered pedophilia. 28. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 29. The conduct was willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages as described above, including punitive damages, for interest including pre-judgment interest, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. 6

COUNT III NEGLIGENCE 30. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 31. The Archdiocese and Parish were negligent by, among other things: (a) supervision, hiring and retention of Fr. OBrien; (b) by allowing children to be unsupervised around Father Mike in a culture where a significant number of priests in New Mexico were engaged in pedophilia and sex crimes against children; (c) by keeping Fr. OBrien employed as a priest and protected within a culture of other priests with tendencies to sexually molest children or commit crimes against children; (d) by fostering a culture and employment climate that attracted pedophiles, as a matter of pattern and practice, because the pedophiles knew they would be protected and never prosecuted; (e) by failing to warn parents and children of the danger of pedophile priests and by failing to train parents and children in measures to protect themselves against harm caused by such priests; (f) by sometimes failing to learn who the pedophiles even were, during a time when apparently a quarter or more of the priests being sent into New Mexicos parishes were pedophiles; (g) by pretending they did not know who the pedophiles even were that came directly from treatment centers in the east, or from treatment centers in Jemez Springs, with certain code words in their files and history; or (h) were negligent per se and otherwise acted in an unsafe and unreasonable manner. 32. In addition to direct negligence, the Archdiocese and Parish are vicariously liable for the conduct of Fr. OBrien via the doctrine of respondeat superior, especially given Fr. OBriens awareness of the harm he was causing, as admitted to Plaintiff herein. 7

33. Defendants are directly negligent regardless of their denial of knowledge of the specific details of pedophilia by this or any other pedophile priest. Plaintiff understands that bishops and employees of the Archdiocese were not present when their priest raped him. 34. Defendants are negligent vicariously for the particular conduct of this priest. 35. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 36. The conduct outlined above was willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT IV NEGLIGENT AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 37. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 38. The conduct of the Archdiocese and the Parish regarding the predatory acts of Fr. OBrien, constitutes negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress on the Plaintiff. 39. As a direct and proximate result of such conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages as described above. 40. Such actions were willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the 8

safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. KELLY CLARK O'Donnell Clark & Crew LLP 1650 NW Naito Parkway, Suite 302 Portland, OR 97209-2534 (503) 306-0224, (503) 306-0257 Fax -andLAW OFFICE OF BRAD D. HALL /s/ Brad D. Hall 05/06/13 BRAD D. HALL 320 Gold Av SW #1218 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 255-6300, (505) 255-6323 Fax

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO JOHN DOE 9, Plaintiff, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FE, and SAN FRANCISCO DE ASIS PARISH, Ranchos de Taos, Defendants.

FILED IN MY OFFICE DISTRICT COURT CLERK 5/6/2013 1:36:13 PM GREGORY T. IRELAND Catherine Chavez

D-202-CV-2013-03945

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PREVENT SEXUAL ABUSE, SEXUAL ABUSE, AND RELATED CLAIMS Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, states as his complaint: 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Plaintiff is John Doe 9 among multiple victims of childhood sexual abuse who are bringing claims as part of their efforts at recovery and healing. Plaintiff John Doe 9 is married, has children, and lives in Bernalillo County. 2. On information and belief Defendant Archdiocese of Santa Fe (hereinafter Archdiocese) is a New Mexico corporation which operates or has operated facilities in northern New Mexico, including in Taos County, New Mexico, including San Francisco de Asis in Ranchos de Taos, and also has offices and does business in Bernalillo County. 3. On information and belief, San Francisco de Asis Parish (hereinafter the Parish) is a Roman Catholic Church, which operates or has operated facilities at St. Francis Plaza, in Ranchos De Taos, Taos County, New Mexico. 4. Father Michael OBrien was a Roman Catholic priest employed by the Archdiocese and 1

assigned to San Francisco de Asis Parish in the late 1970s and early1980s, after working in other parishes in northern New Mexico. Father OBrien was assigned to the Parish well after the Archdiocese knew or should have known about his troubling relationships with boys in other New Mexico communities. 5. Father Michael OBrien, or Father Mike, was a pedophile priest in the 1970s and 1980s. He abused Plaintiff in Taos County from about 1978-1981, after having abused or while abusing numerous other boys in other northern New Mexico communities. 6. The Defendant Archdiocese knew or should have known that Father Mike was a pedophile priest, and certainly knew that Father OBrien had complete and unbridled access to children, like Plaintiff, who attended its Parish churches in northern New Mexico. 7. Defendant San Francisco de Asis Parish knew, or should have known, that Fr. OBrien was a pedophile priest. Likewise, the Parish knew, or should have known, that Fr. OBrien had unbridled access to children, like Plaintiff, who attended the Parish church in Taos. 8. Plaintiffs parents and extended family members trusted that Plaintiff would be safe from harm caused by sexual predators like Father Mike while on the premises of the Parish, while functioning as an altar server, and while on trips and pilgrimages with the priest. Plaintiffs parents believed their minor son would be safe from harm caused specifically by employees, agents and other representatives of the Catholic Church employed by Defendants. 9. Plaintiff was an altar boy Fr. OBrien, which led to meetings on weekends, and to being recruited for pilgrimages. Plaintiff did three walks with Fr. OBrien, and also 2

worked summers on the annual stucco repair on the church, beginning in the mid to late 1970s. Fr. OBrien would get the altar servers and summer church workers to spend the night at the rectory, where he would encourage or require massage practice and feet washing rituals. Plaintiff was sexually abused about ten times over a period of a few years, including twice being anally raped, both by forcibly pinning Plaintiff down. A few years later, after Father OBrien had been sent by the Archdiocese to Mora, Plaintiff was recruited to come and work on the stucco at the Church at St. Gertrude the Great Parish. Father OBrien attempted to rape Plaintiff while he was sleeping, but Plaintiff mule-kicked the priest, and escaped. Plaintiff has never been back to any Catholic Church. 10. Although the actions giving rise to this complaint occurred in the late 1970s and early1980s, the damages inflicted amount to a lifetimes worth of emotional harm and turmoil. Plaintiff could not and did not fully articulate what occurred to him as a boy until recent months, and is only now with the help of professionals beginning to realize and connect the harm caused him by the actions of Defendants in sheltering and housing a pedophile priest. 11. Each sexual act performed by Fr. OBrien on Plaintiff was, as a matter of law then and now, criminal sexual contact or criminal sexual penetration (rape). The rapes of Plaintiff by the Catholic priest caused profound harm to this child, who is now in his forties. The survival strategies used by children worked to help get through his 20s and 30s, but no longer work. 12. Plaintiff is only now realizing and coming to grips with: the nature of the abuse, the superior knowledge of Defendants of the existence of pedophilia and abuse in their 3

organization, and the fact that he sustained severe injury as a result of such horrific childhood sexual abuse. Plaintiff is only now obtaining for the first time in over

twenty-five years, professional mental health counseling specifically for these criminal acts of abuse by a priest, and the acts of Defendants in connection with negligently allowing or fostering sexual abuse of children. 13. Defendants Archdiocese and Parish knew or should have known of Fr. OBriens sexual abuse of children, and did nothing to stop it, or warn or provide counseling to the Plaintiff or his family members, in the late 1970s or early1980s, or anytime thereafter. 14. The Archdiocese of Santa Fe knew that priests who engaged in sexual abuse of children could not be treated or cured with prayer, were a continued danger to the safety of children, and should never be introduced to a parish setting where they would have unsupervised access to children. Indeed, upon information and belief, a few suspicious parents and church elders in other communities where Defendant had assigned Fr. Mike raised concerns about his behavior with boys, but Defendant transferred Fr. Mike to another New Mexico parish. 15. Despite the known danger pedophile priests posed to the catholic children of northern New Mexico, Defendants not only agreed to place known or likely pedophile priests into New Mexico parishes, including San Francisco de Asis Parish in Taos County, but deliberately chose to conceal the fact of the priests problems, including likely pedophilia, from parish communities. 16. Whether or not the Archdiocese and Parish knew horrid details about Fr. OBriens crimes against young males, Defendants had a duty to keep the Church premises safe for use by the Plaintiff, and did not do so, and had a duty to protect its children from 4

pedophile priests, but failed. 17. In an historical era of rampant, unchecked sexual abuse of minor children by Catholic priests, and given the historical backdrop of same, the Archdiocese and Parish had duties to conduct careful background checks and screening of priests, to keep children safe from the harms caused by pedophilia and child rape. Defendants did not do so, or ignored what was learned in the background checks. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the childhood sexual abuse, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer, severe emotional distress. After Plaintiff mule-kicked the priest off of him at the rectory in Mora, Plaintiff quit trying. He quit high school, grew his hair long, stopped obeying parents and authorities, and dropped out. He suffered extreme embarrassment, humiliation, utter destruction and loss of faith and all spiritual feeling, loss of sexual capacity and intimacy, loss of self-esteem, and other damages. He battled daily suicide ideation in his teens, then blocked away and locked up in a corner of his head the abuse. Only in April 2013 were the triggers of extensive press coverage sufficient to cause Plaintiff to collapse into dire psychological need. Plaintiff will now incur substantial expenses for psychological treatment, therapy and counseling. Plaintiff is entitled to all compensation allowable under New Mexico jury instructions for harms caused by Defendants.

COUNT 1 BATTERY 19. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 20. The conduct of Fr. OBrien occurred while he was employed and/or under the 5

supervision and control of the Archdiocese and Parish, and while acting within the course and scope of his employment. The Defendants and each of them are responsible for the injuries to Plaintiff proximately resulting from the conduct by Fr. OBrien. 21. Father OBriens criminal sexual contacts and rapes of Plaintiff are legally cognizable as battery, among other things. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the batteries, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages as described above. 23. The batteries were willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including Plaintiff, and subject the Defendants, and each of them, to punitive damages, to the extent conduct of Defendants caused the batteries. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants in an amount sufficiently reasonable to compensate Plaintiff for damages as described above, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT II FAILURE TO USE ORDINARY CARE TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE 24. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 25. Defendants failed to guard against or warn the Plaintiff or his parents of the dangers which Defendants knew or reasonably should have known existed at their church arising from placement of Father OBrien at the Parish, including, but not limited to the risk of harm posed to Plaintiff. 26. The Archdiocese and Parish had an obligation to keep the premises safe and failed to do 6

so. 27. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 28. The conduct was willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages as described above, including punitive damages, for interest including pre-judgment interest, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT III NEGLIGENCE 29. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 30. The Archdiocese and Parish were negligent by, among other things: (a) supervision, hiring and retention of Fr. OBrien; (b) by allowing children to be unsupervised around Father Mike in a culture where a significant number of priests in New Mexico were engaged in pedophilia and sex crimes against children; (c) by keeping Fr. OBrien employed as a priest and protected within a culture of other priests with tendencies to sexually molest children or commit crimes against children; (d) by fostering a culture and employment climate that attracted pedophiles, as a matter of pattern and practice, because the pedophiles knew they would be protected and never prosecuted; (e) by failing to warn parents and children of the danger of pedophile priests and by failing to train parents and children in measures to protect themselves against harm caused by such 7

priests; (f) by sometimes failing to learn who the pedophiles even were, during a time when apparently a quarter or more of the priests being sent into New Mexicos parishes were pedophiles; (g) by pretending they did not know who the pedophiles even were that came directly from treatment centers in the east, or from treatment centers in Jemez Springs, with certain code words in their files and history; or (h) were negligent per se and otherwise acted in an unsafe and unreasonable manner. 31. In addition to direct negligence, the Archdiocese and Parish are vicariously liable for the conduct of Fr. OBrien via the doctrine of respondeat superior. 32. Defendants are directly negligent regardless of their denial of knowledge of the specific details of pedophilia by this or any other pedophile priest. Plaintiff understands that bishops and employees of the Archdiocese were not physically present when their priest raped him as a boy. 33. Defendants are negligent vicariously for the particular conduct of this priest. 34. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 35. The conduct outlined above was willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT IV NEGLIGENT AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 36. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 37. The conduct of the Archdiocese and the Parish regarding the predatory acts of Fr. OBrien, constitutes negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress on the Plaintiff. 38. As a direct and proximate result of such conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages as described above. 39. Such actions were willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. KELLY CLARK O'Donnell Clark & Crew LLP 1650 NW Naito Parkway, Suite 302 Portland, OR 97209-2534 (503) 306-0224, (503) 306-0257 Fax -andLAW OFFICE OF BRAD D. HALL /s/ Brad D. Hall 05/06/13 BRAD D. HALL 320 Gold Av SW #1218 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 255-6300, (505) 255-6323 Fax

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO JOHN DOE 10, Plaintiff, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FE, Defendants.

FILED IN MY OFFICE DISTRICT COURT CLERK 5/6/2013 1:47:49 PM GREGORY T. IRELAND Catherine Chavez

D-202-CV-2013-03946

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PREVENT SEXUAL ABUSE, SEXUAL ABUSE, AND RELATED CLAIMS Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, states as his complaint: 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Taos County, New Mexico. Plaintiff is John Doe 10 among multiple victims of childhood sexual abuse who are bringing claims as part of their efforts at recovery and healing. Plaintiff John Doe 10 is married, has children and grandchildren. 2. On information and belief Defendant Archdiocese of Santa Fe (hereinafter Archdiocese) is a New Mexico corporation which operates or has operated facilities in northern New Mexico, including in Taos County, New Mexico, including San Francisco de Asis in Ranchos de Taos, and including parishes and rectories in Albuquerque. The Archdiocese also has offices and does business in Bernalillo County. 3. Father Michael OBrien was a Roman Catholic priest employed by the Archdiocese and assigned to New Mexico parishes in the 1970s and 1980s, after working in other 1

capacities for the Archdiocese in New Mexico in the late 1960s, before his ordination. 4. Plaintiff and his brother were students at Central Catholic School, while Plaintiff was also an altar boy in Taos at the San Francisco de Asis Parish. 5. The Defendant Archdiocese knew or should have known that Father Mike was a pedophile priest, and certainly knew that Father OBrien had complete and unbridled access to children, like Plaintiff, who attended its Parish churches in northern New Mexico. 6. Plaintiffs parents and extended family members trusted that Plaintiff would be safe from harm caused by sexual predators like Father Mike while on the premises of the Parish, while functioning as an altar server, and while on church properties in other New Mexico locations. Plaintiffs parents believed their minor son would be safe from harm caused specifically by employees, agents and other representatives of the Catholic Church employed by Defendants. 7. Father Mike arranged for Plaintiff and his brother to stay with him at a rectory in Albuquerque at a parish near downtown and in the near south valley, in approximately 1969 or 1970, when Plaintiff was about 15. In the middle of the night, Plaintiff awoke to being forcibly raped by Father OBrien. When the priest was finished, Plaintiff went to the bathroom and hid the rest of the night, bleeding and injured, trying to get clean in a bathtub. Father OBrien gave the two boys a ride back to Taos the next day, where Plaintiff took a gun from his fathers cabinet out to the country to commit suicide. Plaintiff instead made a deal with God to live, but to never look at or talk to His human servants again; Plaintiff has never returned to a Catholic Church. 8. Although this rape occurred in late 1960s or early 1970s, the damages inflicted amount 2

to a lifetimes worth of emotional harm and turmoil. Plaintiff could not and did not fully articulate what occurred to him as a boy until recent days, and is only now with the help of professionals beginning to realize and connect the harm caused him by the actions of Defendants in sheltering and housing a pedophile priest. 9. The rape by Fr. OBrien on Plaintiff was, as a matter of law then and now, criminal sexual contact or criminal sexual penetration (rape). The rape of Plaintiff by Fr. OBrien caused profound harm to this child, who is now in his fifties. 10. Plaintiff is only now realizing and coming to grips with: the nature of the abuse, the superior knowledge of Defendants of the existence of pedophilia and abuse in their organization, and the fact that he sustained severe injury as a result of such horrific childhood sexual abuse. Plaintiff is only now obtaining for the first time in over

thirty-five years, professional mental health counseling specifically for this criminal act of abuse by a priest, and the acts of Defendants in connection with negligently allowing or fostering sexual abuse of children in places like parish rectories. 11. Defendants Archdiocese and Parish knew or should have known of Fr. OBriens sexual abuse of children, and did nothing to stop it, or warn or provide counseling to the Plaintiff or his family members, in the 1960s or thereafter. 12. The Archdiocese of Santa Fe knew that priests who engaged in sexual abuse of children could not be treated or cured with prayer, were a continued danger to the safety of children, and should never be introduced to a parish setting where they would have unsupervised access to children. Plaintiff was shocked to hear that later, Father OBrien was assigned to a Taos parish. 13. Despite the known danger pedophile priests posed to the catholic children of northern 3

New Mexico, Defendants not only agreed to place known or likely pedophile priests into New Mexico parishes, including San Francisco de Asis Parish in Taos County, but deliberately chose to conceal the fact of the priests problems, including likely pedophilia, from parish communities. 14. Whether or not the Archdiocese and Parish knew horrid details about Fr. OBriens crimes against young males, Defendants had a duty to keep the Church premises safe for use by the Plaintiff, and did not do so, and had a duty to protect its children from pedophile priests, but failed. 15. In an historical era of rampant, unchecked sexual abuse of minor children by Catholic priests, and given the historical backdrop of same, the Archdiocese and Parish had duties to conduct careful background checks and screening of priests, to keep children safe from the harms caused by pedophilia and child rape. Defendants did not do so, or ignored what was learned in the background checks. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the childhood sexual abuse, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer, severe emotional distress. Plaintiff suffered extreme embarrassment, humiliation, utter destruction and loss of faith, loss of sexual capacity and intimacy, loss of self-esteem, alcohol abuse problems, and other damages. He battled suicide ideation in his teens, then blocked away the abuse. In April 2013, the triggers of extensive press coverage of Father OBriens pedophilia caused Plaintiff to collapse into drinking, and getting the same gun from his youth and taking it to the same place in the country he went the day after being raped, again planning suicide. Plaintiff instead told his spouse and an adult child, who helped him immediately get to professional child sexual abuse counselors. Plaintiff will now incur substantial expenses for needed psychological 4

treatment, therapy and counseling, seeking survival strategies suited to his current age and station in life. Plaintiff is entitled to all compensation allowable under New Mexico jury instructions for harms caused by Defendants.

COUNT 1 BATTERY 17. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 18. The conduct of Fr. OBrien occurred while he was employed and/or under the supervision and control of the Archdiocese, whether pre-ordination or post-ordination, and while acting within the course and scope of his employment. The Defendants and each of them are responsible for the injuries to Plaintiff proximately resulting from the conduct by Fr. OBrien. 19. Father OBriens criminal sexual contact and rape of Plaintiff is legally cognizable as battery, among other things. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the batteries, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages as described above. 21. The batteries were willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including Plaintiff, and subject the Defendants, and each of them, to punitive damages, to the extent conduct of Defendants caused the batteries. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants in an amount sufficiently reasonable to compensate Plaintiff for damages as described above, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. 5

COUNT II FAILURE TO USE ORDINARY CARE TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE 22. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 23. Defendants failed to guard against or warn the Plaintiff or his parents of the dangers which Defendants knew or reasonably should have known existed at New Mexico parishes, including, but not limited to the risk of harm posed to Plaintiff by pedophiles in the church. 24. The Archdiocese had an obligation to keep rectory premises safe and failed to do so. Indeed, rectories appear to be places that pedophiles felt safe to use to commit crimes against children. 25. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 26. The conduct was willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages as described above, including punitive damages, for interest including pre-judgment interest, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT III NEGLIGENCE 27. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 28. The Archdiocese and Parish were negligent by, among other things: (a) supervision, hiring and retention of Fr. OBrien, even for pre-ordination employment; (b) by allowing children to be unsupervised around Father Mike in a culture where a significant number of priests in New Mexico were engaged in pedophilia and sex crimes against children; (c) by keeping Fr. OBrien employed as a priest and protected within a culture of other priests with tendencies to sexually molest children or commit crimes against children; (d) by fostering a culture and employment climate that attracted pedophiles, as a matter of pattern and practice, because the pedophiles knew they would be protected and never prosecuted; (e) by failing to warn parents and children of the danger of pedophile priests or employees, and by failing to train parents and children in measures to protect themselves against harm caused by such priests or employees; (f) by sometimes failing to learn who the pedophiles even were, during a time when apparently a quarter or more of the priests being sent into New Mexicos parishes were pedophiles; (g) by pretending they did not know who the pedophiles even were that came directly from treatment centers in the east, or from treatment centers in Jemez Springs, with certain code words in their files and history; or (h) were negligent per se and otherwise acted in an unsafe and unreasonable manner. 29. In addition to direct negligence, the Archdiocese and Parish are vicariously liable for the conduct of Fr. OBrien via the doctrine of respondeat superior. 30. Defendants are directly negligent regardless of their denial of knowledge of the specific 7

details of pedophilia by this or any other pedophile employee. Plaintiff understands that bishops and employees of the Archdiocese were not physically present when their employee raped him as a teen in an Albuquerque rectory. 31. Defendants are negligent vicariously for the particular conduct of this employee. 32. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 33. The conduct outlined above was willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants in an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT IV NEGLIGENT AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 34. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above. 35. The conduct of the Archdiocese regarding the predatory acts of Fr. OBrien, constitutes negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress on the Plaintiff. 36. As a direct and proximate result of such conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages as described above. 37. Such actions were willful, intentional, wanton and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety of others, including the Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in 8

an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages, including punitive damages, for interest, including pre-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. KELLY CLARK O'Donnell Clark & Crew LLP 1650 NW Naito Parkway, Suite 302 Portland, OR 97209-2534 (503) 306-0224, (503) 306-0257 Fax -andLAW OFFICE OF BRAD D. HALL /s/ Brad D. Hall 05/06/13 BRAD D. HALL 320 Gold Av SW #1218 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 255-6300, (505) 255-6323 Fax