Reformed Churchmen

We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Common-Prayer-Biography-Religious/dp/0691154813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417814005&sr=8-1&keywords=jacobs+book+of+common+prayer. January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-English-Reformation-1489-1556/dp/1592448658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420055574&sr=8-1&keywords=A.F.+Pollard+Cranmer. February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-Jasper-Ridley/dp/0198212879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422892154&sr=8-1&keywords=jasper+ridley+cranmer&pebp=1422892151110&peasin=198212879

Showing posts with label Gary Riccuci. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gary Riccuci. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

(Detwiler) SGM-Mahaneygate: CJ Mahaney, Sex Abuse Lawsuit, Jerry Sandusky, Penn State, Romanism

C. J. Mahaney, one of several co-defendants in class action lawsuit alleging coverup in child sexual abuse

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2012/10/22/sexual-abuse-and-spousal-abuse-in-sovereign-grace-ministries.html

Sexual Abuse and Spousal Abuse in Sovereign Grace Ministries
Last Wednesday, Associated Press reporter Eric Tucker broke the story. His article, “Lawsuit claims evangelical church group concealed sex abuse allegations in Md., Va.” appeared in The Washington Post and was immediately picked up by media outlets everywhere. The story went viral on the internet and became national news overnight.

The next day, Greta Kreuz interviewed Joshua Harris. Ms. Kreuz is a television reporter for WJLA-TV, channel 7 which is the ABC affiliated television station in Washington, D.C. and the flagship station of the Allbritton Communications Company.

See http://www.wjla.com/video/2012/10/church-sex-scandal.html for the video. Here is an excerpt from the broadcast.

[Kreuz] “Joshua Harris…says the church has never tried to cover up abuse.” [Harris] “There has never been a policy like that. We are very committed to involving the authorities. Our biggest concern is not our reputation or what anyone thinks of us, it is caring for kids well.” [Kreuz]
 
“But those now suing don’t buy it.”
 
Joshua has put himself in the middle of the lawsuit. He will have to defend his denials on three counts. One, the pastors have never covered up sexual abuse. Two, the pastors have a proven record of involving the police. Three, concern for their own reputation as pastors has never been put ahead of their concern for sexual molested children. That is a tall order to defend against since four of eight defendants were pastors from Covenant Life Church. If these pastors are found guilty, Joshua is found guilty of defending the guilty.
  
The most frequently cited defendant in the lawsuit is John Loftness. He is in the greatest legal jeopardy according the charges listed. John was a pastor at Covenant Life Church until September 2007. At that time, he became senior pastor of Solid Rock Church in Riverdale, MD. Six months ago, John was appointed Chairman of the Board for Sovereign Grace Ministries.
  
Legally and spiritually, John is the most powerful man in all of Sovereign Grace Ministries. He is “the spiritual leader” of the entire movement. He has also covered up for C.J. more than anyone other leader in SGM since his installation. Now he is being charged with covering up sexual molestation. This description of his powers as Chairman comes directly from the SGM Bylaws.

“Section 6.3 The Chairman. The Chairman shall be a member of the Board of Directors. As the spiritual leader of the Corporation, the Chairman shall have principal responsibility to establish the Corporation’s vision, mission, and priorities. He shall preside at meetings of the Board of Directors. He shall make reports to the Board of Directors, and shall have such other rights, duties, and powers as are authorized by the Board of Directors from time to time.”
 
Gary Ricucci is the second most cited defendant in the lawsuit. John and Gary stand out as you read the charges. Gary pastors the men and their families attending the Sovereign Grace Pastors College. He is also a pastor in C.J.’s church – Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville. Like John, he has been a staunch defender of C.J.

And of course, C.J. is cited in the lawsuit. I am not personally familiar with the facts presented by the three plaintiffs except to say that C.J. never informed me of the sexual abuse occurring in Covenant Life Church or Sovereign Grace Church of Fairfax. That information should have been made known to me as a Board of Director. I would have recommended prosecution of the child molesters. For whatever reasons, C.J. concealed that information from me. That much I do know for a certainty.
In addition to specific charges against specific individuals, charge number 18 is against an unidentified individual.

“18. As early as 1987, the Church was on notice that sexual predation of children was occurring under its auspices. In addition to the incidents described below, the Church learned in 1997 through non-ministerial means that the son of a high-ranking Church leader was engaged in the sexual predation of children under the Church’s care. Yet the Church did absolutely nothing to protect the children.”
 
The prosecuting attorneys don’t tell us who this “high-ranking Church [SGM] leader” is or the name of his son. I don’t know of any high ranking leader’s son who preyed upon children. C.J. must know and he will be forced to tell the court.
    
Last Thursday, Susan Burke, a co-counsel in the case, was interviewed on the Janet Mefferd Show. Here is the link.

http://media.townhallstore.com/jm/rs/jm_rs_20121018-1_Thu_d6f56cac-2580-4501-900f-537c5ea6e5be_radio-show_Hi.mp3

On the show, Ms. Burke made reference to “many other victims as well.” All of this information will come out during discovery. Only eight defendants are cited in the lawsuit but it appears additional pastors will be depositioned in order to prove a wide spread pattern of wrong doing. According to Ms. Burke, the three plaintiffs are only the tip of the iceberg.

“The families have kind of stepped forward and are willing to serve as representative plaintiffs. I’ve heard from, and been in touch with, many other victims as well. So we decided this would be, because of the subject matter and how traumatic it is for people to come forward. We thought the most protective device here would be a class action and even since we just filed we’ve had a few more folks reach out to us as well. So sadly, it is not just the three.” (Susan Burke)
 
I can vouch for this myself. Since last Wednesday when the story broke, I’ve been contacted by women whose children were sexually abused or they were physically abused by their husbands. They don’t know who to turn to for help. In their cases, the pastors did nothing to prosecute the abusers.

These women experienced the same kind treatment by their pastors as alleged in the lawsuit
I fear there are many cases of spousal abuse in Sovereign Grace Churches that have been terribly mishandled by SGM pastors. This too must be investigated. I want to encourage any woman who has been battered to get help. If your pastor did more to protect your abuser than you, or counseled you against contacting the police, or confronted you for being unforgiving, or told you not to separate, then please speak up. Such abusive pastoring must stop. I am glad to help you, confront your pastors for you, and put you in touch with people who can uphold you.

Susan Burke went on to reference the cover up of sexual molestation at Penn State University motivated by concerns for its reputation and revenues. She cites the Louis Freeh report. I suspect Ms. Burke will adopt his investigative approach in his successful prosecuting of the university and its key leaders.

“And I think what we’ve seen sadly in like the Penn State and in the Catholic Church; I mean what you see is that institutions end up elevating their own reputational and financial interest over vulnerable children. I don’t know whether or not you had a chance to look at the wonderful investigative report done by Louis Freeh on the Penn State thing, but the way he phrased it there, you know [there was] absolutely no empathy for the child victims.” (Susan Burke)
 
I wrote a blog post in July comparing Sovereign Grace Ministries to Penn State University. At the time, I charged SGM leaders with concealing spiritual abuse. I will not be surprised if they are also found guilty of concealing sexual and spousal abuse.
 
Joshua Harris claims Sovereign Grace Ministries is devoid of debased motivations like those behind the Penn State University scandal. I have to challenge that contention. I think Joshua has failed to apply the doctrine of sin. Every church is tempted to cover up sexual molestation because no church wants to be cited by the Press for negligence. There are serious consequences for one’s reputation and income if word gets out that sexual abuse is occurring due to lax policies, or lax enforcement of policies, or negligent pastors who do not prosecute abusers and identify them for the church. Every church should have a register of child molesters on their website. The well-being of children is far more important than protecting the reputation of abusers who return to their crimes at a high rate.

Even in churches!
 
Here is that post.
 
Sovereign Grace Leaders Conceal Spiritual Abuse Like Penn State Leaders Concealed Sexual Abuse

Friday, July 13, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Brent Detwiler


“In clear, calm, concise and unrelenting words, a report from an independent investigation into Penn State’s handling of the Jerry Sandusky sexual molestation case assigned blame in harsh terms to a wide-ranging group of high-ranking officials.

“From iconic football coach Joe Paterno, to now fired president Graham Spanier, to a detached Board of Trustees, the failures, lack of concern and ceding [giving up] of oversight, no one escaped blame in failing to stop Sandusky’s 15-year plus reign of terror in central Pennsylvania.”[1]

##

“Former FBI director Louis Freeh said Thursday that the most “telling” piece of information in his nearly eight-month investigation into the university’s handling of Sandusky’s misconduct is a 2000 incident in which a Penn State janitor witnessed the once-revered coach performing oral sex on a young boy in a university locker-room shower.
 
“The janitor who observed it says it’s the worst thing he ever saw,” Freeh said, outlining the explosive findings of his 267-page review, which found a complete failure of the university leadership to stop Sandusky. “He’s [the janitor] a Korean War veteran. … He spoke to the other janitors. They were awed and shocked by it. But, what did they do? They said they can’t report this because they’d be fired. They were afraid to take on the football program. They said the university would circle around it. It was like going against the president of United States. If that’s the culture on the bottom, God help the culture at the top.”[2]

##

Just like the insularly environment at Penn State University, the same sinful dynamics have been at work in SGM since 2004. Leaders around C.J. and people under C.J. haven’t reported spiritual abuse[3] or taken a stand “because they’d be fired.” Men like Harvey, Shank, Kauflin, Harris, Maresco, and Layman were “afraid to take on” C.J. Instead they “circled around” him. Going up against C.J. was “like going up against the President.” It still is and will continue so long as root issues go unaddressed and unconfessed.

I’d encourage each reader to look over “The Report of the Special Investigative Counsel Regarding the Actions of The Pennsylvania State University Related to the Child Abuse Committed by Gerald A. Sandusky.” Here is the link.

http://l.yimg.com/dh/ap/default/120712/freeh_report_final_071212.pdf

This is the kind of investigation and report, Ted Kober and Ed Keinath of Ambassadors of Reconciliation, should have done and produced for Sovereign Grace Ministries. Unlike former FBI Director, Louis Freeh, they refused to ” blame in harsh terms a wide-ranging group of high-ranking officials.”

“Over and over, Freeh’s damning report referred to a pervasive and damaging culture at Penn State where the levers of power were tightly controlled by four men — university President Graham Spanier, head football coach Joe Paterno, Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice President Gary Schultz — whose repeated failure to deal with troubling allegations lodged against Sandusky always seemed to be directed by one goal: ‘to avoid the consequences of bad publicity.’”[4] 
 
“The Freeh Group believes the interest of avoiding bad publicity allowed Sandusky to remain free, where he would go on to abuse additional boys and maintain near full access to Penn State facilities and the inner workings of the football program.”[5]

“It is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University – Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities, the Board of Trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large. Although concern to treat the child abuser humanely [Sandusky] was expressly stated, no such sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sandusky’s victims.” (The Report of the Special Investigative Counsel Regarding the Actions of The Pennsylvania State University Related to the Child Abuse Committed by Gerald A. Sandusky)
The same is true with “the most powerful leaders” at SGM. There has been a “repeated failure to deal with troubling allegations lodged against” C.J. Instead, Harvey, Shank, Harris, and Loftness focused on making sure C.J. was treated “humanely” while they expressed “no such sentiments” for those who were treated inhumanely. There will be restitution by Penn State University for the eight victims of sexual abuse who testified before the Grand Jury. There will be jail sentences for Sandusky, Spanier and Schultz. There will never be restitution by SGM to its victims and there will never be discipline for Mahaney, Harvey or Shank. That’s one reason I considered using a civil court in which to press my charges.
 
“During her time as the vice president for student affairs at Penn State from 2003-07, Vicky Triponey says she witnessed the power that Paterno wielded over the administration. Which is why nothing in the Freeh report about how the scandal was handled surprised her, she told USA TODAY on Thursday. Triponey says the reluctance of the school to act on Sandusky was more than just the fear of bad publicity, as Freeh suggested. ‘I think it’s about the image, the whole package of what Penn State football and Penn State became,’ said Triponey, now the interim vice president for student affairs at the College of New Jersey. ‘Penn State became … too big to fail. It wasn’t just that we can’t have bad press. It was, we have to protect this image that we’re perfect.’”[6]

The exact same thing is true about C.J. Scores of people have “witnessed the power” he “wielded over the administration.” For the past twelve years, C.J. has taken over or shut down numerous processes designed to address him. When that was not possible he had other people like Shank, Kauflin, Harvey, Loftness or Connolly do it for him.
  
The day after I released my documents on July 6, 2011, Harvey, Purswell, Cabaniss, Connolly, Gamache, Greasley, Loftness, Osborne, Prater, and Shank were installed on the interim Board. They were preoccupied with protecting C.J.’s and SGM’s image and immediately declared him fit for ministry and me guilty of slander. The mission “to protect this image that we’re perfect” informed their every decision.
 
That’s why justice was never served. That’s why all the deceit, lying, cover-up and cunning. That’s why the refusal to let me present my charges at an adjudication hearing. That’s why the plan to substitute a corrupt three panel review that was tightly controlled. That’s why a 400k report by AoR that didn’t deal with any of my evidence or charges. The love of reputation – wanting to protect the SGM image – corrupted good men. The praise of men became more important than the commendation of God.
 
Instead of Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley; we have Harvey, Loftness, Kober and Keinath. The Freeh report summates, “In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.” The same is true with C.J. and many other leaders in SGM.

It is sickening that a group of secular lawyers has more discernment into the human heart without the Bible, than Christian pastors and Christian conciliators do with the Bible. Louis Freeh went to motive because motive drives men’s hearts. That’s where the evidence led him and that’s what he majored on in his report. SGM and AoR avoid some matters and condemns anyone who judges the “thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Even a novice detective knows you look for means, motive and opportunity when investigating a crime.
 
But Kober, Harris, and Loftness tell us we must not judge motives but that is not what the Bible teaches! It tell us not to judge hypocritically (log and speck), self-righteously (look to yourself), or unjustly (without evidence). This “judge not” theology is tantamount to telling Christians to throw away all objective standards, discernment, logic, and critical thinking ability. It is a recipe for disaster and a main reason false teachers, false prophets, and cults thrive in the United States (Matt 7:15-20).
Paul the apostle tells us “the spiritual person judges [discerns, evaluates, assesses, critiques] all things” (1 Cor 2:15). He continues, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you.’” (1 Cor 5:12-13) We are called to judge (i.e., assess and justly punish) evil doers in the church. What C.J. and other SGM leaders have done is evil.
 
Scripture teaches we can know a man’s heart and often know what is motivating him by observing his words and deeds (cf. Matt 3:7-19; 5:1-7:28; 15:16-20; Gal 5:19-20; 2 Tim 3:1-9; Heb 4:12; James 2:14-26) or by supernatural knowledge (1 Cor 14:24-25). This kind of judging is sanctioned, not prohibited, in Scripture.

Graham Spanier (president) and Tim Curley (athletic director) were both charged with perjury (lying to the grand jury) and failure to report a crime. They await trial this fall. No such trial awaits Dave Harvey, Steve Shank or the interim Board. No one has been held accountable for hundreds of lies starting with C.J.
  
“Over and over, Freeh’s damning report referred to a pervasive and damaging culture at Penn State where the levers of power were tightly controlled by four men” who were willing to lie and cover-up sexual abuse in order “to avoid the consequences of bad publicity” and “protect this image that we’re perfect.”

That is precisely what has been going on in Sovereign Grace Ministries and it is reprehensible that no one in SGM or Ambassadors of Reconciliation has been willing to stand up and say so! Sexual abuse and perjury are being judge in State College, PA. Spiritual abuse and lying are being covered-up and passively condoned in Sovereign Grace Ministries.

##

Prayerfully Consider Financial Support 
 
My efforts are designed to help Christians judge righteously, think biblically, and live courageously. Would you prayerfully consider a gift or donation? This work is aided by the kindness of appreciative readers. Click the donation button for more information. Thank you.
  


[1] Reported in “Freeh Report assigns blame to Joe Paterno, other Penn State officials for Jerry Sandusky’s crimes” by Dan Wetzel at http://sports.yahoo.com/author/dan-wetzel/.

[2] Reported in “Freeh report blast culture of Penn State” by Kevin Johnson and Mary Beth Marklein at http://usat.ly/NkXm2s.

[3] “In the past, we have been easily satisfied with any response from C.J. But this time we must make certain it is the real deal. For instance, he must see issues like spiritual abuse. He will need your help. For example, when someone brings correction and we say you are proud or bitter without giving them the freedom to speak and don’t listen sincerely and humbly, we are abusing them. When people say they been adversely affected by our sins against them and we correct them for self-pity or tell them they are acting like victims, we abuse them. Or when we withdrawal our affection, project guilt, rally others against a person, distance ourselves, play the trust card, we abuse them. C.J. tends to react to labels like “lording” or “spiritual abuse” but they fit him. He just doesn’t connect the dots to see how they apply in his dealing with people. Similarly, lording it over others. That is, using other people to accomplish your own selfish agenda be it self-preservation or retaliation in many forms (mild to flagrant) towards people you don’t like.” (Brent Detwiler to Joshua Harris, “True Repentance,” Monday, June 27, 2011 4:00 PM)

[4] Johnson & Marklein

[5] Wetzel

[6] Johnson & Marklein

Thursday, October 18, 2012

SGM-Mahaneygate: Brent Detwiler Makes Statement Re: Lawsuit Against SGM Sex Abuse Allegations


C. J. Mahaney, President of SGM
Co-defendant


Brent Detwiler offers his statement below, including remarks to a press member.
 
 
Lawsuit claims evangelical church group concealed sex abuse allegations in Md., Va.
 

by Brent Detwiler on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 3:34pm ·

John Loftness, SGM
Board Member
Co-defendant
This article was carried by the Associated Press and published in newspapers throughout the US. I had no knowledge of these events while I was part of Sovereign Grace Ministries.

All cases of child abuse (or spousal abuse) should be reported to civil authorities as a necessary means to prevent future abuse and protect past victims. That has always been my position. Perpetrators must face justice and pastors should never prevent this from happening.

I trust this lawsuit will bring out the truth and result in corrective and punitive measures where warranted. “Forgiveness” should never be used to pressure a victim into remaining silent or from taking legal action against the abuser. We are talking about serious crimes.

If that kind of manipulation occurred, then the responsible pastors are guilty of spiritual abuse and liable to whatever penalties the law prescribes. C.J. and SGM leaders have a history of protecting the guilty while mistreating the innocent.

John Loftness, Gary Riccuci and others will now have to give account in a court of law. Everything will be brought out into the open. There will be no hiding from prosecution like C.J. did the past 15 months. If it goes to trial, charges will be heard, depositions taken, a just judge appointed, an impartial jury empaneled, witnesses called, sworn testimony given under the threat of perjury, and cross examination allowed.

All of these were denied me. C.J. avoided “jail time” because there was no just proceeding or hearing. Everything was rigged by the Interim Board. Not so in this case. John has covered up for C.J. but C.J. won’t be able to cover up for John if he is guilty as allegedly charged in the lawsuit. Once more, God is intervening in the affairs of Sovereign Grace Ministries.

I was contacted by a national reporter today. I provided this statement.

“C.J. was the President and Chairman of SGM when these incidences occurred. He was also senior pastor of Covenant Life Church – one of the churches cited. He had knowledge of these matters and certainly would have provided counsel to the CLC pastors. He has taken no responsibility for any defective handling of either situation. It is possible the details of these events were covered up to save face. I was one of five SGM Board Members during this time period and I was never told about any of these cases of sexual abuse. That information was withheld from me.

“At the SGM Pastors Conference in 2009, C.J. asked Mark Mullery, the sr. pastor in Fairfax, VA, to make a confession regarding his/the pastors mishandling of the victims. C.J. took no responsibility and said nothing about his own mishandling of victims in Maryland at Covenant Life Church. I don’t know the facts concerning these events but I do know C.J. has a history of covering up serious sins and taking no responsibility as the senior leader.

“C.J. may also have withheld information from me thinking I would advocate for the victims and encourage contact with the law. In so doing, he may have been trying to keep a lid on things in order to avoid a lawsuit and bad press for pastoral negligence.” (Brent Detwiler, Oct 17, 2012)

In this lawsuit, C.J. will certainly be questioned under oath. We’ll find out if my concerns are real or imaginary provided the court allows transcripts in the public domain. I don’t imagine the plaintiffs are willing to settle out of court unless there is a public confession of wrong doing and remedial steps assigned by the court implemented in order to prevent further abuse.


Lawsuit claims evangelical church group concealed sex abuse allegations in Md., Va
ERIC TUCKER, Associated Press
Wednesday, October 17, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Three female plaintiffs claim in a lawsuit filed Wednesday that an evangelical church group covered up allegations of sexual abuse against children, failed to report accusations of misconduct to the police and discouraged its members from cooperating with law enforcement.

The lawsuit was filed in Maryland state court against Sovereign Grace Ministries, a 30-year-old family of churches, with about 100 congregations. Most of its churches are in the U.S., but it also has planted churches in about 21 countries.

The plaintiffs allege a conspiracy spanning more than two decades to conceal sexual abuse committed by church members. The alleged abuse happened in Maryland and northern Virginia in the 1980s and 1990s. The lawsuit accuses church representatives of permitting suspected pedophiles to interact with children, supplying them with free legal advice to avoid prosecution and forcing victims to meet with and “forgive” the person that had molested them.

“The facts show that the Church cared more about protecting its financial and institutional standing than about protecting children, its most vulnerable members,” the lawsuit claims.

The church did not immediately respond to a written message or to a phone message left on its general voicemail box. It wasn’t immediately clear if the church had a lawyer. The suit names as defendants about a half-dozen pastors and church officials who plaintiffs say were alerted to the accusations but either failed to take action or actively covered them up. One official said he had not seen the suit and declined comment. Other defendants either did not immediately respond to phone messages or did not have publicly listed phone numbers.

In accusing church leaders of turning a blind eye to sexual molestation, the lawsuit bears parallels to the allegations of priest sex abuse and the resulting cover-up that have rocked the Roman Catholic church over the last decade. But while that scandal centered on sex abuse by priests, the accusations in this case involve molestation by church members instead of clergy.

Sovereign Grace Ministries grew from its mother church in Gaithersburg, Md., in 1982. It moved its headquarters this year to Louisville, Ky., where it’s also planting a new church. The group has struggled in recent years with fractured leadership and criticism over its discipline methods, especially the church’s emphasis on sins, discipline and repentance.

The suit only covers alleged abuse that occurred in Maryland in northern Virginia, but the church has faced scrutiny on other occasions for its handling of sexual abuse claims, and Susan Burke, a lawyer representing the three plaintiffs, said there are other alleged victims prepared to join a class-action suit.

For instance, an April report by a non-profit Lutheran mediation group that studied the church for nine months found that while church leaders showed “care and concern” about sex abuse allegations, a number of people interviewed felt the claims were handled irresponsibly and were left with “disappointments and hurts.”

The lawsuit faults the church’s “Home Group” structure, in which children are provided with day care so their parents can attend services, as fostering a poorly supervised environment that enabled the abuse to occur.

The lawsuit centers on allegations of three female plaintiffs, each identified by pseudonyms to protect their anonymity.

One of the three plaintiffs, a high school student in Virginia, alleges she was sexually assaulted when she was 3 years old and that the mother of the boy who abused her revealed the molestation to the church. But church officials discouraged her family from reporting the allegations to police and, instead, repeatedly interviewed the alleged abuser and worked with him and his mother to determine how best to prevent any prosecution and publicity regarding the abuse.

A second plaintiff, a college student in Maryland, says she was sexually abused as a toddler by a church member. She says the church pastor scolded her parents after they called the police and then tipped off the accused that he had been reported to the police. She says her parents were instructed to bring her to a meeting with her alleged abuser so they could be “reconciled,” but that she was “visibly scared and crawled under the chair” after being brought into the same room with him.

The third plaintiff says her adoptive father, a member of the church, sexually abused her older sister for three and a half years. She says the church warned her mother not to pursue a prosecution, then kicked the family out of the church and denied the children reduced tuition to the school. The man was ultimately prosecuted and imprisoned, the lawsuit says.

“We view the case as an important step in holding SGM accountable for its misdeeds,” said Burke, the lawyer who represents the three plaintiffs and is also suing the military on behalf of female service members who say they were raped. “No institution can put its own financial concerns above the needs of vulnerable children.”

SGM-Mahaneygate (Text of Class Action Lawsuit): Mahaney-SGM v. Child Abuse Victims Class


http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2012/10/18/actual-lawsuit-brought-against-sovereign-grace-ministries-se.html
 
A word from Brent Detwiler followed by the lawsuit against SGM.

Actual Lawsuit Brought Against Sovereign Grace Ministries & Seven Defendents

Just a few introductory remarks before you read the lawsuit. No one should presume the guilt or innocence of any of these men. Each one will need to represent himself. Guilt or innocence will vary from man to man.
 
Furthermore, no one should presume these charges are true or false. Each one must be tried. Plaintiffs prosecute - defendents defend. Both are cross examined under sworn testimony.
 
I pray all false charges are tossed out and all true charges upheld. That pastors are vindicated per the evidence and victims are justified per the evidence. Prov 12:17 A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies.  

##

IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, MARYLAND
CIVIL DIVISION

____________________________________
JANE DOE (pseudonym), ) JURY DEMAND
NORMA NOE (pseudonym), )
ROBIN ROE (pseudonym), )

Plaintiffs and Class Representatives, ) Case No. 369721
v. ) )

SOVEREIGN GRACE MINISTRIES )
7505 Muncaster Mill Rd )
Gaithersburg, MD 20877 )
)


CHARLES JOSEPH MAHANEY )
20911 Lochaven Court )
Gaithersburg, MD 20882-4467 )
)

GARY RICUCCI )
404 Sanders Lane )
Gaithersburg, MD 20877-3410 )
)

DAVID HINDERS ) RECEIVED
5328 Ox Road ) OCT 17, 2012
Fairfax, VA 22030-4606 ) Clerk of the Circuit Court
) Montgomery County, Md.

LOUIS GALLO )
9663 Mason Bluff Court )
Burke, VA 22012-3148 )
FRANK ECELBARGER )
4113 Leafy Glade Place )
Casselberry, FL 32707-5286 )
)

JOHN LOFTNESS )
3005 Arden Forest Lane )
Bowie, MD 20716-3821 )
)

GRANT LAYMAN )
20305 Oyster Bay Terrace )
Montgomery Village, MD 20996-5908 )
)

LAWRENCE TOMCZAK )
1312 Wolverton Drive )
Franklin, TN 37067-6523 )



)
Defendants. )

____________________________________)


CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

1. Plaintiffs and numerous others were seriously harmed by Sovereign Grace Ministries and the other Defendants (collectively referred to as "the Church") because the Church covered up child molestation and sexual assaults occurring under its auspices. The facts show that the Church cared more about protecting its financial and institutional standing than about protecting children, its most vulnerable members. The Church failed to report known incidences of sexual predation to law enforcement, encouraged parents to refrain from reporting the assaults to law enforcement, and interposed themselves between the parents of the victims and law enforcement in order to mislead law enforcement into believing the parents had "forgiven" those who preyed on their children. Defendants' acts and omissions were not isolated events. Defendants' repeated acts and omissions created a culture in which sexual predators were protected from accountability, and victims were silenced.

2. This action arises under common law of Maryland.

PARTIES

3. Jane Doe is a female high-school student residing in Virginia who was sexually assaulted when she was three years old. Due to the nature of the lawsuit, she wishes to use the pseudonym Jane Doe to keep her identity confidential. Jane Doe brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated.

4. Norma Noe is a 22-year old female college student residing in Maryland who was sexually assaulted when she was two years old. Due to the nature of the lawsuit, she wishes to use the pseudonym Norma Noe to keep her identity confidential. Norma Noe brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated.

5. Robin Roe is a young woman residing in Maryland whose sister was sexually assaulted by a pedophiliac stepfather. Due to the nature of the lawsuit, she wishes to use the pseudonym Robin Roe to keep her identity confidential. Robin Roe brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated.

6. Defendant Sovereign Grace Ministries, Inc. ("the Church" or "SGM") operates in 21 countries and the United States. The Church is located at 7505 Muncaster Mill Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, and at 2002 Fandango Court, Louisville, KY 40245. The Church is a nonprofit organized under Maryland law. The Church includes and operates Sovereign Grace Church Fairfax at 5200 Ox Road, Fairfax, VA 22030, Covenant Life Church, at 7501 Muncaster Mill Rd, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, and numerous other churches in the United States and abroad. During timeframe at issue in this lawsuit, the Church generated substantial revenues in Maryland and elsewhere by planting churches,[1] training leader, holding conferences, operating the "Pastors College," selling books, music and audio products, and owning real estate in this District and elsewhere.

7. Defendant Charles Joseph ("C.J.") Mahaney resides at 20911 Lochaven Court, Gaithersburg, MD 20882-4467. Together with Defendant Tomczak, he founded the Church in 1982. He presently serves as President of the Church.

8. Defendant Lawrence Tomczak resides at 1312 Wolverton Drive, Franklin, TN 37067-6523. Together with Defendant Mahaney, Defendant Tomczak founded the Church in 1982.

9. Defendant John Loftness resides at 3005 Arden Forest Lane, Bowie, MD 20716­3821. He presently serves as Chairman of the Board of the Church and was personally involved in the events that led to this lawsuit.

10. Defendant Grant Layman resides at 20305 Oyster Bay Terrace, Montgomery Village, MD 20886-5908. He is employed by the Church and was personally involved in the events that led to this lawsuit.

11. Defendant Gary Ricucci resides at 404 Sanders Lane, Gaithersburg, MD 20877­3410. He is employed by the Church and was personally involved in the events that led to this lawsuit.

12. Defendant David Hinders resides at 5328 Ox Road, Fairfax, VA 22030-4606. He is employed by the Church and was personally involved in the events that led to this lawsuit.

13. Defendant Louis Gallow resides at 9663 Mason Bluff Court, Burke, VA 22015­3148. He is employed by the Church and was personally involved in the events that led to this lawsuit.

14. Defendant Frank Ecelbarger resides at 4113 Leafy Glade Place, Casselberry, FL 32707-5286. He is employed by the Church and was personally involved in the events that led to this lawsuit.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15. The Church constantly engaged in the care of members' children. Among other things, the Church directed the establishment of home schooling groups, arranged for and provided day care to permit members to attend services, and arranged for babysitting during multiple weekly Home/Care meetings. According to the Church's own admissions, it was responsible for more than 800 children at its Gaithersburg Church, and many hundreds of others elsewhere.

16. The Church failed to take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of children under its care, such as requiring that pastors be licensed or ordained. The Church failed to adopt any processes or policies to deal with sexual predation, and failed to train adequately those placed in direct control over children.

17. During the time frame at issue in this lawsuit (1987 to the present), the Church operated through a "Home Group" structure and required members to attend a Home Group meeting each week in various residential premises.[2] The Church issued and reinforced church organizational policies and practices through regular weekly teachings, books, and audio tapes conditioning members to follow "spiritual leaders." The Church directed members to unquestioningly "obey" the Church in all matters, including methods of parenting, place of residence and employment.

18. As early as 1987, the Church was on notice that sexual predation of children was occurring under its auspices. In addition to the incidents described below, the Church learned in 1997 through non-ministerial means that the son of a high-ranking Church leader was engaged in the sexual predation of children under the Church's care. Yet the Church did absolutely nothing to protect the children.

19. Between 1987 and the present, the Church repeatedly confronted occasions of sexual predation of children was occurring under the Church's auspices. The Church failed to alert law enforcement authorities, and failed to take any steps whatsoever to protect the children from sexual predation.

20. Instead, the Church taught members to fear and distrust all secular authorities, and expressly directed members not to contact law enforcement to report sexual assaults. This practice has not stopped, as is evidenced by teachings as communications as recent as August 2011. On those occasions when the Church was not successful in persuading the parents of the victim to refrain from contacting law enforcement, the Church interfered with the administration of justice by tipping off the sexual predators that they had been reported to law enforcement.

21. The Church provided sexual predators with free legal advice and counsel on how to evade accountability, and repeatedly worked with sexual predators to mislead law enforcement. The Church was willing to, and did, make false statements to law enforcement officials and in courts of law in its efforts to protect sexual predators.

22. Upon information and belief, the Church never initiated contact with the police or any other secular authority when it learned of sexual predation occurring under its auspices. Instead, the Church concealed the ongoing sexual predation in order to avoid any financial or reputational harms to the Church. The Church admitted that it placed such harms over the well­being of the vulnerable children in its care, claiming "[t]hat is our responsibility to protect the Church from harm, and that includes a lawsuit against the Church."

23. The Church forbade members from discussing sexual predation, which created additional opportunities for sexual predation to occur, as sexual predators repeat their conduct unless detected and incarcerated.

24. The Church refused to alert members to the presence of known and convicted pedophiles, instead relying on such persons to "self-report" to church members. The Church knew that pedophiles were not "self-reporting" to church members and instead were participating in church events involving children. The Church permitted and, as reasonable discovery will show, is continuing to permit, known pedophiles to interact with children without advising the parents of these interactions. For example, the Church has permitted one known pedophile to homeschool children at his house, and has permitted another to attend a children's camping trip.

25. The Church exacerbated the harm to the innocent victims of sexual predation by forcing them (some as young as 3 years old) to meet and "forgive" their sexual predators. These sessions re-traumatized the victims and their parents.

26. In the majority of instances of sexual predation, the Church managed to silence the parents of the child victims, and effectively prevented the involvement of law enforcement. The Church retaliated against those parents who refused to participate in the Church's efforts to assist sexual predators evade secular accountability. The Church engaged in a series of coercive and retaliatory acts designed to isolate and harm, including threatening families' financial well­being, threatening expulsion from the church, and threatening legal action against victims and their families.

27. The Church misled its members by making a series of false statements designed to allay concerns about the ongoing sexual predation. During a meeting held on August 17, 2011, the Church claimed — falsely — that there had only been two incidents of sexual predation when the Church knew the number was far greater.

JANE DOE

28. Between August 1998 and March 1999, a church member repeatedly sexual assaulted and sexually molested Jane Doe. Jane Doe was three years old at the time of the sexual assaults and repeated sexual assaults. She was living in Woodbridge, Virginia.

29. On or about March 15, 1999, the mother of the perpetrator told the Church in a non-confessional setting that that her son had been repeatedly sexually molesting Jane Doe. She told Defendants Ecelbarger, Phillips, Hinders, Gallo, and perhaps others that her son had admitted to these crimes.

30. Upon learning of the crimes, the Church failed to report the crimes to the secular authorities. Instead, the Church engaged in a lengthy pattern of fraud and deception to try to prevent anyone from learning the full extent of the ongoing criminal activity.

31. The Church directed the parents of Jane Doe -- church officials who ran a Home Group -- to remain silent about the sexual assault and assault, and refrain from alerting other members of the church to the ongoing predation of their three-year old daughter.

32. The Church sought to persuade the parents of Jane Doe to refrain from reporting the crimes and involving social services.

33. The Church did nothing to prevent the perpetrator from babysitting at other church functions or otherwise having contact with other children.

34. The Church interfered with the administration of justice by repeatedly interviewing the perpetrator, and working with him and his mother to determine how best to prevent any prosecution and publicity regarding his criminal sexual deviance.

35. The Church misled secular authorities into believing that it was providing "accountability measures" to ensure that the perpetrator was not permitted access to his siblings or other children. In fact, the Church did not put any "accountability measures" in place, but instead permitted a known child molester to frequent the "children's ministry" without any supervision, babysit children of members, and otherwise interact with children at church events, including a weekend retreat, without any supervision whatsoever.

36. The Church lied to the parents of Jane Doe, telling them that the Church would ensure that the parents were kept informed of all court dates. In fact, the Church, working with the perpetrator and his mother, lied and misled the parents in order to prevent them from attending court appearances and filing a victim impact statement.

37. The Church lied to the public authorities, representing that they were speaking on behalf of the parents of Jane Doe, and falsely claiming that the parents did not wish to participate in the court proceedings regarding the sexual assault and sexual molestation of Jane Doe.

38. The Church made a series of misrepresentations to their church members to ensure that they did not learn that the perpetrator had been raping Jane Doe.

39. The Church did not take any steps whatsoever to protect other children from sexual predation by a known sexual predator.

FACTS REGARDING NORMA NOE

40. On or about March 17, 1993, a church member sexually molested Norma Noe. Norma Noe was two years old at the time of the sexual assault and living in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

41. The parents of Norma Noe learned of the abuse the day after it occurred. They immediately called the police and reported the assault. After calling the police, they contacted Defendant Loftness. He immediately advised the parents "do not call the police." When the parents of Norma Noe advised Defendant Loftness that they had already called the police, he expressed his displeasure (stating "that is going to be a problem"), and explained that such matters were handled internally by the church leadership, not by secular authorities.

42. The Church, acting through Defendant Loftness, immediately interfered with the administration of justice by tipping off the perpetrator that the parents had reported his sexual predation to the police. Defendant Loftness also took steps to ensure that other church members in the neighborhood were not alerted to the crime.

43. Defendant Loftness continued to interfere with the impartial administration of justice. Defendant Loftness "obtained" a confession from the predator, and began to serve as an intermediary between the police and the predator in order to control and prevent the dissemination of information to other families whose children were at risk of predation.

44. The Church required the parents of Norma Noe to bring Norma Noe to a meeting to be "reconciled" with her predator. When Norma Noe (who had just turned three) was brought into the same room with her predator, she was visibly scared and crawled under the chair. The "reconciliation" meeting created additional damage to Norma Noe, already traumatized by the initial abuse, and traumatized the parents of Norma Noe.

45. Defendant Loftness involved Defendants Ricucci and Layman to assist him in disseminating false and misleading information to the police and to church members.

46. The Church did not take any steps whatsoever to learn the extent of sexual predation by the predator, such as advising the police that the predator had been charged with the care of numerous toddlers in his role as a Home Group babysitter. The parents of other children exposed to the predator were never advised of the sexual assault, and never counseled to be alert for signs of trauma in their children.

47. The Church advised the parents of Norma Noe that they were required to remain completely silent about who had committed the assault, and thus refrain from providing other members of the Church information needed to protect their own children from the sexual predation.

48. The Church required the parents of Norma Noe to refrain from telling any other church members the name of the sexual predator who had sexual assaulted their three-year old daughter.

49. The Church knowingly permitted the sexual predator to continue to participate, unsupervised, in church activities with children despite his conviction for molesting Norma Noe.

50. The Church withheld information from the parents of Norma Noe about the assault that the Church had obtained directly from the predator.

51. The Church misled the parents in order to prevent them from attending court appearances and filing a victim impact statement.

FACTS REGARDING ROBIN ROE

52. Plaintiff Robin Roe's adoptive father ("Parental Pedophile") is a sexual deviant who sexually abused her older sister for three and one-half years. His criminal conduct was discovered by Robin Roe's mother on or about November 2, 1987. Parental Pedophile was and remains a member of the Church.

53. The Church' actions taken after discovering her adoptive father's pedophilia permanently harmed Robin Roe. Robin Roe's mother reported Parental Pedophile's sexual abuse of her 11-year old daughter to the Church leader Dave Mays, who in turn immediately reported the abuse to Defendant Ricucci, and later reported the abuse to Defendant Loftness.

54. The Church did not report the matter to the police or any other law enforcement authorities, as they were required to do. Instead, acting through Defendant Ricucci, the Church directed Robin Roe's mother to let them "take care of everything." Robin Roe's mother wanted counseling for the victim and herself, but Defendant Ricucci told Robin Roe's mother that they did not want her to go to a counselor because counselors had a duty to report abuse. Rather than assisting the victims, the Church retained a lawyer for the sexual predator.

55. The Church worked with him and intervened repeatedly on his behalf to try to lessen the consequences for his criminality. The Church interposed themselves between law enforcement authorities and the family members, and falsely claimed that they were acting on the family's behalf The Church even suggested to Robin Roe's mother that she send Robin Roe's sister, the victim, out of the house in order to "bring" the predator home as "head of the household."

56. The Church took steps to prevent Robin Roe from alerting others in the church community about her stepfather's sexual predation. After Robin Roe confided in one friend, another church member, about the Parental Pedophile's abuse of her sister, the Church acted to prevent Robin Roe from remaining within the church community.

57. As a result of the Church's conduct and misrepresentations, Robin Roe was not cared for by loving and responsible adults, but instead was incarcerated in a juvenile half-way house with criminal juveniles.

58. The Church obstructed the investigation and the pursuit of justice. The Church interfered with interactions with the secular authorities. The Church warned Robin Roe's mother that her means of financial support would disappear if Parental Pedophile was convicted. The Church intervened with the State in support of the Parental Pedophile, and otherwise supported his defense efforts contrary to the wishes of the victim and her mother.

59. After Robin Roe's mother refused to acquiesce in the Church' attempt to obstruct justice, the Church dropped all pretense of support, and expelled the family from the Church. The Church also effectively expelled the children from school by denying them the reduced tuition that the family had received for over ten years. The Church told Robin Roe's mother that the family's financial destitution was self-induced because she was refusing to cooperate.

60. The secular authorities prosecuted and incarcerated Parental Pedophile. During the incarceration, the Church continuously intervened on his behalf, trying to reduce his sentence. When the Parental Pedophile was released from incarceration, the Church continuously intervened with the secular authorities in supporting his effort to obtain custody of the children.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANT SGM

61. Plaintiffs seek to certify this action as a class against Defendant SGM. For purposes of the Class Allegations, the term "Church" refers only to Defendant SGM. Plaintiffs, acting in the interest of others similarly situated, allege that there is a class of male and female persons harmed by the Church's negligent and intentional misconduct in concealing, tolerating, failing to report, and thereby encouraging sexual abuse, sexual contact, sexual exploitation and sexual misconduct by church members.

62. Certification of a class is permitted here under Rule 2-231 of the Code of Maryland because the prerequisites have been met. Joinder of all members of the class is impracticable for two reasons: there are too many members, and they seek anonymity given the facts. There are questions of law and fact common to the class which predominate over any question affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the class claims, and plaintiffs will fairly adequately protect the interests of the class.

63. The Plaintiff Class is defined as those minor persons sexually assaulted or molested by a Church member during the time period 1987 to present, and who were harmed by the Church's acts and omissions after the Church was put on notice of the assault or molestation.

64. Discovery from SGM's files will establish the precise number of victims in the Plaintiff Class. Three examples are provided here: First, a young girl was repeatedly sexually abused by her father, a member of the SGM church located in Fairfax, Virginia. When the girl reached the age of ten, she told her mother about the ongoing and long-standing sexual abuse. The mother immediately contacted the Church.

65. The Church directed the mother to remain completely silent about the father's repeated incestuous sexual assaults, and to refrain from reporting the pedophilia to the police or other authorities.

66. The Church directed the mother to refrain advising other members of the church of her husband's sexually-deviant behavior. When the mother turned to her friends (fellow SGM members) for support, the Church reprimanded her for the sin of "gossiping."

67. The Church required the family to undergo pastoral counseling. During the counseling, the Church told the mother that she was a "sinner," and directed her to refrain from seeking any outside counseling for herself or her daughter. The Church also told the 10-year old victim that she was a "sinner" for having been victimized.

68. The Church blamed the mother for the father's pedophilia and instructed her to engage in sex with her husband more frequently to prevent him from "being tempted."

69. The Church instructed the mother to place a lock on the inside of her daughter's door, and lock it each night to keep the father from assaulting the child.

70. The Church advised the father to turn himself into authorities, but he never did so. The Church knew the abuse was ongoing and that the father was not going to turn himself into the authorities, yet they directed the mother to refrain from reporting the crimes or otherwise involving any civil authorities.

71. The Church withheld information about the abuse from other church members.

72. The Church continued to allow this pedophiliac to attend church events that put him in unsupervised contact with other minors.

73. The Church disseminated the false information that sexual deviants who molest their own children are unlikely to molest non-family members.

74. Second, church members discovered that one of their minor children was being sexually molested by a member of SGM. The parents reported the abuse to the Church.

75. The Church failed to place any meaningful restrictions on the sexual predator and instead permitted him to continue to have access to the child during Sunday church services.

76. The Church directed the parents to refrain from reporting the events to the police or other law enforcement authorities. The parents followed this directive.

77. Nine years later, the parents learned that their other child had been sexually molested in 2002 as a result of the Church' acts and omissions. The parents immediately contacted the police and pressed charges.

78. The Church interfered with the administration of justice by alerting and interviewing the sexual predator in advance of the police. When the police requested information from the Church, they refused to comply with the subpoenas.

79. The Church instructed the two victims' biological aunt (their mother's sister), a woman married to an SGM pastor, to refrain from speaking with her sister about the abuse of her niece and nephew.

80. The Church withheld information about the known sexual predators from other church members.

81. Third, a child was molested by a person of the same sex. The parents immediately advised the Church of this attack. The Church told the parents that the sexual predator had been caught molesting several other children on occasions in the past. The Church did not report the sexual predator to the authorities or take any other steps to protect children in their care. Instead, the Church merely required the parents and the victim to attend a session in which the sexual predator "apologized" for the attack.

82. The Church directed the parents and victim to refrain from telling anyone about the attack because the predator "repented." As a result of the attack and subsequent cover-up, the victim suffered serious mental after-effects, including but not limited to suicidal ideation.

83. In sum, the Church has conspired repeatedly to permit sexual predators to evade detection and prosecution. The Church has abused the positions of trust and subjected defenseless children to life-changing crimes.

84. The Church's repeated misconduct and/or negligence harmed and continues to harm the three Jane Does, their parents, and many others, in wholly foreseeable ways.

85. The Church's misconduct and/or negligence caused the three Jane Does severe emotional distress as well as financial distress arising from the need for treatment and inability to function to an optimum capacity.

86. The Church's misconduct and/or negligence caused harm to Plaintiffs and to the Plaintiff Class.

COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE

87. All the foregoing allegations are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.

88. Defendants, individually and through their actual and or apparent agents, servants and/or employees, owed Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect Plaintiffs from sexual predators and report sexual abuse to law enforcement when it was found to have occurred under the auspices of the Church.

89. Defendants are liable for the sexual violence that happened in their ranks because they acted in reckless and grossly negligent fashion with complete disregard for the safety of children entrusted into the Church's care.

90. Defendants were on notice that sexual predation was occurring in church settings and as a result of authority bestowed by the Church, yet they lied and intervened to try to protect the predators from being incarcerated.

91. Defendants negligently breached duties owed to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class by repeatedly allowing known sexual predators to engage with children at church-sponsored events or on church premises, by failing to report the abuse themselves, by directing parents not to report the abuse and by concealing the abuse from church members and authorities.

92. Defendants knew, or should have known, that making children available to sexual predators breached a duty of care owned to minors.

93. Defendants knew, or should have known, that failure to report sexual abuse and engage in its concealment breached a duty of care owed to minors. Defendants knew, or should have known, that state laws required the reporting of suspected sexual abuse of a minor to the authorities.

94. As a direct and proximate result of this breach of duty, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class suffered and continue to suffer physical and emotional distress, shock, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life; have sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling.

COUNT II—INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

95. All the foregoing allegations are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.

96. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class have suffered from extreme stress and severe emotional distress due to Defendants' extreme and outrageous actions.

97. Defendants' conduct was intentional and reckless and Defendants knew or should have known that injury and emotional distress would likely result from their conduct.

98. Defendants knew, or should have known, that failure to report sexual abuse and engage in its concealment breached a duty of care. Defendants knew, or should have known, that state laws required the reporting of suspected sexual abuse of a minor to the authorities.

99. Defendants' acts and omissions that made Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class available to sexual predators, prevented parents from reporting, and interfered with police investigations were so extreme and outrageous that it violated human dignity.

100. As a direct and proximate result of this breach of duty, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class suffered and continue to suffer physical and emotional distress, shock, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life; have sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling.

COUNT III - CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE

101. All the foregoing allegations are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.

102. Defendants engaged in a conspiracy with each other by agreement or understanding to not report acts of abuse, to refrain from contacting civil authorities, to conceal the sexual abuse, and to interfere with police investigations.

103. Defendants owed a duty of care arising from the convening of Home Groups.

104. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class were owed a duty to be safe on Defendants' property and to be free of sexual abuse.

105. Defendants knew, or should have known, that dangerous conditions existed on their property. They knew, or should have known, that sexual predators were allowed on their property and were placed in unsupervised rooms with minors.

106. Defendants' knowledge was gained in sufficient time to allow Defendants to remove the sexual predators from their property and/or to warn the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class. Instead, Defendants tipped off the predators, thus obstructing justice.

107. Defendants adopted policies and practices that required members to refrain from reporting crimes to secular law enforcement authorities until and instead report such crimes to Defendants.

COUNT IV - NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION 

 AGAINST DEFENDANT SGM


108. All the foregoing allegations are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.

109. Defendant SGM entered into an employment relationship with the individual Defendants.
Defendant SGM had actual or constructive knowledge that the individual Defendants (acting as pastors) routinely refused to report suspected child abuse to secular authorities, encouraged parents to refrain from seeking outside help or counsel, allowed child abusers access to minors and fostered a culture of concealment of sexual deviance.

110. These employees' actions and omissions caused injury to Plaintiffs and to the Plaintiff Class, who have suffered and continue to suffer physical and emotional distress, shock, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life; have sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling.

111. Defendant SGM in hiring, supervising or retaining the employees is a direct and proximate cause of injuries to Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class.

COUNT V – MISREPRESENTATION

112. All the foregoing allegations are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.

113. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class. Defendants misrepresented that they would provide a safe atmosphere for Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class. Defendants intended and had knowledge that their statements would be relied upon by parents. Defendants knew, however, that reliance on those statements would cause injury, since Defendants allowed sexual predators access to minors.

114. Defendants misrepresented that they would act as advocates for the victims and their families. Defendants intended and had knowledge that their statements would be relied upon by parents. Defendants knew, however, that reliance on those statements would cause injury, since Defendants acted as advocates for the perpetrators, not the victims.

115. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' misrepresentations, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class were harmed and injured.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury on all issues.
Susan L. Burke
BURKE PLLC
1000 Potomac Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007-1105
Telephone: (202) 386-9622
Facsimile: (202) 232-5513
sburke@burkepllc.com


William T. O'Neil
THE O'NEIL GROUP LLC
7500 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 1375
Bethesda, MD 20814
Telephone: (202) 684-7140
Facsimile: (202) 517-9179
woneil@oneilgroupllc.com


[1] Church planting involves sending groups of SGM members to begin an SGM church in a new area. Many SGM members all buy or rent houses near each other to live out their religious beliefs in a communal setting. Church planting requires members to attempt to persuade other neighbors to attend and participate in the new church.
[2] Defendants initially called this structure “Home Groups,” but later changed the terminology to “CareGroups.” Plaintiffs use the term “Home Groups” to encompass both “Home Groups” and “Care Groups.”