by Bryan Denson and Nancy Haught The Oregonian
Wednesday February 18, 2009
The ink on the Northwest Jesuits’ bankruptcy filing was still drying Wednesday when wrangling over the value of the Catholic order’s assets commenced.
Officials at a handful of Jesuit-sponsored institutions said they don’t belong to the Jesuits and aren’t subject to their legal problems, while lawyers who represent people sexually abused by priests said the province has grossly underestimated its worth.
Kelly Clark, a Portland lawyer who has represented victims of Jesuit priest abuse, said he was surprised to read that the Jesuits declared assets of just $4.8 million in their Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing late Tuesday in Portland. And he expects a legal fight over properties commonly associated with the Society of Jesus, Oregon Province, better known as the Jesuits.
"They’re going to say that they don’t own Jesuit High School, Gonzaga University, Seattle University and maybe other institutions — even though those institutions were Jesuit established, Jesuit dominated," Clark said. "I think the legal question will be, are they Jesuit controlled for purposes of determining equitable ownership? So there are going to be a number of hard-fought legal battles."
Clark said the Jesuits’ estimate of assets isn’t unprecedented. In 2004, he said, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland underestimated the value of its assets in its initial bankruptcy filing, a calculation that — after much legal wrangling — was corrected by the court. He predicted a similar battle ahead for the Jesuits.
The Oregon Province of Jesuits, including its leader, the Rev. Patrick J. Lee, would not comment on the bankruptcy on Wednesday, said spokesman Pat Walsh. But the leadership of Jesuit High School, St. Andrew Nativity School and the Jesuit Volunteer Corps said their institutions are not owned, financed or governed by the Jesuit province and that the bankruptcy won’t affect their programs.
"We have never shared assets with the province," said John Gladstone, president of Jesuit High School in Beaverton. The school has been separately incorporated since its founding in 1956, he said. Expecting that the Oregon Province might declare bankruptcy, the school consulted its own attorneys. "They looked at our bylaws, how we’re set up financially and structurally … and they told us we’re very safe," he said.
In a letter sent to the parents of Jesuit High’s 1,160 students Wednesday, Gladstone and Principal Sandy Satterberg said there were no pending claims against any Jesuit High priest and that the school is "not at risk in any way as a result of the province’s bankruptcy filing."
Lawyers who represent victims of alleged abuse by Jesuit priests scoffed at Tuesday evening’s comments by Lee, who had described the order’s decision to file for Chapter 11 reorganization as the only way to offer a fair settlement to claimants.
"Does anybody really believe that the Jesuits, who’ve raped hundreds and hundreds of Native (American) kids, are filing bankruptcy to help them?" asked John Manly, a Newport Beach, Calif., lawyer who represents native Alaskans who have accused Jesuit priests and their colleagues of sexual abuse.
Tuesday’s filing wasn’t an altruistic endeavor, he said, describing it as a calculated effort to prevent more victims from coming forward, halt the legal discovery process — and the bad press that comes with it — and downplay the order’s assets.
"I’ve been litigating with these guys for the better part of 10 years," Manly said. "I’ve never seen them try and help a victim. Their idea of help is to file a motion for summary judgment and dismiss. They fought the Alaska Supreme Court to get these cases dismissed and lost, and that’s why they’re in bankruptcy — not to help people, (but) because essentially their legal options have run out."
by Bryan Denson and Nancy Haught The Oregonian
Wednesday February 18, 2009
The ink on the Northwest Jesuits’ bankruptcy filing was still drying Wednesday when wrangling over the value of the Catholic order’s assets commenced.
Officials at a handful of Jesuit-sponsored institutions said they don’t belong to the Jesuits and aren’t subject to their legal problems, while lawyers who represent people sexually abused by priests said the province has grossly underestimated its worth.
Kelly Clark, a Portland lawyer who has represented victims of Jesuit priest abuse, said he was surprised to read that the Jesuits declared assets of just $4.8 million in their Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing late Tuesday in Portland. And he expects a legal fight over properties commonly associated with the Society of Jesus, Oregon Province, better known as the Jesuits.
"They’re going to say that they don’t own Jesuit High School, Gonzaga University, Seattle University and maybe other institutions — even though those institutions were Jesuit established, Jesuit dominated," Clark said. "I think the legal question will be, are they Jesuit controlled for purposes of determining equitable ownership? So there are going to be a number of hard-fought legal battles."
Clark said the Jesuits’ estimate of assets isn’t unprecedented. In 2004, he said, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland underestimated the value of its assets in its initial bankruptcy filing, a calculation that — after much legal wrangling — was corrected by the court. He predicted a similar battle ahead for the Jesuits.
The Oregon Province of Jesuits, including its leader, the Rev. Patrick J. Lee, would not comment on the bankruptcy on Wednesday, said spokesman Pat Walsh. But the leadership of Jesuit High School, St. Andrew Nativity School and the Jesuit Volunteer Corps said their institutions are not owned, financed or governed by the Jesuit province and that the bankruptcy won’t affect their programs.
"We have never shared assets with the province," said John Gladstone, president of Jesuit High School in Beaverton. The school has been separately incorporated since its founding in 1956, he said. Expecting that the Oregon Province might declare bankruptcy, the school consulted its own attorneys. "They looked at our bylaws, how we’re set up financially and structurally … and they told us we’re very safe," he said.
In a letter sent to the parents of Jesuit High’s 1,160 students Wednesday, Gladstone and Principal Sandy Satterberg said there were no pending claims against any Jesuit High priest and that the school is "not at risk in any way as a result of the province’s bankruptcy filing."
Lawyers who represent victims of alleged abuse by Jesuit priests scoffed at Tuesday evening’s comments by Lee, who had described the order’s decision to file for Chapter 11 reorganization as the only way to offer a fair settlement to claimants.
"Does anybody really believe that the Jesuits, who’ve raped hundreds and hundreds of Native (American) kids, are filing bankruptcy to help them?" asked John Manly, a Newport Beach, Calif., lawyer who represents native Alaskans who have accused Jesuit priests and their colleagues of sexual abuse.
Tuesday’s filing wasn’t an altruistic endeavor, he said, describing it as a calculated effort to prevent more victims from coming forward, halt the legal discovery process — and the bad press that comes with it — and downplay the order’s assets.
"I’ve been litigating with these guys for the better part of 10 years," Manly said. "I’ve never seen them try and help a victim. Their idea of help is to file a motion for summary judgment and dismiss. They fought the Alaska Supreme Court to get these cases dismissed and lost, and that’s why they’re in bankruptcy — not to help people, (but) because essentially their legal options have run out."
In other developments, a Portland, Ore., man has filed a $4 million lawsuit against the Franciscan Friars of California, alleging childhood sexual abuse by a priest.
In an unrelated lawsuit seeking $3.25 million, a pastor for the Oregon Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and its Roseburg Junior Academy was accused of sexually abusing a 5-year-old girl in 1992.
The complaints were filed by Portland lawyer Kelly Clark, one of the lead attorneys in a number of sexual abuse cases against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland that ended in a $50 million settlement in 2007. Three years earlier, the archdiocese was the first in the nation to declare bankruptcy.
Calls to Franciscan officials were not immediately returned Wednesday.
An Adventist spokeswoman referred calls to an attorney, who was not immediately available.
The lawsuit against the Franciscan Friars, a Catholic order, was filed Wednesday in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
A 62-year-old man listed only by his initials alleges he was abused as a teenager by Father Claude Riffel at the St. Francis Minor Seminary in Troutdale, east of Portland, in the early 1960s.
According to the lawsuit, Riffel was dean of discipline for the school when he would call the teenager out of class on the pretext of assigning work and then abuse him.
In a statement released with the lawsuit, Clark noted the Franciscan Friars of California is an independent Catholic organization unaffiliated with any diocese.
The lawsuit against the Adventist pastor, who was identified only by his initials, alleges he took the 5-year-old girl to an isolated area of the Roseburg Junior Academy during a "week of prayer" and abused her.
Clark called the case "one of the worst I have seen."
The girl is now 21 and attends community college, he said.
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A Portland man has filed a $4 million lawsuit against the Franciscan Friars of California, alleging childhood sexual abuse by a priest.
The 62-year-old man was listed only by his initials in the lawsuit filed Wednesday in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
The Franciscan Friars are an order of the Roman Catholic Church. The complaint alleges the man was abused as a teenager by Father Claude Riffel at the St. Francis Minor Seminary in Troutdale in the early 1960s.
In an unrelated lawsuit seeking $3.25 million, a pastor for the Western Oregon Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and its Roseburg Junior Academy was accused of sexually abusing a 5-year-old girl in 1992.
For More Information:
Attorney Kelly Clark
(503) 306-0224 or kellyc@oandc.com
Portland, Ore–Today a Portland man filed a $4M child sexual abuse lawsuit against the Franciscan Friars of California, an order of the Roman Catholic Church, for abuse he suffered as a child at the hands of Father Claude Riffel at the St Francis Minor Seminary in Troutdale in 1962-65. According to the lawsuit, Fr Riffel, then the Dean of discipline for the school, would call the then 15 year old boy out of class on the pretext of assigning him work tasks, at which time he would abuse him. The abuse occurred, according to the suit on “scores” of occasions.
The case was filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court by Portland attorney Kelly Clark, who frequently handles such cases against churches, schools, the Boy Scouts, athletic leagues and other “institutions of trust” that work with children. St Francis Seminary was owned and operated by the Franciscan Friars, headquartered in California. The Franciscan Friars of California is a part of the worldwide Catholic order of Franciscans, formally known as the Friars Minor. It is an independent Catholic entity unaffiliated with any diocese, including the Archdiocese of Portland, which filed for bankruptcy protection in 2004 as a result of a torrent of child abuse lawsuits.
NAPSAC, the National Association to Prevent Sexual Abuse of Children, and the NAPSAC Foundation are organizations dedicated to ending childhood sexual abuse in three generations through awareness, education and the advocacy of children’s rights through legal reform.
NAPSAC is an organization dedicated to ending the sexual abuse of children through awareness, education, and the advocacy of children’s rights through legal reform.
NAPSAC represents a future of hope where children will be allowed to enjoy their childhood and where society stands firmly against those who cause pain and violence against the innocent. There is no singular solution to this problem. NAPSAC believes it is with this three-key strategic plan, outlining the necessary steps to ending childhood sexual abuse in three generations, is what we must all follow to create a safer America for our children.
Last week, it was reported that U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien had empaneled a grand jury to investigate the sexual abuse crisis in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Prosecutors will consider charging Cardinal Mahony and other church officials "under a federal fraud statute that makes it illegal to ’scheme…to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’" according to the L.A.Times.
Cardinal Mahony immediately took to the airwaves to declare himself "mystified and puzzled" by this development. Yet his interview in fact provides the best possible justification for U.S. Attorney O’Brien’s decision. To see why, read Cardinal Mahony’s interview, transcribed in full for the first time here. Then test his claims of full disclosure against the archdiocese’s misrepresentations in the sample case of Rev. Lynn Caffoe.
Cardinal Mahony would have us believe that the archdiocese offered "a complete breakdown of all of those cases" in 2004. Then they "reached a settlement with the plaintiffs, and that’s all behind us." But as the 508 plaintiffs know, the document release promised in the settlement still has not happened, almost two years later. Without the documents, we are left with the archdiocesan version of events. Thanks to the courage of survivors and their families, and the hard work of attorneys and reporters, the archdiocese’s silence and lies in the Caffoe case have begun to be challenged. But much is still secret. And Caffoe is one of hundreds. O’Brien has a long row to hoe.
Blog Author: Kelly Clark Date: February 1, 2009 in Brainstorm NW
“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” -Thomas Jefferson
Big Government. Not since Ronald Reagan was President or Vic Atiyeh was Governor have Oregonians seen a concerted effort to stop the growth of government—and both of those honorable men failed in that task. And in the November elections– whatever else they did—the voters gave the Democrats the reins of government, unchecked even by a Republican chamber in national or state legislative halls. Now, it is no part of my purpose to discuss the political map.
But one undoubted consequence of the elections is that Big Government will get bigger. That is the way that Democrats (and, apparently, judging from recent years, Republicans, too) tackle big problems. So, in an age of Big Government how do we protect our liberties? There are really only three tools our constitutional structure has for this challenge: representative government—where the people can remonstrate against excesses of public power through their elected representatives; a free press—which, theoretically at least, can shine the light of day on abuse of power by government; and the jury system—through which those on the wrong end of the Big Government stick can seek to hold public agencies accountable. It is this last, a potent jury system, that I believe needs to be defended, now more than ever.
Even before I became a trial lawyer, as a conservative I believed in the jury system. Then, over the past decades, as a conservative and a trial lawyer, I have seen time and again how large institutions are afraid to have their oppressive conduct proven to a jury. It does not really matter whether the institutions are private—banks, mega-corporations, insurance companies, or public—land use agencies, regulators, electoral bureaucracies. All these institutions can and regularly do run over our liberties. Ask anyone who has been on the receiving end of Oregon’s land use system, or whose business has been shut down by an overzealous bureaucrat, or whose idea for a ballot measure has been drubbed into the ground because some elections official misused his or her power. All these citizens will tell you that, sometimes, their only hope for accountability and justice is to plow through the legal system to get the matter before a jury.
So I am always baffled when I hear conservatives talk as if the jury system was the invention of some liberal interest group, and needs to be weakened. Why would we weaken it? Because sometimes juries get it wrong? Well, so what? Is that any reason to take power away from one of the last remaining checks against public power? If voters “get it wrong” in some election, the solution is not to take power away from the voters– though some liberals and elections officials seem to think so. No, the voters retain for themselves the right to be wrong: it is one of the risks of constitutional government. Or, if some political movement is patently offensive, even dangerous, to our ideals of life, do we pass a law that restricts its members’ ability to speak out? Of course not—at least we didn’t used to, before political incorrectness became a crime—for we believe in free speech, and we believe that in the marketplace of ideas, the true and wise ideas will eventually win out.So why is it any different when it comes to the jury system? I certainly do not argue that juries always get it right; our system cannot guarantee justice—but it does guarantee a chance at justice. And it is the knowledge of that “chance” that acts as a restraint on Big Government.
Some conservatives seem to trust the wisdom of the common man when it comes to self-government: free speech, free elections and the initiative system, but not when it comes to the jury system. On the other hand, many liberals seem to believe the average citizen perfectly capable of deciding even the most important legal case, but then they turn around and don’t trust that same citizen to wield the full power of the initiative, or even the vote—apparently believing that the people really are not smart enough, fair enough or wise enough to govern themselves. They-these conservatives and liberals-are elitists, all.
We must ask ourselves whether we really believe in the ability of free citizens to govern themselves. If we do, then we need to keep our jury system strong. Make no mistake—Big Brother would love to see it weakened. Then, not only will He continue to run roughshod over reluctant or captive legislative bodies, and not only can He keep seducing or manipulating our free press, but He will run over us, and the liberties of our families and our businesses as well. Indeed, He can do so with impunity, for He knows He will never have to answer to a jury of free citizens.
