silentlambs - It's time to protect children. It's time to stop being a silent lamb.
Home Assistance Personal Experiences Education Press Donate/Become a SL Member Sitemap silentlambs Store
 
Search

 

Download lawsuit in word format (click here)

Rudy Nolen, Esq., SBN 59808
Jonathan Saul, Esq., SBN 189271
William Brelsford, Esq., SBN 202839
NOLEN SAUL BRELSFORD
350 University Ave, Suite 280
Sacramento , California 95825
Telephone: (916) 564-9990
Facsimile: (916) 564-9991
Attorneys for P laintiffs
TREVOR L., TIM C., AN DR EW C.,
and ROBERT C.
   SU P ERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
   COUNTY OF P LACER



TREVOR L., TIM C., AN DR EW C., and ROBERT C.,

 

P laintiffs,

 

vs.

 

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF P ENNSYLVANIA, INC., CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, SUNSET CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, DEREK P ACKOWSKI and DOES 1 through 20, ,   

 

Defen dan ts.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

CASE NO:

 

Jury Trial Demanded

 

Complaint for Damages

1.   Sexual Battery

2.   Common Law Negligence

3.   Gross Negligence-Willful Misconduct

4.   Breach of Fiduciary Duty

5.   Intentional Infliction of Emotion Distress

6.   Fraud - Intentional Misrepresentation

7.   Fraud - Concealment

8.   Conspiracy

 

COMES NOW TREVOR L., TIM C., AN DR EW C., and ROBERT C., P laintiffs, in the above-numbered and entitled cause, and files this, their Original Complaint, and allege as follows:

I

P ARTIES

 

1.    P laintiff TREVOR L., born September 1, 1982 , is and, at all times mentioned herein, was a resident of P lacer County , California . At all material times, P laintiff was also a child entrusted to the Watchtower Defen dan ts’ care within the State of California .

2.    P laintiff TIM C., born November 22, 1977 , is and, at all times mentioned herein, was a resident of P lacer County , California . At all material times, P laintiff was also a child entrusted to the Watchtower Defen dan ts’ care within the State of California .

3.    P laintiff ROBERT C., born December 18, 1980 , is and, at all times mentioned herein, was a resident of P lacer County , California . At all material times, P laintiff was also a child entrusted to the Watchtower Defen dan ts’ care within the State of California .

4.    P laintiff AN DR EW C., born July 30, 1982 , is and, at all times mentioned herein, was a resident of P lacer County , California . At all material times, P laintiff was also a child entrusted to the Watchtower Defen dan ts’ care within the State of California .

  5.   Defen dan t WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos and may be served with process through its California agent for service of process James M. McCabe, 4817 Santa Monica Avenue, San Diego CA 92107.

6.   Defen dan t WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF P ENNSYLVANIA , a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of P ennsylvania , has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos and may be served with process at its offices located at 1630 Spring Run Road Extension, Coraopolis , P ennsylvania 15108 .

7.   Defen dan t CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York , has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos and may be served with process at its offices located at 100 Watchtower Drive , P atterson , New York 12563-9204.   

8.   Defen dan t SUNSET CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES is a business of unknown legal status located in Rocklin , California , and is authorized to do business in the State of California .

9.   Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI was, at the time the acts described herein more fully below, a resident of the County of P lacer , California . His current whereabouts is unknown.
10.    P laintiffs allege on information and belief that at all relevant times, defen dan ts DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, are individuals and/or business or corporate entities incorporated in and/or doing business in California .
11.   The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of defen dan ts DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to P laintiffs who therefore sue such defen dan ts by such fictitious names, and will amend the complaint to show the true names and capacities of each DOE defen dan t when ascertained. P laintiffs allege on information and belief that each defen dan t designated as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the events, happenings, and/or tortuous, and unlawful conduct that caused the injuries and damages alleged in this complaint.
12.   The Defen dan t entities are collectively referred to herein as the “WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS” and each is the agent and alter ego of each other and operates as a single business enterprise. Each of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS was acting within the scope and course of his or its authority as an agent, servant, and/or alter ego of the other and each of them engaged in, joined in and conspired with the other wrongdoers in carrying out the unlawful activities alleged in this complaint.
II
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
 
13.    P laintiffs have been damaged in an amount exceeding the minimum jurisdictional requirements of this Court.

14.   Venue is proper in P lacer County , California because Defen dan t SUNSET CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES has its principal place of business in P lacer County and because most of the acts or omissions that give rise to P laintiffs claims occurred in

Placer County , California .



III

 

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

 

15.   Elders, Ministerial Servants, P ioneers, agents, volunteers and other leaders and representatives of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization have used their positions of control, authority, and leadership within the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization to sexually abuse minors. They have utilized a policy and engaged in a pattern of practice to “cover up” incidences of sexual abuse of children. In instances of sexual abuse by one member of a Jehovah’s Witnesses’ congregation on another member have been brought to attention of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, who failed to notify appropriate legal authorities, parents of victims, and/ or other individuals who could assist and/or protect these victims of childhood sexual abuse, in an attempt to cover-up the instances of sexual abuse and avoid any potential legal liability, thereby allowing further acts of sexual abuse to be committed on minors, including P laintiffs.

16.   The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS were notified of the abuse of these P laintiffs by Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI and had actual knowledge that Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI sexually abused children, but failed to take any precautions to ensure the safety of P laintiffs and other minor children entrusted to their care and to prevent future acts of molestation. This suit seeks compensation for P laintiffs, victims of this sexual abuse.

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





18.   The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization is a hierarchical structure in which the GOVERNING BODY, which is a small group of men who operate within various entities of the hierarchical structure, which is positioned at the top of a chain of command that extends over each individual member and Defen dan t entity in the organization, including its worldwide operations. These individuals and entities act as agents, servants and alter egos of each other. Authority for any action by the organization or its members must be derived from the GOVERNING BODY. Any actions taken by members at any level are required to meet the approval of the GOVERNING BODY. Members cannot act independently in any facet of life without express approval by the GOVERNING BODY and the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS or else strict sanctions are imposed.

19.   All of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS are the agents and servants of each other and are vicariously liable for each other’s acts. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS are so organized and controlled and their affairs are so conducted that they are alter egos of each other and operate as a single business enterprise and are but a mere instrumentality of the GOVERNING BODY and each other.

20.   Through its hierarchical structure, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS are responsible for the development, protection and discipline of its membership, especially the children of members, thereby creating a special relationship between minor children in the organization and the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS. All male members, whether Elders, Ministerial Servants, P ioneers and/or P ublishers, are appointed and empowered by the GOVERNING BODY to carry out this responsibility.

21.   To further their goals, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS authorize male members to develop special relationships of trust with women, children and families and to assume a role of counselor and advocate for any problems that might arise, including claims of child abuse. It is the responsibility of the Elders and those with responsibility higher up in the chain of command, most significantly the GOVERNING BODY, to investigate and decide if abuse has occurred. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS by reason of their special relationship with victims of child sexual abuse and their families, provide direction and counseling to the victims and their families as to how to handle the acts of child sexual abuse.

/ / / / /









22.   Despite knowledge of a problem with sexual abuse of minors by leaders and others in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS have acted with wilful indifference and/o r r eckless and/or intentional disregard for the interest and safety of the children entrusted to the organization’s care. Rather than implement measures to redress and prevent the sexual molestation of these children, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS engaged in a systematic, conspira tori al pattern and practice of suppression of information to cover-up and hide incidents of child molestation from law enforcement and their membership in order to protect those within the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization who committed acts of sexual molestation against children and to avoid civil liability arising from the instances of sexual abuse. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS have likewise engaged in the routine practice of maintaining secret archival files regarding sexual abuse by Elders, Ministerial Servants, P ioneers, and other leaders in the organization. The existence of these files and the contents thereof were not disclosed to or made available to law enforcement authorities or others in order to investigate the crimes of these leaders and others in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS furthered this conspiracy of concealment, by amon g other things, failing to properly report complaints of sexual misconduct to law enforcement authorities and failing to remove molesting leaders and others, or preventing their access to children. Molesting leaders and others in the organization were allowed to remain in good standing in the organization and were allowed continued frequent and unsupervised access to children in the organization. At all material times, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS prohibited the victims and/or acc user s from warning others or speaking about the matter to anyone under penalty of discipline. Victims/acc user s were not allowed to report suspected abuse to outside authorities or to other P ublishers within the organization, despite secular laws and duties regarding the reporting of sexual abuse. Violation of this policy would lead to severe sanctions. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS also failed to provide P laintiffs and their families with any notice or warning regarding the past misconduct of, and abuse by, leaders and others in the organization, including DEREK P ACKOWSKI. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS knew or had reason to know that these molesters would continue to sexually molest children.

23.   At all material times, Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI was a known child molester and a member in good standing with the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization. He was known by WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS and their agents to be a child molester in a congregation in Des P laines , Illinois . Despite this knowledge, he was neve r r eported to authorities in Illinois or to the families of the victims of that congregation to protect and prevent further acts of sexual abuse from occurring.

24.   Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI and his family relocated to California in approximately 1984 and began attending the Loomis Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. From this congregation, a new congregation was formed known as the Rocklin Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Rocklin Congregation then split and the newly formed congregation was known as defen dan t SUNSET CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH”S WITNESSES. While attending the Loomis Congregation, and later the SUNSET CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI was allowed to interact unsupervised with children, including P laintiffs, from approximately 1986 though 1998. Later, as a Ministerial Servant, he was entrusted with a special leadership role in the organization that further allowed unsupervised contact with children of the congregation.





25.    By 1984, if not before, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS had received non-confidential notice that Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI sexually molested children entrusted to the care of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization. Despite this knowing this information, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS took no action to report the abuse to authorities, discipline Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI or warn members of the organization of the abuse by Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI, who could take action to prevent further instances of sexual abuse. Instead, with knowledge of Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI’s propensity to abuse children in the organization, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS continued to allow Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI to interact unsupervised with children entrusted to the care of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization. They continued to recognize P ACKOWSKI as a member in good standing in the organization and eventually appointed him as a Ministerial Servant.

26.   In approximately 1986, Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI began sexually abusing P laintiff TIM C., who was nine (9) years old at that time.

27.   In approximately 1986, Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI began sexually abusing P laintiff ROBERT C., who was six (6) years old at that time.

28.   In approximately 1987, Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI began sexually abusing P laintiff AN DR EW C., who was five (5) years old at that time.   

29.   In approximately 1989, Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI began sexually abusing P laintiff TREVOR L., who was seven (7) years old at that time.   

30.   In approximately 1988, parents of another P ACKOWSKI victim (not mentioned herein) actually caught Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI in the act of sexually abusing their child and brought the matter directly to the attention of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS by and through their local congregation in California . The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS intentionally instructed the victims/acc user s to “drop the issue” and consequently P ACKOWSKI’s conduct was not brought to the attention of the congregation, including P laintiffs’ families, resulting in the inability for P laintiffs and their families to prevent further acts of sexual abuse from being committed against P laintiffs following this meeting/investigation.





31.   For well over a decade, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS knew or should have known Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI was sexually molesting and physically abusing adolescents under the care of the organization. Nevertheless, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS continued to allow Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI to interact unsupervised in their congregations, also allowing him to continue sexually molesting and abusing P laintiffs and others under their direct care and gui dan ce. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to notify anyone that Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI was molesting or had sexually molested adolescents. They further failed to take any steps to protect these young victims from his abuse. Instead, they knowingly concealed this information from P laintiff and others. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS also aided, abetted and ratified the abuse by disciplining the victims who reported the abuse to the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, allowing Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI to exercise increased power over them and to further exacerbate the injuries they had suffered.

32.    P laintiffs and their families sought the advice, protection and gui dan ce of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS in thei r r ole as advocates and counselors to P laintiffs and their families instructed them to keep the knowledge of Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI’S conduct within the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization and not to disclose complaints to any other congregation members or outside authorities. By so acting, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS allowed the perpetrator’s conduct to continue and ratified his deviant behavior, causing ongoing and further damage to P laintiffs.

33.   The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS directly and vicariously caused foreseeable harm to P laintiffs by, amon g other things:

a.   aiding, abetting and ratifying the abuse of children by their own member;

b.   blaming, humiliating, sanctioning and/or disciplining victims/acc user s of sexual abuse instead of the perpetrator;

c.   negligently failing to report such sexual abuse, including the abuse by Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI to law enforcement and governmental child welfare agencies and requiring that members not make such reports;

d.   negligently failing to warn P laintiffs, their families, and others of the risk of Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKIS abuse after they knew or should have known of Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI’S propensities to engage in acts of sexual abuse against children entrusted to the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ care;





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

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

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

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

j.   concealing from P laintiffs and their family that the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS had information that Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI was abusing young children entrusted to their care;

k.   negligently failing to undertake a sexual offender evaluation, provide sexual offender treatment and/or obtain psychiatric evaluation and treatment of Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI after they knew or should have known of his propensities to sexually abuse P laintiffs and others;

IV

 

CAUSES OF ACTION

 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

SEXUAL BATTERY

 

34.    P laintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.





35.    P laintiffs allege that for a number of years, beginning in 1986, Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI repeatedly engaged in un-permitted, harmful, and offensive sexual contact upon the persons of P laintiffs, as described herein, without P laintiffs’ consent, committing sexual abuse upon the person of P laintiffs in the State of California as referenced in Code of Civil P rocedure § 340.1.

36.    P laintiffs further allege each of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS was in the chain of command and acted pursuant to the authority granted to them as agents and alter ego of the GOVERNING BODY and each other, utilized such leadership and authority to carry out and/or aid, abet, ratify, cover-up, and conspire to cover-up the sexual abuse of P laintiffs by Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI. Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI is liable for the sexual abuse of P laintiffs .

37.   As a legal result of Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI’S conduct as described

hereinabove, P laintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, P laintiffs were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. P laintiffs have sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. P laintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE

 

38.    P laintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.





39.    P laintiffs allege that at all times herein mentioned, WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS assumed a duty to protect P laintiffs from, amon g other things, sexual predators within the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS further knew or should have known that P laintiffs were at risk of foreseeable harm by their own member Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI, by virtue of already knowing about his acts of sexual molestation in Des P laines, Illinois before he was allowed into interact unsupervised at the SUNSET CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES in Rocklin, California, but failed to act to protect them from said harm. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS breached their duty to P laintiffs, thereby causing great harm to P laintiffs.   

40.   As a legal result of Defen dan ts’ conduct as described hereinabove, P laintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, P laintiffs were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. P laintiffs have sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. P laintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

GROSS NEGLIGENCE/WILFUL MISCONDUCT

 

 

41.    P laintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

42.    P laintiffs allege that the behavior of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS as described hereinabove demonstrates a conscious indifference to the safety and welfare of P laintiffs, in that WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of the dan gerous propensities of their member, Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI, yet failed to act to protect the health, safety and welfare of children in the custody and care of WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, thereby allowing P laintiffs to be sexually abused, which could have been prevented but for WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ wilful misconduct and gross negligence in failing to implement safeguards to protect P laintiffs, in violation of WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ duty to protect the children entrusted to their care, custody and supervision.





43.    P laintiffs further alleges that WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ actions, constituting wilful misconduct and gross negligence described hereinabove, caused significant mental, emotional and physical injuries as a result of the acts of sexual abuse described hereinabove.

44.   As a legal result of Defen dan ts’ conduct as described hereinabove, P laintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, P laintiffs were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. P laintiffs have sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. P laintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

 

45.    P laintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 44 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

46.    P laintiffs allege that the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization required members of its organization to rely on their advice, counsel and direction in all facets of life subject to harsh discipline and/or sanctions for failing to follow the advice, counsel and direction of WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS. Further, WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS prohibited members from seeking legal, secular involvement to investigate, prohibit, prevent and sanction acts of sexual abuse of its children-members. This approach adopted and adhered to by WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS thereby created a special relationship between P laintiffs and WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, amounting to a fiduciary relationship. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS placed themselves in a position of trust and confidence with P laintiffs and that such relationship imposed on the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS a duty to act in P laintiffs’ best interest, and to protect P laintiffs’ best interest.





47.    P laintiffs further allege that because of this special relationship, P laintiffs and their family placed their trust and confidence in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS that they would not allow harm to P laintiffs or fail to warn P laintiffs of potential harm of any kind. Further, P laintiffs and their families placed their trust and confidence in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS that they would protect P laintiffs from harm.

48.   The above described conduct, either independently or in conjunction with each other, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to P laintiffs by WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS.

49.   As a legal result of Defen dan ts’ conduct as described hereinabove, P laintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, P laintiffs were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. P laintiffs have sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. P laintiffs has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

 

50.    P laintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 49 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

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

52.    P laintiffs further allege WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ conduct of quelling complaints of sexual abuse by P laintiffs and others created a dan gerous environment for P laintiffs and others to be subjected to unsupervised activities, at which time, P laintiffs and others were sexually abused by members and agents in good standing with WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization.





53.    P laintiffs further allege that after WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS were on notice that their members and agents, including Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI, were sexually abusing P laintiffs and others, WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS purposefully, intentionally and deliberately took action to prohibit and prevent P laintiffs and their families from reporting the acts of sexual abuse to legal or secular authorities, where P laintiffs and their families could have obtained assistance to address, prevent and/o r r esolve the continuous sexual abuse and its residual aftereffects.

54.    P laintiffs further allege that WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ conduct was extreme and outrageous and exceeded the bounds tolerated by any civilized community because they purposefully, intentionally and deliberately engaged in a pattern and practice of quelling complaints by P laintiffs and their families of the sexual abuse inflicted by WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ members and agents. Additionally, their conduct was outrageous based on their knowledge, imputed or otherwise, that their member Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI sexually abused other organization members in Des P laines , Illinois , yet refrained from taking any action whatsoever to prevent or prohibit Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI from sexually abusing P laintiffs, or to protect P laintiffs from being sexually abused by Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI.

55.    P laintiffs further allege that WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS intended to cause P laintiffs emotional distress by engaging in the above described conduct in order to prevent harm their organization’s reputation and to avoid civil liability.

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

57.   As a result of WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ extreme and outrageous conduct, P laintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer extreme emotional distress and that





WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing P laintiffs severe emotional distress.

58.   As a legal result of Defen dan ts’ conduct as described hereinabove, P laintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, P laintiffs were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. P laintiffs have sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. P laintiffs has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FRAUD - INTENTIONAL MISRE P RESENTATION

 

 

59.    P laintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.





60.    P laintiffs allege that afte r r eceiving reports that their member Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI, who remained in good standing at all times mentioned herein, was sexually abusing adolescents prior to abusing P laintiffs, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS willfully and intentionally kept the information from P laintiffs, P laintiffs’ families, other victims similarly situated and the community-at-large. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS intentionally misrepresented to P laintiffs and their families that Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI was a member in good standing, could be trusted, and could interact unsupervised with P laintiffs and other children, and could be safe during these unsupervised interactions. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS further intentionally misrepresented that they would act in the best interests of P laintiffs and other children entrusted to their care. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to disclose that they knew of Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI’S propensities to use his membership position, in good standing, to sexually abuse P laintiffs and others and that they were doing nothing to protect the children, including P laintiffs, entrusted their care. P laintiffs did not know of the falsity of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ representations, and were entitled to rely upon them, and did in fact rely upon the m c ausing them serious injury and harm.

61.    P laintiffs further allege that by holding out Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI as a member, in good standing, allowed to interact unsupervised with P laintiffs, and representing to P laintiffs and their families that Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI could be trusted by P laintiffs to be free from being sexually abused, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS and each of them entered into a fiduciary relationship with all P laintiff based on their direction and gui dan ce required to be followed based on P laintiffs’ membership in the organization.

62.    P laintiffs further allege that as fiduciaries to P laintiffs, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had a duty to obtain and disclose information relating to sexual misconduct by their member, Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI, who at all times mentioned herein was held out to P laintiffs to be a member in good standing. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to disclose and later conspired to conceal such information from P laintiffs.

63.    P laintiffs further allege that WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS representations that Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI was member in good standing who could be trusted by other members of the congregations, including P laintiffs, was false.

64.    P laintiffs further allege that WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS knew that by protecting Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI and holding him out as a member in good standing despite knowing he was a sexual ab user , they were intentionally deceiving their other congregation members, including P laintiffs, and did so recklessly without regard for the truth.

65.    P laintiffs further allege that WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS intended for P laintiffs for to rely on their misrepresentations regarding Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI’S propensities to sexual abuse and molest children entrusted to their care.

/ / / / /

/ / / / /





66.    P laintiffs further allege that they reasonably relied on WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ misrepresentations regarding Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI and that thei r r eliance was a substantial factor in causing their harm.

67.   As a legal result of Defen dan ts’ conduct as described hereinabove, P laintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, P laintiffs were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. P laintiffs have sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. P laintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FRAUD - CONCEALMENT

 

68.    P laintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 67 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

69.    P laintiffs allege they had a fiduciary and special relationship with WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, who agreed to look out for their best interest and protect them from dan gers of the world, including from sexual abuse from known sexual molesters, as described more fully above.

70.    P laintiffs further allege WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS intentionally failed to disclose important facts to P laintiffs, na mel y that Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI, a known sexual ab user , was safe be around and that they could interact unsupervised with Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI despite WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ knowledge of Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI’S propensities to sexual molest and abuse children such as P laintiffs.





71.    P laintiffs further allege WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS intentionally failed to disclose important facts regarding Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI’S propensities to sexual molest and abuse children during unsupervised interaction, which was known only to WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS and their agents. P laintiffs were not able to discover by their own means that Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI was prone to sexual molest and abuse children, until after the sexual abuse, described more fully above, had already occurred.

72.    P laintiffs further allege WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS actively concealed important facts regarding Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI’S propensities to sexual molest and abuse children, such as P laintiffs, and prevented P laintiffs from discovery these facts.

73.    P laintiffs further allege they did not know of the facts concealed by WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS regarding Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI’S propensities to sexually abuse children, such as P laintiffs.

74.    P laintiffs further allege they reasonably relied on WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS deception regarding their concealing the facts pertaining to Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI’S propensities to sexually abuse children and interacted unsupervised with Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI believing him to be safe and in good standing, as conveyed by WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ holding out Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI to be a member in good standing.

75.    P laintiff further allege that they were harmed by WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ concealment of these important facts, which was a substantial factor in causing harm to P laintiffs.   

76.   As a legal result of Defen dan ts’ conduct as described hereinabove, P laintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, P laintiffs were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. P laintiffs have sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. P laintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.     

/ / / / /





EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CONS P IRACY

77.    P laintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 76 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

78.   The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, in concert with each other and with the intent to conceal, defraud, and misrepresent, conspired whereby they misrepresented, concealed and failed to disclose information relating to the sexual misconduct of their member who they held out to be in good standing, Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI. By concealing such information, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS and each of the m c ommitted at least one act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

79.   As a legal result of Defen dan ts’ conduct as described hereinabove, P laintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, P laintiffs were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. P laintiffs have sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. P laintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

P RAYER

 

WHEREFORE, P laintiffs demand judgment against the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS and Defen dan t DEREK P ACKOWSKI individually, jointly and severally as follows:

•  For general damages according to proof;

•  For past and future medical expenses according to proof;

3. For past and future loss of earnings according to proof;

4. For prejudgment interest;

5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

/ / / / /

/ / / / /





6. For such other and furthe r r elief as the Court deems just and proper.

 

Dated: _____________        NOLEN SAUL BRELSFORD

 

 

_________________________   

Rudy Nolen, Esq.,
Attorneys for P laintiffs.

 

 

Home | Assistance | Personal Experiences | Education | Donations/Membership | Merchandise
Guestbook | Courage Awards | Newsletter | Contact Us | Affiliates | Sitemap
Copyright © 2003 by silentlambs.org. All rights reserved.