|
In
This
Confession
to the
Jesuits
No. 35,
'Little
Known'
Jesuit
Priest
Sued
Society
of Jesus
For
Fraud,
Saying
They
Weren't
Living
Up to
Their
Vows
By
Greg
Szymanski
Jan. 6,
2007
In this
Confession
to the
Jesuits
No. 35,
we
explore
a little
known
1993
law suit
filed in
a little
known
New York
County
Courthouse
by a
little
known
Jesuit
priest.
Although
everything
about
this
case is
"little
known,"
it
involved
a
hefty
lump sum
of
money,
considering
the
former
Jesuit
priest
was
suing
the
Society
of Jesus
for
millions
of
dollars
based on
fraud,
breach
of
contract
and
other
assorted
legal
actions.
New York
attorney
Carl
Person
filed
the case
on
behalf
of the
Jesuit
priest,
who now
has left
the
Order
but
still
wants to
remain
anonymous.
Person
and the
priest
eventually
lost the
case,
but its
court
pleadings
are
worth
reading.
They are
worth it
because
it shows
the
members
of the
Jesuit
Order
don't
appear
to
be living
up to
their
vow of
poverty,
as the
case
showed
they
live in
a rather
cushy
and
opulent
style.
The case
also
alleged
that the
defendants,
including
the
Vatican
and
Jesuits,
"failed
to live
up to
their
side of
the
agreement
(with
the
priest)
and have
refused
to
provide
(i) the
promised
support,
(ii) the
promised
opportunity
to
discuss
RCC
doctrine
and to
criticize
those in
the RCC
who
failed
to
follow
such
doctrine
without
reprisal,
and
(iii)
the
promise
opportunity
for
plaintiff
to live
his life
in
within
the
religious
community
in
accordance
with the
vows and
the
established
principles
of the
RCC and
other
defendants
without
reprisal.
"But
defendants
have
kept the
plaintiff's
property
and
services
and have
left him
destitute,
unemployed
and with
no means
for
self-support
upon
reaching
a normal
retirement
age.
Plaintiff
seeks to
have the
value of
his
property
and
services
returned
to him
by
reason
of fraud
from the
inception,
breach
of
contract
and
breach
of the
covenant
of good
faith
and fair
dealing
after
entering
into the
lifetime
contract
with the
RCC
and
other
defendants."
The
Complaint
filed in
New York
by the
Jesuit
priest
is
provided
here
for your
reading
pleasure:
STATE OF
NEW YORK
COUNTY
OF NEW
YORK
-------------------------------------------x
ANONYMOUS
PRIEST,
Plaintiff,
-against-
ROMAN
CATHOLIC
CHURCH,
et al.,
Defendants
-------------------------------------------x
Complaint
Plaintiff,
by his
attorneys,
Carl E.
Person,
for his
complaint
alleges:
Parties
1.
Plaintiff,
[a
certain
priest]
("plaintiff"),
is a
resident
of the
State of
New York
with his
residence
at ...
Street,
..., New
York
1.....
2.
Plaintiff
became a
Jesuit
in 1964,
and
since
1973,
plaintiff
has been
an
ordained
priest
in the
Roman
Catholic
Church
and has
had
various
assignments
including
assignments
at the
Vatican
and at
the
Catholic
Archdiocese
of New
York.
3.
Defendant
Pope
John
Paul, II
(the
"Pope")
is the
elected
head of
the
Roman
Catholic
Church
throughout
the
world
and has
been
such
from
1978
to the
present.
The Pope
resides
at the
Apostolic
Palace
in the
Vatican
City
State,
in
Europe,
and is
transactin
g
business
in the
State of
New
York.
The Pope
plans to
travel
to the
United
States
in
mid-August,
1993.
4.
Defendant
Roman
Catholic
Church
(the "RCC")
has its
principal
place
of
business
at the
Vatican
City
State,
in
Europe,
and is
transacting
business
in the
State of
New
York.
5.
Defendant
Catholic
Archdiocese
of New
York
(the
"Archdiocese")
is an
incorporated
or
unincorporated
division
of the
RCC and
has its
principal
place of
business
at The
Chancery,
...
Avenue,
New
York,
New York
10022.
The
Archdiocese
is an
agent,
instrume
ntality
and
alter
ego of
the RCC
and the
Pope.
6.
Defendant
Cardinal
John
Joseph
O'Connor
(the
"Cardinal"
or
"Cardinal
O'Connor")
is the
head of
the
Archdiocese
of New
York and
has his
principal
place of
business
at The
Chancery,
1011
First
Avenue,
New
York,
New York
10022.
The
Cardinal
was
appointed
by the
Pope as
Bishop
of the
Archdiocese
in 1984
and
Cardinal
of the
Archdiocese
in 1985
and
is an
agent,
instrumentality
and
alter
ego of
the RCC,
the Pope
and the
Archdiocese.
7.
Defendant
Catholic
Diocese
of S...
(the
"Diocese"
or
"Diocese
of S")
is an
incorporated
or
unincorporated
division
of the
RCC or
and has
its
principal
place of
business
at The
Catholic
Pastoral
Center,
...
Street,
X, X
00001.
The
Diocese
is an
agent, i
nstrumentality
and
alter
ego of
the RCC
and the
Pope,
and is
transacting
business
in the
State of
New
York.
8.
Defendant
Society
of Jesus
(the
"Jesuits")
is an
incorporated
or
unincorporated
division
of the
RCC and
has its
principal
place of
business
at
Jesuit
Curia,
Borgo
Santo
Spirito,
5, C. P.
6139,
Rome,
Italy
00195,
one
block
away
from the
perimeter
of Va
tican
City
State.
The
Jesuits
is an
agent,
instrumentality
and
alter
ego of
the RCC
and
the Pope
and is
transacting
business
in the
State of
New
York.
The head
of the
Jesuits
is known
as the
"Black
Pope",
and is
the
second
most
influential
member
of the
RCC.
9.
Defendant
X
Province
of the
Society
of Jesus
("X
Jesuits")
is an
incorporated
or
unincorporated
division
of the
Jesuits
and RCC
and has
its
principal
place of
business
at
Jesuit
Provincial
Office,
...
Street,
X, X
00001. X
Jesuits
is an
agent,
instrume
ntality
and
alter
ego of
the
Jesuits
and RCC
and the
Pope,
and is
responsible
for
Jesuit
members
in
six
midwestern
states
including
X and
some
others
elsewhere
in the
world. X
Jesuits
is
transacting
business
in the
State of
New
York.
10.
Defendant
X...
University
("X U")
is a RCC
university
with
about
x,000
students
which
employs
some
Jesuits
as part
of its
faculty
and
administration.
Upon
information
and
belief,
X U is
incorporated
in the
State of
x and
has its
principal
place of
bus
iness at
...
Street,
x, x
00001. X
U is an
agent,
instrumentality
and
alter
ego of
the RCC
and the
Pope. X
U is
transacting
business
in the
State of
New
York.
Summary
[all
contituting
allegations]
11. The
plaintiff,
..., has
been a
Jesuit
and/or
ordained
priest
and
faithful
follower
of the
doctrines
of the
Roman
Catholic
Church
for more
than 30
years.
At the
outset
of the
relationship,
plaintiff
transferred
to the
RCC or
other
defendants
all his
wo rldly
possessions
and
future
economic
services.
The RCC
and
other
defendants
in
return
have
failed
to
live up
to their
side of
the
agreement
and have
refused
to
provide
(i)
the
promised
support,
(ii) the
promised
opportunity
to
discuss
RCC
doctrine
and t o
criticize
those in
the RCC
who
failed
to
follow
such
doctrine
without
reprisal,
and
(iii)
the
promise
opportunity
for
plaintiff
to live
his life
in
within
the
religious
community
in
accordance
with the
vows and
the
established
principles
of the
RCC and
other
defendants
without
reprisal.
But
defendants
have
kept the
plaintiff's
property
and
services
and have
left him
destitute,
unemployed
and with
no means
for
self-support
upon
reaching
a normal
retirement
age.
Plaintiff
seeks to
have the
value of
his
property
and
services
returned
to him
by
reason
of fraud
from the
inception,
breach
of
contract
and
breach
of the
covenant
of good
faith
and fair
dealing
after
entering
into the
lifetime
contract
with the
RCC and
other
defendants.
The
Facts
12.
Plaintiff,
age 50,
was born
in ...,
..., and
was
brought
up in a
Catholic
grade
school
and in x
University,
a
Catholic
University,
from
which
plaintiff
entered
the
Society
of Jesus
(Jesuits)
before
graduation.
13. In
1962,
plaintiff
became a
Jesuit
novice
in the
Wisconsin
Province
of the
Society
of Jesus
("Wisconsin
Jesuits"),
and in
1964, as
a
Jesuit,
took the
perpetual
or
eternal
vows of
poverty,
chastity
and
obedience.
These
vows are
also
required
of all
ord
ained
Jesuit
priests.
In
addition,
plaintiff
took a
fourth
vow, in
1982, of
direct
obedience
to
the
Pope.
These
vows by
plaintiff
were
recognized
by and
applicable
to
all
defendants
and
their
interrelationships.
14. In
connection
with the
1964
vows by
plaintiff,
the
plaintiff
turned
over all
worldly
goods
which he
owned,
worth in
excess
of
$1,000
and the
right to
any
inheritances
which
the
plaintiff
would
otherwise
be
entitled
to
(which
subsequently
were
received
by the
Jesuits
and
amounted
to more
than
$10,000).
15. In
return,
the
Jesuit
defendants
and RCC
promised,
among
other
things,
to take
care of
all
necessary
physical
and
spiritual
needs of
the
plaintiff
such as
food,
clothing,
medicine,
medical
treatment,
education,
housing,
travel,
pocket
money,
books
and the
opportunity
to
live a
life
guided
by the
established
principles
of the
defendants.
16. Over
the
years,
from
1962 to
1990,
the
plaintiff
devoted
all of
his
labor to
the
economic
benefit
of the
defendants
amounting
to an
economic
value
(excluding
interest
factors)
of
approximately
$2,800,000,
calculated
on an
assumed
yearly
services
valu e
of
$100,000,
and in
addition
caused
the
giving
of
monetary
and
property
donations
by both
lay
Catholics
and
non-Catholics
of
several
million
dollars
to
defendants.
17.
Plaintiff,
in
return,
received
personal
economic
benefits
from
defendants
such as
room,
board
and
clothing
amounting
to an
estimated
$10,000
per
year.
18. On
the
other
hand,
when
looking
at all
of the
goods
and
services
consumed
by the
plaintiff
in his
duties
with
defendants,
the
plaintiff
enjoyed
a very
high
standard
of
living
in
comparison
to the
persons
in
the
community
served
by
defendants.
19. From
1966
through
1990,
plaintiff
complained
to
defendants
that the
Jesuit
community
lifestyle
was
contrary
to the
vow of
poverty
taken by
plaintiff
and all
other
Jesuits.
20. An
exception
to this
occurred
during
1978-1986
when
plaintiff
was
living
part of
the time
at St.
Patrick's
Cathedral
residence
in New
York,
New
York,
where
the
standard
of
living
was much
higher
than the
standard
of
living
for
Jesuits,
and the
other m
embers
of the
community
in such
New York
residence
had not
undertaken
any vows
of
poverty.
[A
note of
explanation:
Diocesan
priests
do not
have the
vow of
poverty
and
are
permitted
to
retain
the
moneys
they
receive
from
their
own
parish
or
parishioners.
For
example,
defendant
O'Connor
receives
a
pension
from
the U.S.
Navy as
a
retired
rear
admiral
and does
not turn
this
money
over to
the RCC
or
Archdiocese
but is
permitted
under
RCC
canon
law to
keep the
money
for
himself.]
Plaintiff's
Education
and
Assignments
21. From
1962 to
1976,
the
plaintiff
obtained
his
"Jesuit"
education,
including
an MA
degree
(philosophy,
1968),
St. xs
University;
an M.Div.
degree
(Minister
of
Divinity,
1973)
through
attendance
at x
College,
x
Theological
Seminary,
x
University
and x U
niversity
(West
Germany);
and
a PhD
(theology/philosophy,
1976), x
University.
22.
During
this
educational
period
from
1962-1976,
the
plaintiff
taught
philosophy
at x
University,
Omaha,
Nebraska.
Plaintiff
signed a
contract
with x
University
pursuant
to which
the
salary
for
plaintiff's
services
was to
be sent
directly
to the
Jesuits
at x
University,
which
was part
of the
Wisconsin
Providence
of the
Society
of
Jesus.
23.
Plaintiff
was
assigned
as a
professor
of
theology
to the
College
of
the x,
x,
Massachusetts,
and
taught
there
from
1977 to
1978.
24. From
1978 to
1981,
plaintiff
was
assigned
to the
Vatican,
the
Jesuit
Headquarters,
and the
Pontifical
Gregorian
University
(the
Pope's
university).
At the
Vatican,
the
plaintiff
was a
consultant
for the
Secretariat
for
Christian
Unity, a
consultant
a t the
Vatican
Bank
("Bank
for
Religious"),
and as a
travelling
Vatican
troubleshooter.
In
these
activities,
the
plaintiff
on
occasion
had
dealings
with the
Pope
on
various
business,
religious
and
social
matters.
25.
Plaintiff's
work at
Jesuit
Headquarters
in Rome,
Italy
was as a
speechwriter
for the
Father
General
Pedro
Arrupe
(the
"Black
Pope")
and
as a
multi-country
fundraiser
for the
Jesuit
treasury.
At
Pontifical
Gregorian
University
the
plaintiff
taught
theo
logy and
raised
money
for
the
university
and
counselled
seminarians
at five
national
seminaries
in
Rome.
26. From
1981 to
1987,
plaintiff
was
assigned
as a
professor
of
theology
at M...
U, and
from
1987 to
1989
plaintiff
was
assigned
to the
S...
Diocese
as a
consultant
to the
Bishop
and to
perform
parish
work.
Plaintiff
continued
with his
work
consulting
wit h
the RCC,
Jesuit
Headquarters
and the
Vatican
while
assigned
to and
working
at M...
U.
Plaintiff's
Complaints
to
Defendants
27.
Starting
in 1965
and
ending
in 1990,
the
plaintiff
complained
to
defendants
about
misuse
of
defendants'
moneys
by
specific
Jesuits
and
RCC
priests
in
violation
of the
vow of
poverty
and
defendants'
toleration
of
sexual
improprieties
in
violation
of th e
vow of
chastity,
the life
of
celibacy
for a
diocesan
priest
and RCC
policy.
Plaintiff
made
these
complaints
to the
Rector
of
plaintiff's
Jesuit
community
in
the x
Province
(1965),
to the
Rector
of
plaintiff's
Jesuit
community
in
x
(1967),
to the
head of
the
Jesuit
community
in the x
Archdiocese
(1971),
to the
Master
of the
Jesuit
community
in x,
England
(1974),
to
the
Vicar
General
of the
Jesuit
Headquarters
in Rome
(1974),
to the
Rector
of the
Jesuit
community
and the
President
of the
College
and to
th e
Jesuit
Headquarters
in Rome
(1977),
to the
head of
the
Pontifical
Gregorian
University
(1979),
to the
Jesuit
Headquarters
(1979
and
1980)
and
directly
to the
Pope
(1979
and
1980),
to the
Rector
of St.
Patrick's
Cathedral
in the
Archdiocese
in New
York (
1981 and
once
every
year
through
1986),
to
Cardinal
O'Connor
and the
Archdiocese
(1984-1986),
and
between
1982-1986
to the
Rector
of the
Jesuit
community
at M...
U, the
Provincial
of the
...
Jesuits,
to the
Jesuit
Headquarters
in Rome,
and
to the
Bishop o
f the
S...
Diocese
(1987
and
1988).
28.
Plaintiff
is not
concerned
about a
person's
sexual
preference
other
than as
prohibited
by the
vows,
and is
concerned
instead
about
whether
a
person
is good
and
kind, or
mean and
hypocritical.
Except
for the
vows
and RCC
doctrine,
plaintiff
would
not c
are
whether
a priest
is male
or
female,
married
or not,
or
heterosexual
or
homosexual.
Plaintiff's
complaints
were
directed
to
financial
improprieties
including
outright
stealing
which
violated
defendants'
own
policies
and
rules as
well as
state
and fed
eral
criminal
and tax
laws;
and
sexual
improprieties
against
under-age
males,
trainee
Jesuits
and
other
males in
violation
of
the vows
and (as
to
under-age
males)
various
other
religious,
secular
and
community
laws,
policies,
rules
and
customs.
29.
Invariably,
plaintiff
was told
to shut
up and
be quiet
about
his
complaints.
30.
During
September,
1986,
the
plaintiff
told the
Provincial
(i.e.,
head) of
the ...
Jesuits
that the
plaintiff
did not
want to
live in
that
community
and
environment
any more
and that
plaintiff
was
going to
go
public
with
respect
to two
specific
problem
s, which
were: (i)
a Jesuit
priest
[at a
specific
place]
was
sexually
abusing
freshman
Jesuit
males,
two of
whom
came to
the
plaintiff
talked
about
suicide
because
they
could
not get
away
from the
sexual
overtures
of the
male
Jesuit
superior;
and (ii)
a J
esuit
was
stealing
money
from the
treasury
of ...
University
and that
the ...
Provincial
and
University
were
refusing
to
apply
any
sanctions
to the
Jesuit
priest
[alleged]
thief.
31.
During
the
summer
of 1986,
plaintiff
complained
to
Cardinal
O'Connor
for the
final
time
about
Father x
and his
misuse
of money
and x's
sexual
improprieties
and
about a
priest
at St.
Patrick's
Cathedral
who was
[allegedly]
sexually
improper,
and the
Ca
rdinal
said
that the
plaintiff
was no
longer
welcome
to spent
any time
at the
Cathedral
residence.
Plaintiff
complained
that x
was
allegedly
misusing
money
and that
he
[allegedly]
was
being
sexually
aggressive
to young
underage
males
under
his
charge
or f or
whom he
was
offering
RCC and
Archdiocese
assistance.
Plaintiff
had
learned
about
this
from the
complaint
of a
young
boy
during
1981 who
had come
in to
St.
Patrick's
parish
rectory
to
complain
about
x's
unwanted
sexual
advances.
The
Archdiocese
and Car
dinal
O'Connor
failed
to take
any
significant
action
against
x
because
he was
a major
producer
of
revenues
for the
RCC,
Archiocese
and
Cardinal
O'Connor
which
funds
would
have
been
jeopardized
if x
were
punished
or
stopped.
Plaintiff's
Withdrawal
and
Exclusion
32. In
October,
1986,
plaintiff
told the
Jesuit
Provincial
that
plaintiff
could no
longer
live in
a Jesuit
community
which
tolerated
such
[alleged]
misuse
of money
and
where
[alleged]
pervasive
homosexuality
(by
Jesuits
with
Jesuits,
students
of the
unive
rsity
and
others)
was
permitted
but
marriage
by
Jesuits
and
other
priests
was not.
As a
result
of no
longer
living
at the
Jesuit
residence,
plaintiff
was
no
longer
permitted
to teach
at x U
and was
thereby
terminated
in his
employment
by
defendants
x and x
Jesuits.
33.
Plaintiff
left for
New York
during
October,
1986 and
while
plaintiff
was in
New
York, x
ransacked
plaintiff's
room and
took two
drawers
full
of notes
including
evidence
of the
matters
about
which
plaintiff
had
threatened
to go
public,
including
materi
al on x
himself.
34.
Plaintiff
returned
to find
that his
room was
locked
and that
plaintiff
had no
place to
live, so
plaintiff
stayed
with a
family
in x
for one
week and
then
went to
Washington,
D.C. for
a week
and
contacted
Jesuit
Headquarters,
in Rome,
and
asked
for a m
eeting
to
discuss
the
problem.
35.
While
waiting
for a
reply
from
Jesuit
Headquarters,
the
plaintiff
returned
to x for
three
weeks,
and then
went to
New York
and by
mid-December
heard
that
Jesuit
Headquarters
was
trying
to set
up a
meeting
for
plaintiff
in Rome.
36. In
January,
1987,
the
plaintiff
went to
Rome and
met with
various
representatives
of the
Jesuits
including
the
Black
Pope for
more
than
one
week,
and
plaintiff
was
asked
not to
resign
right
away and
agreed
to
reflect
upon his
threatened
resignation.
Also, an
agreement
was made
about
plaintiff's
demand
to have
charges
brought
against
a
certaub
person
at x
that the
plaintiff
would
not
press
charges
but that
after
three
years'
time
(after
completion
of his
tour), x
would
never
have
another
office
in the
Jesuits.
During
the
period
of
reflection,
plaintiff
agreed
to go to
work for
the
Bishop
of S...
37.
Plaintiff
went to
S... in
April,
1987,
and saw
the same
pattern
of
activity
([alleged]
misuse
of money
and
[alleged]
sexual
impropriety)
condoned
by the
S...
Diocese
and
decided,
after
reflection,
to
resign
from the
Jesuits
and to
resign
from
plaintif
f's work
with the
S...
Diocese.
38. From
1987-1989,
the
plaintiff
was in
direct
contact
by
letters
with
the
Black
Pope at
the
Jesuit
Headquarters
in Rome
regarding
plaintiff's
various
complaints
and,
rather
than
dealing
with the
complaints,
the
Black
Pope
accepted
plaintiff's
resignatio
n from
the
Jesuits.
39. Upon
information
and
belief,
the
defendants
communicated
among
themselves
and
others
about
plaintiff
and his
complaints
which
encouraged
and
caused
defendants
x U and
x
Jesuits
to
reject
plaintiff
and his
desired
way of
living
and to
exclude
plaintiff
from the
community.
40.
While in
Washington,
D.C.,
plaintiff
obtained
secular
employment
in
the
Library
of
Congress,
and
plaintiff
spoke
out
about
[alleged]
misuse
of
moneys
by an
[official]
in the
Library
of
Congress,
who was
forced
to
resign
as a
result
of his
[alleged]
mi
sfeasance.
Within
the next
two
months,
plaintiff
was told
that he
no
longer
had
employment
with the
Library
of
Congress.
41. One
of the
officers
of the
Library
of
Congress
had been
told by
Jesuits
at x
University
and at x
Church
in x
that
plaintiff
was a
troublemaker,
which
caused
plaintiff
to lose
his
employment
at the
Library
of
Congress.
42.
Plaintiff
received
an
invitation
from
Cardinal
O'Connor
in
January,
1991 to
meet
with the
Cardinal
in New
York to
discuss
the
possibility
of
plaintiff
becoming
a priest
(becoming
incardinated)
in the
Archdiocese
of New
York.
Plaintiff
went to
New Yor
k and
met with
the
Cardinal
several
times
and
reached
an
agreement
that if
the
Cardinal
did not
have
a priest
opening
for
plaintiff
in New
York
that he
would
find
plaintiff
work
elsewhere
in the
Archdiocese
in a
non-priest
function.
43. The
Cardinal
later
told
plaintiff
that he
would
not give
plaintiff
a
priest
position
in the
New York
Archdiocese
because
of the
plaintiff's
complaints
and
views
and that
there
would be
no other
work for
the
plaintiff
either.
As a
result,
the
Cardinal
and
Catholic
Archdiocese
of
New York
literally
put
plaintiff
out into
the
street,
penniless
and
without
bed, and
without
any of
the
other
necessaries
of
living
which
defendants
had
promised
to
provide.
44.
During
February,
1993,
after
plaintiff
obtained
a job as
a
security
guard
for $8
per
hour,
plaintiff
was
fired
from the
position.
Plaintiff
was told
at the
time
that
information
had been
given
about
plaintiff
to
the
security
guard
company
(that
plaint
iff was
a
troublemaker
and a
priest
not in
good
standing)
which
caused
the
security
guard
company
to
fire the
plaintiff.
Upon
information
and
belief,
defendants
O'Connor,
Catholic
Archdiocese
of New
York and
others
[allegedly]
intentionally
caused
plaint
iff to
lose his
job,
without
privilege
or
justification.
First
Cause of
Action:
Fraud
45.
Plaintiff
repeats
and
realleges
each and
every
allegation
contained
in
paragraphs
1-44
above.
46.
Defendants
directly,
or
through
other
defendants,
made the
following
actual
or
implied
representations
of fact
to
plaintiff
(the
"Representations")
immediately
prior to
the time
that
plaintiff
made his
vows in
1964:
That in
return
for
making
and
adher
ing to
his
vows,
the
defendants
would
provide
plaintiff
with
A. the
necessaries
of life
and
physical
and
spiritual
needs as
a priest
including
but not
limited
to food,
clothing,
shelter,
medicine
and
medical
treatment,
higher
education,
travel,
pocket
money
and
books;
B.
employment
as a
Jesuit
and/or
priest
using
plaintiff's
education;
C. an
opportunity
to
discuss
RCC
doctrine
and to
criticize
those
who
failed
to
follow
such
doctrine
without
reprisal;
D. an
opportunity
to live
in
accordance
with the
vows and
the
established
principles
of the
defendants
without
reprisal;
and
E.
retirement
after
plaintiff's
working
years
were
over
with a
continuation
of the
same
benefits
other
than the
work.
47. The
Representations
were
repeated
each
time the
plaintiff
changed
from one
position
to
another
within
the RCC
and
Jesuit
order.
48. The
Representations
were
material
to the
plaintiff.
49. The
Representations
were
false.
50. Each
of the
defendants
knew
that the
Representations
were
false
and
made
them to
the
plaintiff
with
scienter.
51. The
Representations
were
made by
the
defendants
for the
purpose
of
inducing
the
plaintiff
to
donate
his
earthly
possessions
and to
devote
his
entire
economic
being
and
services
to the
defendants
and
others
working
in
association
with
them
under
the RC C
and
Jesuit
order.
52. The
plaintiff
relied
reasonably
upon
these
Representations.
53. The
plaintiff
was
injured
by
reason
of such
reliance,
and
defendants
have
left the
plaintiff
destitute
and
without
employment,
career
or the
necessaries
for
living.
54. The
plaintiff
was
damaged
in an
amount
exceeding
$x,
which
amount
will be
proven
with
certainty
at the
time of
trial.
55.
Defendants'
activities
were
willful
and
malicious.
By
reason
thereof,
defendants
are
liable
to
plaintiff
for
punitive
damages
in an
amount
of $x or
more, to
be
determined
by the
trier of
fact.
Second
Cause of
Action:
Breach
of
Contract
and
Implied
Covenant
of Good
Faith
56.
Plaintiff
repeats
and
realleges
each and
every
allegation
contained
in
paragraphs
1-55
above.
57. Each
of the
defendants
had
entered
into a
contract
with
plaintiff
at
the time
of
plaintiff's
first
dealings
with the
defendant
or
before.
58. The
terms of
the
contract
were in
substance
that the
plaintiff
would
give his
worldly
possessions
and his
lifetime
services
and
economic
services
to
defendants,
for
their
benefit,
and
defendants
would
provide
the
plaintiff
with the
necessaries
of life
and
physical
and
spiritual
needs as
a priest
including
but not
limited
to food,
clothing,
shelter,
medicine
and
medical
treatment,
higher
education,
travel,
pocket
money,
books,
employment
as a
Jesuit
and/or
priest
using
plaintiff's
education,
opportunit
y to
discuss
RCC
doctrine
and to
criticize
those
who
failed
to
follow
such
doctrine,
and to
live in
accordance
with the
vows and
the
established
principles
of the
defendants
without
fear of
reprisal;
and
retirement
after
plaintiff's
working
years
were ove
r with a
continuation
of the
same
benefits
other
than the
work;
and a
lifetime
of
association
with
other
religious
persons
in a
religious
community
dedicated
to the
well-being
of the
world
and its
people.
59. Each
of the
defendants
materially
breached
the
agreement
with
plaintiff
by
refusing
to
provide
the
plaintiff
with the
following
promised
contractual
benefits:
A. The
necessaries
of life
including
food,
clothing,
shelter,
medicine
and
medical
treatment,
travel,
pocket
money
and
books;
B.
Employment
as a
Jesuit
and/or
priest
using
plaintiff's
education;
C. An
opportunity
to
discuss
RCC
doctrine
and to
criticize
those in
the
RCC who
failed
to
follow
such
doctrine
without
reprisal;
D. To
live in
accordance
with the
vows and
the
established
principles
of
the RCC
and
other
defendants
without
reprisal;
E.
Retirement
after
plaintiff's
working
years
were
over
with a
continuation
of the
same
benefits
other
than the
work;
and
F. A
lifetime
of
association
with
other
religious
persons
in a
religious
community
dedicated
to the
well-being
of the
world
and its
people.
60. The
plaintiff
was
damaged
in an
amount
exceeding
$x,
which
amount
will be
proven
with
certainty
at the
time of
trial.
61.
Defendants'
activities
were
willful
and
malicious.
By
reason
thereof,
defendants
are
liable
to
plaintiff
for
punitive
damages
in an
amount
of $x or
more, to
be
determined
by the
trier of
fact.
Third
Cause of
Action:
Unjust
Enrichment/Restitution
62.
Plaintiff
repeats
and
re-alleges
each and
every
allegation
contained
in
paragraphs
1-61
above.
63. The
activities
of the
defendants
make
them
liable
to
plaintiff
for
unjust
enrichment
and
restitution.
64. The
plaintiff
was
damaged
in an
amount
exceeding
$x,
which
amount
will be
proven
with
certainty
at the
time of
trial.
65.
Defendants'
activities
were
willful
and
malicious.
By
reason
thereof,
defendants
are
liable
to
plaintiff
for
punitive
damages
in an
amount
of $x or
more, to
be
determined
by the
trier of
fact.
Fourth
Cause of
Action:
Interference
and
Inducing
Breach
of
Contract
66.
Plaintiff
repeats
and
re-alleges
each and
every
allegation
contained
in
paragraphs
1-61
above.
67. The
activities
of the
defendants
amounts
to an
unlawful
interference
by them
with the
advantageous
business
relationships
of the
plaintiff
(concerning
his
employment
and
living
arrangements),
and the
unlawful
inducing
of
breach
of
contract.
68. The
plaintiff
was
damaged
in an
amount
exceeding
$x,
which
amount
will be
proven
with
certainty
at the
time of
trial.
69.
Defendants'
activities
were
willful
and
malicious.
By
reason
thereof,
defendants
are
liable
to
plaintiff
for
punitive
damages
in an
amount
of $x or
more, to
be
determined
by the
trier of
fact.
Fifth
Cause of
Action:
Quantum
Meruit
70.
Plaintiff
repeats
and
realleges
each and
every
allegation
contained
in
paragraphs
1-61
above.
71. The
activities
of the
defendants
entitle
plaintiff
to
recover
for
the
value of
his
services
under
the
doctrine
of
quantum
meruit.
72. The
plaintiff
was
damaged
in an
amount
exceeding
$x,
which
amount
will be
proven
with
certainty
at the
time of
trial.
Sixth
Cause of
Action -
Partition
of
Community
Property
73.
Plaintiff
repeats
and
realleges
each and
every
allegation
contained
in
paragraphs
1-61
above.
74. The
activities
of the
defendants
entitle
plaintiff
to
obtain
the
partition
and
award of
a
proportionate
part of
the
property
held by
defendants
to
reflect
his
share of
the
communal
holdings
of
defendants.
75. The
plaintiff
was
damaged
in an
amount
exceeding
$x,
which
amount
will be
proven
with
certainty
at the
time of
trial.
Seventh
Cause of
Action -
Prima
Facie
Tort
76.
Plaintiff
repeats
and
realleges
each and
every
allegation
contained
in
paragraphs
1-61
above.
77. The
activities
of the
defendants
amounts
to an
unlawful
prima
facie
tort.
78. The
plaintiff
was
damaged
in an
amount
exceeding
$x,
which
amount
will be
proven
with
certainty
at the
time of
trial.
79.
Defendants'
activities
were
willful
and
malicious.
By
reason
thereof,
defendants
are
liable
to
plaintiff
for
punitive
damages
in an
amount
of $x or
more, to
be
determined
by the
trier of
fact.
PRAYER
Wherefore,
plaintiff
demands
judgment
as
follows:
A.
Adjudging
that
defendants
are
liable
to
plaintiff
for (i)
fraud,
(ii)
breach
of
contract
and the
implied
covenant
of good
faith
and fair
dealing,
(iii)
unjust
enrichment
and
recovery
under
the
principles
of
restitution;
(iv)
interference
with
advantage
ous
business
relationships
and
inducing
breach
of
contract,
(v)
recovery
under
the
principles
of
quantum
meruit;
(vi)
partition
of
community
property,
and
(vii)
prima
facie
tort.
B. On
the
first
cause of
action
(fraud),
judgment
for
actual
damages
in
the sum
of $x
and for
punitive
damages
in the
sum of
$x or
such
higher
amounts
as may
be
determined
by the
trier of
fact.
C. On
the
second
cause of
action
(breach
of
contract
and the
implied
covenant
of good
faith
and fair
dealing),
judgment
for
actual
damages
in
the sum
of $x
and for
punitive
damages
in the
sum of
$x or
such
higher
amounts
as may
be
determined
by the
trier of
fact.
D. On
the
third
cause of
action
(unjust
enrichment
and
recovery
under
the
principl |
