HOME
RBN RADIO LIVE
RADIO
CALL-IN
(800) 313-9443
INVESTIGATIVE JOURNAL ARCHIVES
ABOUT US
ARTICLE ARCHIVES
SUPPORT
OUR WORK
ONLINE STORE
MULTIMEDIA
INVESTIGATION SERVICES
CONTACT US
SZYMANSKI BLOG
NEWSLETTER
LINKS
Google                     
           web     www.arcticbeacon.com

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

The priest, who once worked at the Vatican and was former Jesuit Gen. Pedro Arrupe's speech writer, ended up losing the 1993 case, but it raised serious questions about the Jesuit vow of poverty. The complaint also questioned why homosexuality was openly permitted while marriage was condemned.


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 principles of restitution), 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.

E. On the fourth cause of action (interference with advantageous
business relationships and inducing breach of contract), 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.

F. On the fifth cause of action (quantum meruit), judgment for actual
damages in the sum of $x or such higher amount as may be determined by
the trier of fact.

G. On the sixth cause of action (partition of community property),
judgment for actual damages in the sum of $x or such higher amount as
may be determined by the trier of fact.

H. On the seventh cause of action (prima facie tort), 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.

I. Pre-judgment interest on the above sums.

J. The costs and disbursements of this action.

K. Attorneys fees where appropriate.

L. Such other and further relief which this Court may deem just and
equitable.


Dated: New York, New York, July 30, 1993



 

ggggg