In Oregon, many plaintiffs of clergy abuse cases were having one of the torts dismissed--that of vicarious liability of the Archdiocese to parishes, religious schools, monasteries, and the workers of the aforementioned.
After I quit Gatti's services, I began to research what was going on for myself, with other cases. At first, it was minimal. I figured I'd just hire another P.I. attorney. It was too difficult to find one after I reported Gatti to the Bar. It was very clear that Dan Gatti had some very important legal friends in Oregon, and, I also discovered, he had his detractors. Some of the lawyers began to mutter under their breath when I brought Gatti up. With Gatti, you either thought he was a darling or a scoundrel. I found out, from more than one attorney, that Gatti was a "darling of the Bar". Which was made clear to me by their hard work in trying to justify what he'd done to me.
I went to several attorneys, who wanted my case until they found out I'd reported Gatti to the Bar. So I knew I had a case. I was very shocked by how many lawyers were clearly AFRAID to take my case, or any case against the Catholic church. There was a palpable fear emanating from them and some would even become flustered and say, "Do you UNDERSTAND?! that's the Catholic church!" I got tired of hearing, over and over, how "powerful" the Catholic church was. How "they've been doing this kind of thing for years". How "they would bury me in paper" and the like. I thought to myself, "What a bunch of wimps." I couldn't believe so many were actually afraid to hold clergy of the Catholic church accountable. The fact that my case involved police officers who'd been used against me probably didn't help to reduce the fear level. I didn't realize some of these lawyers were more aware of the mafia type of behavior which has been used by this church, or certain groups or people within this church. I just thought of them as any other organization or corporation which should be held accountable. I kept hearing, "They've been doing this for thousands of years" and I thought, "Yeah, because no one is doing anything about it." The more I heard fear expressed, the more I was determined NOT to be afraid but to treat them like any other organization. I kept getting lawyers who were very interested in what happened to me, who believed strongly that I had a case, but who felt ill-equipped to fight it, if they weren't afraid outright. I got a lot of referrals to David Slader and other preeminent attorneys in the area who took clergy abuse cases. But the main form of clergy abuse Slader and the others were interested in, was child abuse. I also found that later, the plaintiffs attorneys, along with the attorneys for the church, would try to isolate child sex abuse as the only actions which fit the description of "clergy abuse".
Oh, I need to back up a little bit. I need to go back to when I was in the meeting with Dan and Greg and how, at the end, I gave them some information they weren't excited I had, about the monks of Mt. Angel Abbey. I had gone to the official tax records and property records of the Mt. Angel Abbey. These were located in a building across the street from the Salem, Oregon courthouse. I made copies of all the property records, and was planning to give them to Gatti, as a favor. What was bizarre was that after the meeting with Greg, Dan asked him to obtain these records for him. I said to Gatti, "Oh, I already have them. I just got them today," and I dug into my bag and produced a small stack of papers. They both looked at me and instead of being excited their work had been done for them, they seemed annoyed or something. I also told them, "Guess what I found out--Fr. Joachim had a large tract of property in HIS name, and after I reported him, he left the Abbey for the East Coast." It meant, possibly, that damages from Fr. Joachim could come from this piece of property.
So Gatti and Smith were not excited about this. Which I thought was strange. It was like they didn't appreciate my knowing these things.
So, I was also shocked when most of the plaintiffs attorneys for victims of clergy abuse, attempted, on their own, to narrow down the description of "abuse" to mean sexual abuse of children and that was it. There was at least one case of abuse against a child which was mental and retaliatory, and yet they tried to push this case out. There are also countless stories and documentation of abuse of women who go to clergy for counseling and who are exploited and taken advantage of, where a professional uses the trust he's gained, for self-interest. It's no different from the kind of abuse which takes place when a psychologist attempts to romance and seduce and bed his client, whether it's in the client's best interest or not. There are boundaries, and crossing them often amounts to abuse. There is also physical abuse of children, which is not sexual, and abuse of adults. But the plaintiffs attorneys went along with the church in limiting what the potential for damages was. Probably, because the more the claims get spread out and are diffused with different kinds of abuse claims, the LESS money there is to collect from the select few child sex abuse cases the plaintiffs attorneys filed for. The plaintiffs attorneys get a pay-off with larger dividends, and this suits the church, because in exchange, other forms of abuse and hundreds of thousands of other claims get shoved back into the closet or are never given credibility. If the plaintiffs attorneys wanted to define abuse as sexual abuse of children, victims of other forms of abuse wouldn't come forward to file suit. This minimizes the damages to the credibility of the church and their reputations. For every one child that is abused, they have about 100 grown men and women who were raped or abused by clergy.
I went to lawyer after lawyer. When I went to Slader, after I said I hadn't been "touched", he wouldn't take my case but sent me information about counseling for those who suffered from clergy abuse. He sort of acknowledged what had happened was wrong. Other lawyers thought the Section 1983 aspect was the real problem. If they didn't think I had been exploited or abused by clergy, they thought the use of police to cover themselves was egregious and shocking. But they were usually afraid to take my case, because they were worried about retaliation and, basically, their own careers and safety. So they kept hoping a clergy abuse lawyer would take my case but no one did.
It was approaching the statute of limitations when I found Mr. M...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment