In the filing, Newman said he "denies each and every allegation in the plaintiff's complaint."
Nowhere in the court documents does Newman explain why he pleaded guilty to molesting young boys and is currently serving two life sentences if he did not do what he is accused of doing in the lawsuit.
Newman is also asking that he be given a court-appointed lawyer.
The accusations against Newman include the following, as I noted in an earlier Turner Report post:
When their son was sent to the camp, the lawsuit said, Pete Newman, the camp director, sexually molested him, "appearing nude with an erection in a hot tub for Bible studies with (the boy) as Newman masturbated himself, he masturbated (the boy) and had the boy masturbate him."
The abuse also included games of naked truth or dare, and having the boy spend the night in Newman's living quarters, where he was sexually abused.
"At other times, Defendant Newman's inappropriate behavior and sexual abuse of (the boy) occurred in the presence of other Kanakuk Kamp personnel." The child was in the camp during the summers of 2005-2007. The lawsuit also names Kanakuk Ministries, Kanakuk Kamp, and every other name by which Kanakuk has been called as defendants.
"Newman used his position at Kanakuk Kamps as a means to abuse children such as John Doe I (as the boy is referred to throughout the petition) by developing the children's trust and friendship. This, coupled with Newman's mantle of authority as a dircctor of Kanakuk Kamps, allowed Newman to sexually abuse and molest multiple boys through masturbation, oral sex, and sodomy."
What an idiot. Seriously, he is asking for a court appointed attorney. Does he think that the tax payers want to pick up his tab to fight the allegations he has already pled guilty to? What is this guy thinking?
ReplyDeleteFrom what is known, it is not uncommon for the defendant to deny all allegations until proven other wise.
And Turner you ask a great question. What is he doing in jail if he is innocent? Who is his counsel, Sandusky and Paterno? or Maybe Joe White.
No, it i not like Penn State. And shame on anyone who drags others' names thru the mud without knowing the full story. Pete made aweful choices. True. But I know Joe White, and he would never, ever overlook someone's selfish and cruel decisions. That is maddening. Joe is a good man and protector of the weak. Namely little ones.
DeleteDoes the Pete Newman/Joe White ordeal remind anyone of the situation at Penn State?? If Joe White had a board, he would have been fired like Paterno.
ReplyDeleteWhen will the civil cases be tried?
Are there still only 2 civil cases?
I'm shocked that he's asking for a court-appointed attorney. This is a civil case. You have no constitutional right to be defended by a lawyer when someone is suing you... Sheesh. Course, Pete is only in THIS case because it's how you get Kanakuk/Joe involved. If the Plaintiff is one of the named (under seal) victims in the criminal case, and Pete pled guilty to that count, it's impossible to deny the allegation without perjuring yourself.
ReplyDeleteThe Kanakuk-knowledge thing will be really fact intensive, and I am interested to see the trial exhibits when it comes time. BUT - clearly, every dime Pete makes stamping license plates should go to victims.
Pete asking for a court appointed attorney and Pet saying that he didn't do these things is such a true indication that jail does not even come close to rehabbing anyone - especially Pete. It didn't take long for him to totally nullify everything he said in his statement before he got hauled off for the rest of his life.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this is sooooo similar to the Penn State situation. Pete just was spared the international embarrassment that Sandusky has undergone.
FYI - Pete's motion for a lawyer was summarily denied by the court. I read the opinion. Basically the judge said "Um, duh, it's not the public's job to protect you from lawsuits."
ReplyDeleteThis suggests to me that Pete's not getting advice from former attorneys/friends/etc. A first year law student (or someone who pays attention during episodes of "Law and Order" could tell you that you have no right to an attorney in a civil case.
Also read Pete's answer where he denies all the fact allegations. The article makes it sound like he went through and refuted specific allegations - he didn't. He just basically said "I'm an inmate, I can't defend myself, so I deny everything in here and please give me an attorney."
ReplyDeleteThis means that Pete has denied that he worked at Kanakuk, that his name is Peter Newman, etc., etc. It's a standard jailhouse form and less than a page long (contrast to Kanakuk's 24 page answer). It won't actually prevent anyone from getting a judgment against Pete for the two cents he has to his name at this point. It's way way too vague to rise to the level of perjery. Heck, if I represented the Plaintiffs I would WANT him in, defending the case to enhance their case against Kanakuk.
He'll get deposed on video, there'll be a motion for summary judgment, they'll have the "monster video" for the jury, and Pete likely won't (or won't have the resources to) fight it. This is just standard practice for jailhouse defendants (I have a similar case right now).