Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Judge: Joe White, Kanakuk actions sufficient for sexual abuse lawsuit to remain in Texas


A lawsuit filed by the parents of one of Pete Newman's sex abuse victims will remain in Texas.

U. S. District Court Judge Joe Fish ruled Friday that the plaintiffs had shown enough evidence that a significant portion of the crimes against the boy occurred in Texas. The following passage was taken from Judge Fish's decision:

The plaintiffs contend that Kanakuk CEO Joe White and Kanakuk officials came to Texas to convince children to come to the camp at Branson where they were sexually molested by Newman. Newman pleaded guilty to sex abuse charges and is serving two life sentences.

According to the complaint, White and Kanakuk deliberately came into this
district, persuaded residents of this district to send their children out of the district, and facilitated the transportation of those children out of this district. White spoke at the “Promise Keepers” event in Irving, Texas to influence parents to sent their children to the Missouri Camps Kanakuk convinced the defendants to send their son to a camp outside of this district by communicating with them at their home in this district through telephone calls, mail, and e-mail. Once the plaintiffs agreed to sent their son to the camp, the defendants
organized a bus in Dallas that would take him out of this district and into Missouri.

Newman’s phone, mail and e-mail communications with John Doe I at home
in Texas allowed Newman to “groom” John Doe I for sexual abuse.

These communications, which were allegedly “sponsored and sanctioned” by Kanakuk, permitted Newman to develop a “deeper and more trusting relationship” with John Doe I. Id. And after receiving permission from John Doe, Newman discussed masturbation with John Doe I over the phone, while John Doe I was at his home in Texas.

It was the second decision in less than a month to go against White. Earlier in the month, Judge Fish ordered White not to try to contact the plaintiffs.

Attorneys for the boy and his family requested the injunction in a motion filed July 13. The motion indicated that White and Kanakuk officials had not left the family alone since the lawsuit was filed.

The unwanted attention began April 7, according to the motion. "Since appearing in this case, defendants have maintained regular communications with the plaintiffs, directly, by way of mail, telephone, and e-mail, despite repeated requests (from both plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel) that they not do so."

The latest such communication occurred July 8, the motion says,when "a package from Defendant White and his wife, arrived at the Doe home."

The e-mails, phone calls, letters, and packages have added to the boy's "emotional and psychological problems that stem from his sexual abuse," the motion said.

The $10 million lawsuit against White, Newman, and Kanakuk alleges that Newman's sexual assault of the boy and others came after White ignored obvious danger signals and allowed Newman to continue working with young boys.

The father of the child says White,a nationally known Christan motivational speaker, encouraged him to send his son to Kanakuk Kamp in Branson following a speech at a Promise Keepers meeting in Irving, Texas.

"Defendant Joe T. White appeared and lectured at a Promise Keepers event at Texas Stadium in Irvin, Texas. (The father) attended this event and heard (his) presentation advocating Christian values." White spoke of Kanakuk Kamp and distributed literature, and later sent letters and Internet messages to him, his wife, and other parents encouraging them to send their children to the Missouri camp.

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."

The lawsuit charges that White and Kanakuk Ministries "had every reason to know Newman, a sexual predator, was operating freely in the Kanakuk Kamps and placing young boys at risk for sexual abuse and molestation and the lifelong burdens that childhood sexual abuse creates."

The petition goes into specifics about White's prior knowledge of Newman's perversions:

"At least as early as 1999, Defendant Joe T. White, Kanakuk Ministries and/or Kanakuk Heritage, Inc. knew that Newman, in the nude, was riding four-wheelers at the 'kamp' with nude 'kampers,' who were minor children entrusted to the care of Defendants. In response to this sexually inappropriate behavior, Newman was placed on probation."

That was not the last time Newman's perverted antics were known to White and Kanakuk officials, the lawsuit charges. "In or about 2003, a nude Defendant Newman was streaking through the 'kamp' property with nude minor 'kampers.' Although this conduct came to the attention of Defendants Joe T. White, Kanakuk Ministries, and/or Kanakuk, Heritage, Inc., again Newman remained on staff in easy reach of his future victims, including John Doe I."

The petition charges White and Kanakuk officials with negligence in allowing Newman anywhere near children. John Doe I "suffered injuries that have required and will continue to require medical and psychological care. The childhood sexual abuse of John Doe I in the context of what was purported to be Christian ministry further complicates his injuries and treatment.

White and Kanakuk are also charged with fraud, misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive practices, negligent infliction of emotional distress. The parents are asking for medical expenses, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and are requesting a jury trial.

The parents and son are being represented by the Turley Law Firm of Dallas.
The lawsuit was the second to be filed against Newman and Kanakuk, and the first to be filed against Joe White individually.

The first lawsuit, filed Jan. 31 in Taney County Circuit Court, charges officials at the Christian sports camp Kanakuk with fraud for allowing Pete Newman to masquerade as a role model at the same time he was molesting scores of underage boys. The petition was filed on behalf of a Little Rock man who was only 12 years old when Newman allegedly began grooming him.

Among the allegations in that petition:

-Kanakuk officials had received sexual misconduct reports about Pete Newman as early as 1999. (He remained in Kanakuk's employ until 2009.)

-Kanakuk's cost-saving policies encouraged employees recruiting campers in the off-season to stay with families, providing opportunities for Newman to zero in on potential victims.

-Kanakuk promoted Newman as a "camp director, devoted husband, loving, beloved friend and mentor to youth" long after being made aware of sexual misconduct allegations. Camp officials also allowed Newman to "continue to promote himself all over America as an expert on teenage sexual purity."

-Newman had one-on-one Bible studies with boys in his hot tub.

-Newman used his unrestricted access to Kanakuk facilities to lure underage boys to the facilities during the off-season for sexual purposes.

-Newman bombarded the plaintiff, referred to as "John Doe, J. G." in the petition with phone calls and letters and engaged in phone sex with him.

-Newman had sexual relations with boys in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. (Not mentioned was Colorado where Newman, who is currently serving two life sentences plus 30 years in a Missouri penitentiary, still faces charges.)

-At a "Purity Conference" in Memphis, Newman engaged a group of boys in sex talk, telling them what it was like to "have sex with a woman now that he was married."

-Newman invited the plaintiff to a conference in Oklahoma where he tried to get the boy to engage in sodomy, was turned down, and finally convinced him to engage in a mutual masturbation session.

According to the petition, the plaintiff was first seduced by Newman on Feb. 7, 2003, and then again the following day at K-Kountry in Taney County, at an area known as "The Pit," a foam pit next to the gymnastics equipment.

In the summer of 2003, the petition says, Newman lured the children with a yellow jeep into "spending time with him on Kanakuk property."

During the Purity Conference in Tennessee in 2004, Newman again engaged in a mutual masturbation session with the boy and then took advantage of him at the conference in Oklahoma in 2005, according to the lawsuit.

Kanakuk officials and Newman are charged with fraud, negligent supervision of a minor, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent infliction of emotional damage, breach of duty in loco parentis (serving in place of the parents) and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The petition indicates the plaintiff suffers from "severe depression and ongoing anxiety and that he is "psychologically confused and spiritually damaged by a person promoted to him by Kanakuk as a role model."

The plaintiff in the Missouri case is asking for a jury trial.

12 comments:

Unknown said...

Wow, thanks for posting this. I was not even aware of this happening. I took my son to a camp that was close to Kanakuk near Shell Knob, MO and ran into a "Kanakuk" camp during a wrong turn. Is this "Branson" location the same camp or is there another Kanakuk nearer to Branson.

Anonymous said...

yes it is Pam. And that is what this entire lawsuit is all about. Exposing the truth and informing families that the danger is not over. There are kids still at risk and as this unfolds, so will the truth. It is horrible that this family had to take this route to find the truth. Pete is not the only perpetrator on that campus.

Anonymous said...

So, we've been told for months by Kanakuk supporters that this case would be punted, and was without jurisdiction in Texas.

What about it Ross? Have you figured out that this is real case? Have you figured out that Joe White really did harrass the victim and that a criminal injunction HAD to be filed?

Anonymous said...

Hey 6:27 - Quite interesting you used my name after I haven't posted here for months. Anyway. I think I said that the motion to dismiss (on venue/technical grounds) was a 50/50 tossup. In fact, here it is:

"more than likely a 50/50 tossup."

So it landed heads. Doesn't mean that tails was out of the question.

Further - I don't think I've ever actually said anything other than that kanakuk has a very real liability issue in all of these cases, Texas and otherwise. That wouldn't have changed if the court would have granted the MTD and then the Plaintiff refiled in Missouri (as is his right).

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "criminal injunction" or "HAD to be filed", but if Kanakuk didn't take a family of a victim off of its usual mailing lists/phone call checklists, it certainly should have WITHOUT a restraining order being entered, and I would hope that kanakuk's attorney counselled as much.

I also can tell you that Kanakuk has been sending me letter to old addresses for YEARS after I told them not to. Not saying it's not harassment, but I can speak for the fact that their computer system is from roughly 1997. In any case, any further communication is now punishable by a contempt sanction.

6:27 - I'm really pretty impartial re: this particular case. I've heard lots of innuendo re: Joe's knowledge of Pete's actions, but nothing that makes the case against him a slam dunk. That doesn't mean that Kanakuk won't be held liable. I guess the evidence will bear out the issue, which, of course, is the way the system is designed to work.
What I'm not sure of, though, is what money Kanakuk has to offer in these cases.

-Ross

Anonymous said...

Ross and 6:27 - what is sad is that is going to take a lawsuit to bring the truth out. This case is no different that the Paterno situation.

Very powerful and influential individuals think they are above the law, even at the expense of little boys. Both Joe White and Joe Paterno wanted to protect their institutions, even if it means ignoring having a pedophile on their staff. How can they sleep at night.

It is unfortunate that lawsuits have to be filed for organizations to start changing the way they think and do business. Whatever happened to doing the right thing because it was the right thing.

Joe White teaches this very lesson, yet he compromised thousands of individuals for "What", Pete.

One question, would any of you let your 10 year old son or daughter go streaking and riding nude with a camp counselor?

Case closed.

Ross as for your reference to you still receiving mail after you asked them to stop, you are comparing apples and oranges. YOUR son was not sexually molested and YOU were not suing them in federal court. Their arrogance will be their demise.

Regardless, when the case does take place, this is going to be another Penn State fiascal. What will be brought to light is more disturbing than anyone can imagine.

Anonymous said...

Yeah... I'm not defending the continuing of the form e-mails and mailing that all former campers get, just saying that it's entirely possible that the edict to "stop sending immediately" may have come down, and that there were parts of the mailing machine that didn't get the memo because of bad technology.

Heck, the way the motion for restraining order reads, Joe or Kanakuk officials could have been calling directly to try to settle the suit without lawyers - if so, that's highly inappropriate. But it's just not clear what happened, so I'm a little hesitant to vilify anyone (well, other than Pete) until we know for sure what happened and when.

Anonymous said...

As has been said several times on this blog...the continued contact from Kanakuk is in the form of GIFTS and personal items...not form letters and emails.

One victim's family, in another thread on this blog said they like getting a fruit basket from Joe every month. It makes them feel special.

And, Ross, it sounds like you're backtracking on your earlier legal opinions. Maybe you can't see the forest for the trees.

Ross said...

2:33 - could you provide quotes? I did in my first comment on this thread. I don't think there's been an inconsistency. But if there has, I'd be happy to explore it. I'm providing commentary here because I worked at Kanakuk and am a lawyer, and people sometimes don't understand the machinations of civil and criminal procedure which can sometimes fuel misinformation. My defense, or lack thereof, of Kanakuk/Joe won't amount to a hill of beans, and shouldn't. Let me know if I can clear things up for you. Thanks!

Also - what's been "said on this forum" is not evidence in a motion for a restraining order or in the civil case. I am very anxious to see how this all plays out.

Anonymous said...

Ross and all those following this case, you are all correct in the fact that the restraining order and such makes no sense or in the words of Ross "is not evidence in a motion for a restraining order or in the civil case."

However, the Judge who issued the injunction is a very smart man. Restraining orders in a civil case in Federal Court are not issued without serious merit or justification. The child had to of been in danger as result of their attempts to contact the family. If that is the case, again, sad, very sad that a judge had to step in to have Joe White and kanakuk to stop.

For what its worth, the family is very anxious to get to the facts and hold accountable all those involved.

Ross, as an attorney, how many times have you expereinced that there is more to the story. There is always more, and in this case, there is tons more.

Anonymous said...

Search "Lee Bradberry". Kanakuk has failed to stop the problem. I would think twice about sending your children to that camp.

Anonymous said...

This article is quite confusing.
I have been following the Turner reports on Pete Newman since the abuse came to light. In all of the court records/police reports, it was stated that NONE of the abuse happened during camp terms. However, this article says...
"Newman, in the nude, was riding four-wheelers at the 'kamp' with nude 'kampers,' who were minor children entrusted to the care of Defendants"

"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."

I think this article is very misleading to parents of kampers. The abuse did not happen during camp.

Now, however, we are hearing of abuse that DID happen during camp - Bradberry.

Randy said...

You are making it sound as if I am making up the allegations about activities taking place in the camp. The allegations come directly from court documents.