On Friday, attorneys for Branson-based Kanakuk and its CEO Joe White filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a Texas couple whose son was molested by former Kanakuk Kamp director Pete Newman.
If the suit is not dismissed, the documents, which were filed in U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, say, it should be moved to Missouri, where the actual molestation took place.
The Texas family says it would never have sent the boy to Missouri had it not been for White's convincing them during a trip to Texas.
This is the second time Kanakuk attorneys have tried this gambit.
U. S. District Court Judge Joe Fish ruled Oct. 28 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.
Rancy,
ReplyDeleteWhen will this civil trial go to court? Seems this keeps going on and on.....ready for some closure.
wants it moved to a missouri court so they have a better chance for a favorable ruling
ReplyDeleteThe first motion was for lack of jurisdiction (i.e. Texas can't exercise jurisdiction over Joe because he lives in Missouri and all the bad things he's accused of happened in Missouri). I thought that was a 50/50 shot. The Plaintiffs won. This is for an inconvenient forum (i.e. Texas is not a convenient place to have this trial).
ReplyDeleteThere is merit to Kanakuk's argument. The Plaintiffs don't even live in Dallas - but Randall County, near Amarillo. In fact, from the county seat, it is 9 hours to Springfield and 7 hours to Dallas. Springfield is therefore not really less convenient than Dallas (if this were filed in Amarillo, there wouldn't be a chance of this succeeding). All the evidence, witnesses, etc., are all in Missouri, and if the case were in Missouri, it would be easier to subpoena these witnesses. The only connection with Dallas is the Plaintiffs' attorneys, and that's not a factor in the test for convenience. As a purely legal matter, it's a valid and potentially winning argument. A big however upcoming -
The problem for Kanakuk is that this motion should have been brought already. When they moved for lack of personal jurisdiction, they should ALSO have made this argument. Because they didn't do so, the judge should hold that this argument has been waived and keep this lawsuit in Dallas. Forum non conviens is a very rare remedy anyway, but certainly, it won't be granted when it's untimely.
I'll say it again, Judge, CLOSE this camp.
ReplyDeleteThis is not surprising. they are so arrogant. If this stays in Dallas this einstein move will only piss the judge off. But I am sure they do not care. Just like Joe did not care about the kids. This is all about him.
ReplyDeleteBy the way Ross Dallas is 5 hours from Amarillo and 11 hours to Springfield. It does matter. Who cares if Joe and them live in Missouri. the kid has already been inconvienced enough.
9:40 - Just reporting what Google Maps tells me. I do dispute that it takes 11 hours to get to springfield from Amarillo, as I live in OKC and can get to either in about 4.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, all the events, witnesses, etc. are in Missouri, which means it is a "better" forum, though a Plaintiff is usually entitled to their choice absent a major inconvenience. This would be a close-ish call, but as I stated before, Kanakuk has likely waived this argument by answering in Texas.
And really, 9:40, I know a lot of folks are angry - I am very interested in this case and trying to do a service by explaining the procedural details that you need law school to truly understand. If folks don't want me to do that or have decided that they should respond by ridiculing what is simply an interpretation of legal positions, I'll stop. I can't bill for this time. :)
Randy,
ReplyDeleteWhy is this civil case taking so long to go to court? For the hundreds of victims of betrayal...it will bring some healing and closure to see justice prevail in these cases.
Ross
ReplyDeleteApparently emotions are high in this case. Regardless of some of the details, your feedback and insight does bring some of us more of an understanding.
Please continue providing feedback.
You are right, the law is difficult to interpret and the majority of us have no clue what any of this means and the legitimacy of filings etc.
I read the filings. If the initial contact with White happened in Dallas County, the site of Texas Stadium...why is it a problem for a Dallas attorney to file suit? Let's not forget Joe and Debbie Jo went to SMU and are in Dallas ALL THE TIME. It shouldn't be a problem for them to hop on the Kanakuk jet.
ReplyDeleteI must be a glutton for punishment - I'll answer the "why is this taking so long" question. This is a civil case. Folks are used to following criminal trials (including Pete's) in the media. Those are always faster, as there's a constitutional right to a speedy trial.
ReplyDeleteCivil cases carry no such constitutional mandate. All the parties (including the Plaintiff) in the December 2011 status report agreed that the end of DISCOVERY would not be feasible until at least mid-2013. In fact, the Plaintiff's attorneys requested the longest period for discovery. The parties have asked for a June 2013 trial date.
So unless the parties settle or Kanakuk wins on summary judgment (unlikely from the looks of things), that would be the earliest there would be resolution.