mater dolorosa counterclaim against catholice diocese of springfield, massachusetts

8/3/2019 Mater Dolorosa Counterclaim against Catholice Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts

1/9

COUNTERCLAIM

Now come the Plaintiffs (by counterclaim) by counsel(s),and counterclaim as follows:

Nature of the Action

1. This Counterclaim seeks permanent injunctiverelief restraining RCB and its agents(Defendant incounterclaim) from interfering with rights of Plaintiffs(in Counterclaim)to continue Prayer Vigil in the church andall collateral activities, seeks a preliminary and

permanent injunction to restrain RCB and/or its agentsfrom removing the steeple of the church or any otherstructure or thing of the Historical Building and seeks anaccounting of all Mater Dolorosa donations and applicationsof same over the past 13 years including the Future ofHope campaign capital fundraiser which raised over$425,000 from Mater Dolorosa Church.

2. The Defendant(RCB)has attempted to interfere withrights of the Plaintiff parishioners (paid members) tocontinue a 24/7 Prayer Vigil and other religious free and

peaceful exercises at church by coercion and intimidationwhile Plaintiffs continue appeals in Rome.

3. The Defendant(RCB) has threatened to remove the

steeple of the Mater Dolorosa Church wrongfully andpresented exaggerated projected church repairs on severaloccasions as a pretext to eject Plaintiffs from theirchurch causing them great emotional distress anddisturbance.

4. The Plaintiffs say the Defendant(RCB) and its agentshave unreasonably withheld critical financial informationrelating to the church closing/merger regarding the MaterDolorosa Parish receipts and expenditures over the past 13years.

-9-


2/9

The Parties

5. The Plaintiffs, in this counterclaim, are all of the

Defendants listed as Defendants in the original complaintof RCB, Victor Anop, Peter Stasz, et als whose listedaddresses are as recited in the original complaint, andre-incorporated herein by this reference.

6. The Plaintiffs are paid Parishioners of the MaterDolorosa Church subjected to a franchise association withRCB apparently sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Churchin Rome, Italy, the originators of the Catholic Faith.

7. The Defendant in this counterclaim is the Plaintiff inthe original complaint, RCB,a Mass. Corporation Sole andits predecessor agents or assigns, whose current ChiefExecutive Officer is:

Bishop Timothy A. McDonnell with an address of 65 ElliotStreet, Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts.

8. The RCB, (and its agents, including, but notLimited to Pastor Alex Cymerman) is the organizationclaiming the corporate power to exercise full dominion,supervision,and control over the Mater Dolorosa Church.

9. The Defendant RCB has submitted itself to thejurisdiction of this civil court by virtue of the filingof the complaint in this action.

Facts

Pastoral Planning

10. Plaintiffs state, on information and belief, thatDefendants Pastoral Planning was simply a vehicle to closechurches in the RCB franchise limiting the input of the

grass root souls from the churches in the flawed process;the process essentially had a pre-determined outcome by theselected hierarchy of the church, and their appointees.

-10-


3/9

11. As a result of this pre-determined process, thePlaintiffs say they were denied a fair & proper hearing bythe Defendant RCB to defend the continuing existence oftheir religious pursuits at the Mater Dolorosa site;Plaintiffs allege that unfair pastoral planning process

was the main reason for closing of Mater Dolorosa Church.

Defendants Threats, Intimidation or coercion

12. Plaintiffs say, on information and belief, thatDefendants attempted to threaten, intimidate or coerce them

by hiring and dispatching security guards who initiallycame to the church unidentified on or after June 30,2011,scared elderly parishioners constituting bullying,and took away property at the Church and signs while

members prayed, and exercised religious freedom.

13. Plaintiffs say that the Defendants security guardschill the prayer activities of the Plaintiffsand they continue to threaten, intimidate orcoerce Plaintiffs from exercising their rights to religionand association freely by the continued every-daysurveillance, and confiscation of prayer signs.

14. Plaintiffs say that Defendant bringing an actionagainst them for conducting a Prayer Vigil, while

protecting their church, constitutes and consummatesthreatening, intimidation or coercion against Plaintiffs

exercise of freedom of religion at their church.

Defendants Building Safety Claims

15. Plaintiffs say, on information and belief, thatDefendants have exaggerated,and misrepresented HistoricalBuildings condition based on incomplete engineeringreports,and a false statement of a building inspectorsrole leading to a fraudulent initiative against Plaintiffsto justify taking down the church steeple; By color ofcivil law, RCB tries to evict Plaintiffs from their listed

Historical Church Building and close it permanently.

16. Plaintiffs say, on information and belief, that thesteeple of the church, and other building issues indicated

by subjective Defendant vendors, are simple repair issues,and are not immediate or imminent safety concerns; RCB has

misrepresented these issues as a reason for closing M.D.(See:Mitchell Reports(3)& Aff. of Neal B. Mitchell,Eng.)


4/9

Defendants Withheld Financial Data

17. Plaintiffs say they are dues paying members and

contributors of the Mater Dolorosa Church, and some arecontributors and volunteers for church activities includingbazaars, bingo, parish and financial council, schoolcommittee, and church lectoring; Many have freely giventime and specific gifts to the M.D.Church & its successor.

18. Plaintiffs, say on information and belief, thatrequests for complete financial information regardingtheir members donations, and disposition thereof, have

been unreasonably withheld from them by Defendant and itsagents. Plaintiffs further say that under Canon and civillaw Defendants have a duty & obligation to provide suchdata to ensure that donations earmarked for an intended

purpose have, in fact, been expended for that purpose.

19. Plaintiffs say, on information and belief, thatthere appears to be mismanagement of directed gifts tothe building fund as simple repairs to the steeple, stairsand parts of the roof have not been done and there are noreports of targeted building funds being used for that

purpose; yet the RCB cites steeple repair and a deficitalleged over $700,000 as reasons to close the churchwithout giving financial statements regarding designated

gifts.

20. Plaintiffs say, on information and belief, thatannual financial statements were wrongfully not madeavailable to them from the Mater Dolorosa Church agentsas required by an order of the Bishop(RCB)as a fiduciaryduty and responsibility of the RCB; the withholding of suchdata has harmed the Plaintiffs by not allowing them todiscern if their designated gifts have been properly used.

-12-


5/9

Causes of Action

COUNT 1Civil Rights Violations

21. The Plaintiffs re-alleges and incorporate by referenceits previous allegations in this counterclaim.

22. The Defendant RCB is a Massachusetts Corporation Sole.

23. The Defendant RCB has carried on a pattern ofthreatening,intimidating or coercive activities againstPlaintiffs, as previously described, which has deprived andattempted to deprive them of their constitutional rightunder the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the

Massachusetts Constitution (Part the First, Art.III)&G.L.c. 12, ss.11H & llI, to exercise their freedom ofreligion at their sacred Mater Dolorosa Church.

COUNT II

Fraud, Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty

24. The Plaintiffs re-alleges and incorporate by referenceits previous allegations in this counterclaim.

25. Plaintiffs say, on information and belief, that the

Defendant RCB has made false and misleading claimsregarding the condition of the Mater Dolorosa Church andits steeple; its campaign to remove the steeple instead ofrepairing it with unaccounted designated building funds, isfraudulent and a breach of its fiduciary duty.

-13-


6/9

COUNT III

Breach of fiduciary Duty-Failure to Produce Financial

Statements

26. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by referenceits previous allegations in this counterclaim.

27. Plaintiff says, on information and belief, that theDefendant RCB and its agents wrongfully refuse to producefull and complete financial statements of the MaterDolorosa Church to members which should include annualreceipts and expenditures as ordered by the Bishop, adescription of all designated gifts and past specialcapital fundraising efforts and their allocation;Defendant, and its agents, has breached its fiduciary dutyand responsibility by first not publishing all suchstatements to the Plaintiff church members, and thenrefusing to produce the unpublished held records uponPlaintiffs request for such verification.

Prayers for ReliefWHEREFORE, Victor Anop, Peter Stasz, et als, Defendants inthe complaint and Plaintiffs via counterclaim, request thatthis court grant the following relief:

1. That this court dismiss the complaint of RCB, withprejudice, and

2. That this court issue an injunction permanentlyenjoining and restraining RCB from coercing, intimidatingor interfering with Defendants (in Complaint)right toPrayer Vigil, praying and other similar religious rightsand activities, at Mater Dolorosa Church, and

3. After hearing, issue a preliminary injunctionrestraining and enjoining RCB from removing the Mater

Dolorosa steeple or doing unnecessary repairs within andwithout the listed Mater Dolorosa Historical Building, and

4. After a trial on the merits issue a permanentinjunction restraining and enjoining the full activitiesdescribed in Prayer(3) above, and

-14-


7/9

5. After hearing, issue an order mandating that RCBproduce a full financial accounting, including designatedgifts and their allocation, of the Mater Dolorosa Church

from calendar year 1998 through and including 2011,and

6. Dismiss the action against Iwana Boruch(sic), amisnomer; dismiss the action against Helen Domurat forfailure to serve process upon her, and

7. After hearings and trial, order such other relief asThe court deems just, proper, and equitable.

Defendants, under original complaint, request a jury trial

on all issues allowing for same.

Respectfully submitted for Original Defendants,

_____________________________ _________________________ VICTOR M.ANOP,ESQ.:BBO#019880 PETER STASZ,ESQ.BBO#47744103 Bridle Path Rd.Chicopee,Ma. 62 Richard Eger Dr.HolyokeTel.(413) 536-4181 Tel.(413) 532-1511

Date: October 24, 2011

-15-


8/9

CERTIFICATE

I, Victor M. Anop, Esq. hereby certify that a true copy of

the foregoing answers & counterclaim were delivered, inhand, at:

The Offices of Atty. John Flanagan67 Market Place

Springfield, Massachusetts

on this 25th Day of October in the year, 2011.

Date: 10/25/11 ______________________VICTOR M.ANOP, ESQUIRE

-16-


9/9

mater dolorosa counterclaim against catholice diocese of springfield, massachusetts

Documents