Jason Berry just alerted me to this piece in the NCR:
A Rhode Island Superior Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the scandal-ridden Legionaries of Christ that had alleged the religious order defrauded a wealthy widow out of millions of dollars. Yet the judge’s 39-page ruling details dubious fundraising tactics of Legionaries priests and seemingly opens a door for appeal.
“The transfer of millions of dollars worth of assets -- through will, trust, and gifts -- from a steadfastly spiritual, elderly woman to her trusted but clandestinely dubious spiritual leaders raises a red flag to this Court,” Superior Court Judge Michael Silverstein of Providence, R.I., wrote in a summary judgment Sept. 7.
Pope Benedict ordered the scandal-battered Legionaries into a Vatican receivership in 2010, and appointed Cardinal Velasio De Paolis as delegate, or overseer of the order.
Silverstein dismissed the lawsuit against the Legionaries of Christ, Fr. Anthony Bannon and Bank of America on Sept. 7, ruling that Mary Lou Dauray, the niece of the late Gabrielle Mee, lacked the legal standing to sue.
Dauray alleged through her attorney Bernard Jackvony -- a former lieutenant governor of Rhode Island -- that, according to the judge’s decision, Legionary priests in America “unduly influenced and fraudulently induced Mrs. Mee into giving approximately $60 million to the defendants -- particularly the Legionaries of Christ.”
Jackvony told NCR that Dauray could not comment because of a protective order. He said that an appeal was under discussion: “We’re evaluating the best way to proceed in light of the judge’s decision that there was significant evidence of undue influence and fraud.”
[read the rest at NCR]
Isn't that interesting? The Legion preys on a childless widow, and then -- despite all the evidence of corruption and deceit -- the case is thrown out because there is no one with the legal standing to sue. More diabolical cleverness.
Predators are always clever about their prey.
What a shock poor Mrs. Mee must have had when she showed up at the pearly gates and found out Maciel wouldn't be joining her anytime too soon.........and probably not for eternity.
Posted by: Gems | September 13, 2012 at 06:48 PM
What is sickening is that these priests who are supposed to br living in poverty are living off of wealthy donor funds (the ones they've fished). It is so shameful and wrong what they are doing. But they will join their unscrupulous founder at the gates of hell (yes, the one who had children with two women and abused boys). Our true God knows the hearts of everyone. Those who deceive the elderly, seduce women and sodomize boys will not be
forgiven.
Posted by: Dingledore | September 13, 2012 at 10:20 PM
60 million...WOW!!!!!!!!! Why did my son have to wear gloves in Cheshire during the winter and eat outdated food??
Posted by: Mercy | September 13, 2012 at 10:44 PM
Mercy, your son was slave labor. Garza et al figured out how to get around US laws concerning slavery and indentured servitude. It's all about the money to Maciel's heirs (for Maciel, it was about access to drugs and sex)
Posted by: Jeannette | September 14, 2012 at 12:27 AM
"Jackvony told NCR that Dauray could not comment because of a protective order."
What does this mean? The legion has a restraining order against her?
Posted by: Pines | September 14, 2012 at 06:37 AM
The sentence is important because fixes in a public act some points:
1) lies: There is no evidence Father Bannon disclosed the full extent of the significant allegations against Father Maciel to Mrs. Mee
2) deceit: The Legionaries of Christ did not publicly acknowledge the accusations against Father Maciel until February 2009, nine months after Mrs. Mee’s death
3)many knew: Father Garza spoke to several Legion of Christ members about it. In 2008 Garza shared the sordid news with 15 Regnum Christi and Legionaries members at a meeting in Switzerland.
4) methodology: Bannon began cultivating Mee after Maciel met her in 1991. The Legionaries wooed former Gov. John Joseph Garrahy and his wife, Marguerite, who was Gabrielle’s close friend. Bannon won the support of Louis Gelineau, bishop of Providence, R.I., from 1972-1997. Endorsement by the diocese was critical to the [Legionaries’] securing of funds to purchase a facility. In 1989 Mee visited the Legionaries center in Cheshire, Conn., and on Aug. 8 of that year, Mee sent a check for $1 million to the Legionaries. In 1991 she revised her will, giving 90 percent of her assets to the Legionaries. She also joined Regnum Christi that year and gave $3 million to the Legionaries.
5) cult of personality: Mrs. Mee held Father Maciel in extremely high regard and considered him to be saint-like
Nothing new and something not so correct (Torres knew by '90), but wrote down by a public authority.
Posted by: White Rabbit's Hole | September 14, 2012 at 09:21 AM
Love how they use donor funds to fly "impoverished" priests to Switzerland. What do they do with the rest of the money? If they are doing good with it, why don't they disclose it? And when will big leader Garza give a public speech about God's love and living like Jesus? Is Legion money merely used to bribe officials in Rome and priests who have/had a voice on EWTN?? We know they serve dog food to the seminarians and purchase property that they
eventually have to sell. What a waste of donor funds. Let's protect our borders instead and not waste our dollars on producing more
unscrupulous, sex and $ hungry priests.
Posted by: Dingledore | September 14, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Seems she would have been an heir-at-law, had there been no will, and as such would have had standing, but "the trusts [Do they mean the will, which is the pertinent discussion in this part of the opinion - p 16?] clearly direct all assets to charity". Does it specify another charity? If not, "charity" fails for lack of specificity, and she has standing. The opinion doesn't get back to the will, but presumably all assets are included in the Trust. and given the fact that she spoke with her aunt, Mrs. Mee, once in 46 years, her standing as anything other than an heir at law is questionable. Now, if she could show that she didn't speak with her because of the undue influence, she might have a case...
The (poorly written) opinion can be found here: http://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SuperiorCourt/DecisionsOrders/decisions/10-1195.pdf
Posted by: Cephas | September 14, 2012 at 11:16 AM
LCs are not motivated by the money so much as the narrative of unlimited growth.
The Legion must grow grow grow (to what end, nobody knows) so buildings are constructed, apostolates undertaken, vocations recruited without proper planning or financial backing. Then you have to go and find a few million. Then you overrun your unrealistic budget and have to find more money while cutting back on things like hot water. Since the apostolates don't produce you are basically setting up a pyramid scheme, and the whole thing crashes down.
To simplify: uncontrolled growth leads to debt, which leads to desperate fundraising, which leads to all kinds of wicked things.
Posted by: Another ex-LC | September 14, 2012 at 06:28 PM
maybe if attorney for the widow had legitimate proof that the legion knew maciel was a dimwit before the widow gave away her millions they would have had a better case. why is it so hard to bring the catholic church to conviction?
Posted by: bruce | September 14, 2012 at 07:10 PM
Right on Another ExLC! This same comment could have worked just as easily on the last thread too where Garza, clutching his 21 candidates, was looking for the linchpin for yet another blind launch into the black hole that is the Legion's future. If the LC can keep the novitiate filled, and expanding smoke and mirrors of big apostolates, they will have no use for reform, clarity of charism, nor the long term well being of their members.
I would nonetheless add that behind the scenes, Garza has always maintained a passion for that fortune 500 company feel to the LCs version of the New Evangelization. Stock buys and corporate shell protection are part of his story. Merely examine the number of corporations that had to be listed in this suit to bring the LC to justice, and therein you see Garza's legal war strategy for hostile takeovers.
Posted by: AnonObserv | September 14, 2012 at 07:35 PM
They have learned nothing. If they were capable of charity, they would give the money back. ALL OF THEM ARE CONMEN.
Would someone please tell me what good have they done?? please
Posted by: hauler | September 15, 2012 at 01:05 AM
hauler, the good Legionland has done for society is by example:
Darkness and evil can appear as light and evil. It has appeared in the form of this so-called holy institution where financial and spiritual rape are the order of the day.
Posted by: Justice | September 15, 2012 at 09:27 AM
meant to say can appear as light and holy
Posted by: Justice | September 15, 2012 at 09:29 AM
Giselle, a person I know told me that he will be attending some meetings next week and apparently one of the goals of those meetings will be the discussion of what the charism of the order is. I guess we'll finally know what it is!
Posted by: Cory | September 15, 2012 at 03:06 PM
"It is a mark of the evil spirit to assume the appearance of an angel of light. He begins by suggesting thoughts that are suited to a devout soul, and ends by suggesting his own. For example, he will suggest holy and pious thoughts that are wholly in conformity with the sanctity of the soul. Afterwards, he will endeavor little by little to end by drawing the soul into his hidden snares and evil designs" Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola Sec. 332
Be very clear that the spirit which moves activities of Garza and LC is not the Spirit of good, rather that of evil. How does one know? You stop listening to what is said and start looking at what is done.
And before all the objections are posted, i am NOT saying that all LCs are bad and evil. I AM saying that LC as an organization cooperates with the movement of the evil spirit, and some of the LCs are overcome by that cooperation to the degree that they find it necessary to continue to promote it....even while believing it is right and good. Remember, to discern what Spirit or spirits are moving, you look at what is DONE, NOT what is SAID or THOUGHT, and pray with the reality of that.
Posted by: occasional tourist | September 15, 2012 at 03:56 PM
I have been free from LC/RC for approximately 3 years. My parents initiated estate planning (mother was in RC 4 yrs ago). Documents were reviewed and found that a portion of dad's multi-million $$ profit-sharing was to go to LC. Got that one changed right off.
Posted by: jenjen | September 17, 2012 at 04:04 PM
Ms Mee made personal gifts to various individuals in the LC. T
How did the constitutions allow this? Are LC allowed to receive gifts? As an RC consecrated (supposing she gave gifts as a consecrated, I am not taking time to re-read and scrutinise the details we have been supplied with) is she ALLOWED in her poverty to give a gift?
Are the LC rules flouted? This gift giving is a bit bizarre to me, so un-legionary, Brother!
Posted by: Aaron | September 17, 2012 at 04:22 PM
I mean what is the difference between Ms Mee donating to the Legion and donating to named individuals? Obviously the money is not kept (i presume) by the individual recipient, it is passed along to the... legion? or some LC foundation?
How does the LC benefit from this type of donation - it strikes me as a circumvention for a reason, what the reason is I dont know.
Posted by: Aaron | September 17, 2012 at 04:25 PM
I am struggling with Dingledore's comments. As a family member of an LC in the process of leaving, I want to assure you that the Legionary from my family also lived an austere life. There was no healthcare, so we were pooling our money to buy him glasses and send him to the dentist (or he would not go at all). When he was overseas, it was nearly impossible for us to help him with these basic things, if we could even get him to admit that he needed them. Better to sacrifice needlessly =Legionary way.
Now he is in transition to diocesan. I can't talk about this to any of my friends, still, because RC/LC members have been known to run smear campaigns against Legionaries who are leaving. And you never know who is RC or will inadvertently share with an RC.
His fellow diocesan priests have been building up a retirement through their various diocese, whereas the Legionary in our family has a promise when he went in that "we will take care of you." Since then we have read of a supposed Legionary retirement fund but no one has helped explain how to access it. (Do any of you have ideas on that?) He has no degree to show for the years of classes he took at Legionary institutions around the world, and he was an excellent student.
If you have any practical suggestions, they would be appreciated.
Posted by: Family of Former LC | September 17, 2012 at 07:45 PM
FFLC: I should have specified that I am only talking about the higher-ups who take advantage of their rank. I am convinced that those who do well earn it through absolute obedience, even if it means lying and manipulating people. To do well in the Legion, one must be willingly deceitful (they call it playing the game) and keeping things covert.
I am so glad your loved one will be accepted as a respectable diocesan priest. That is a wonderful thing and you should be most proud of him. That is a blessing indeed!
Posted by: Dingledore | September 17, 2012 at 09:32 PM
Indeed, only Maciel, Corcuera, Garza and superiors got to ride in BMW's and Mercedes', while the rest of us froze inside the building and ate expired food.
Posted by: Hope | September 17, 2012 at 09:38 PM
I have a question on the ruling. I read the PDF link. Just want to make sure I got it right. The court would make the LC's bear the burden of proof, and by the facts presented by the plaintiff would most likely be found guilty. But the court is tied because the plaintiff doesn't fill the requirements as "legally interested". So the LC's big dodged? Or is there a chance of a further trial
?
Posted by: Hope | September 17, 2012 at 09:44 PM
Hope, I would think that an immediate family member would have to file suit in order to be considered "legally interested."
Posted by: Cory | September 18, 2012 at 01:16 PM
I believe that the niece is deciding whether or not to appeal. The Superior Court did suspect "undue influence," but the lack of a relationship seems to be the hang-up, especially since the niece was not mentioned in any of Mrs. Mee's several wills.
Posted by: 19fiona48 | September 18, 2012 at 01:22 PM