THE WHOLE STORY

August, 2000

Updates About Sister Plante's Case for the Past Year

he past year has been one of frustration for Sister Plante, as the Diocese and its attorneys have managed to block efforts by Sister Plante's counsel to depose witnesses to the events that led to her resignation in 1994.

In September of 1999, Nell Escobar Coakley, writing for the Medford Transcript, reported that attorney for the Fall River Diocese William Dailey had filed a motion to prevent Fr. Richard Beaulieu from giving deposition testimony, as he had been summoned to do. Escobar cited Sister Plante's attorneys, Daniel Gindes and Susan Champa, defending their approach to the legal malpractice lawsuit against Robert George. In order to make a case against George, Gindes and Champa must prove that the dismissed lawsuits had merit and would have been won had they been aggressively pleaded. Those cases must essentially be "retried" in order to establish their merit. This is the justification for deposing important witnesses, none of whom had been deposed during the original cases, including Fr. Beaulieu, Sister Plante's religious superior Sr. Rosemary LaLiberte, Bishop O'Malley, and former Samaritans/FRNB board members Ellie Leite and Peter L. Paull, Esq. Atty. Dailey, however, claimed that the Diocese had nothing to do with the case against Robert George and had no interest in "getting involved". He frankly stated that the Diocese personnel "would abide by any court order" and be deposed only if they lost all motions against doing so.

Just before Thanksgiving, 1999, Fr. Beaulieu informed his congregation at Notre Dame Church in Fall River that he was leaving the country, much to their bewilderment. He immediately left Fall River for Toronto, Ontario, where he spent several months. Congregation members believed that he had been "ordered to go to Canada" by Bishop O'Malley. One congregation member was quoted in the Medford Transcript, reporting that Fr. Beaulieu had told church members that he could no longer handle his responsibilities and that he "needed a rest" for his health. Fr. Beaulieu had been scheduled for deposition in December.

Ellie Leite and Peter L. Paull, Esq. were deposed on December 17, 1999, but their testimony was not helpful for Sister Plante's case. Sister Plante desperately needed the Bishop and Fr. Beaulieu to testify directly as to their actions in July and August of 1994.

On January 11, 2000, Maggie Mulvihill reported that Robert George was involved in yet another legal malpractice suit in her Boston Herald column, "At the Bar". Paul B. Wilson claims that George blew off his medical malpractice suit in 1995-96 to devote his energies to defending convicted murderer Eddie O'Brien in what was then a very high-profile and controversial case. Wilson's suit was lost, and he has filed a lawsuit against George and two other attorneys in Middlesex Superior Court and a complaint with the Board of Bar Overseers against George. Robert George's own attorney has quite a bit on his plate this year.

In early 2000, an affadavit by Bishop O'Malley that had been filed on May 16, 1997 as part of Sister Plante's lawsuit against the Diocese was made public for the first time. In that affadavit, the Bishop stated, in defense of his actions toward Sister Plante, that "The Samaritans showed me a booklet listing Sister Michaelinda's diocesan title on the front page and including a reproduction of Tarot cards and a photo of the alleged 'Michael Ross'...At the same time, the Samaritans showed me a photo of a prominent rock music star in a magazine and it was the identical photo that appeared in Sister Michaelinda's booklet...The use of Tarot cards is in complete contradiction to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The authorship of such a publication as was shown to me could give rise to serious scandal and undermine the credibility of our school system." Sister Plante said that she was "shocked" by the affadavit, since at no time did the Bishop question her about the book or the Tarot cards. She refuses to believe that the poetry book is the real reason for her forced "leave of absence" and psychiatric evaluation. It remains puzzling why a poetry book containing Tarot cards would appear potentially "scandalous" to a Bishop who had handled the spin control for the Fr. Porter molestation case immediately after he was appointed to the Diocese.

The Diocese's motion to quash Fr. Beaulieu's deposition testimony was denied by the court on March 4, 2000, and a deposition date was set for June. Suffolk Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford, who gave the ruling (handwritten around two margins of the original motion) stated that questions were to be restricted to "(1) any meeting or meetings he attended with the Samaritans prior to August 15, 1994, at which the plaintiff was discussed or mentioned and (2) statements made by Father Beaulieu to the plaintiff concerning what the Samaritans had told him or had allegedly told other Diocesan officials, including Bishop O'Malley and Sr. Rosemary LaLiberte."

For a brief time following Judge Botsford's decision, Sister Plante and her supporters celebrated their first legal victory in six years, and eagerly looked forward to at last having their "day in court." Their elation was short-lived, however: Father Beaulieu failed to appear for deposition. In the meantime, Sr. LaLiberte had filed motions claiming that she could not appear for deposition because it would be too great a strain on her failing health. She also claimed that she could not leave her convent in Rhode Island to be deposed. Father Beaulieu's deposition was rescheduled to July 27.

In early July, Sister Plante was dealt a severe set-back when Suffolk Superior Court Judge Mitchell Sikora, ruling on a motion by Patrick Dolan, George's attorney, ordered Sister Plante to reveal the true name and identity of Michael Ross, and his parents, Elaine and General John S. Ross. Sister Plante had refused to answer those questions in her deposition for Dolan, saying that the information was a violation of confidentiality and not relevant to the case. Reportedly, George was claiming that he had not been able to argue the lawsuit against the Diocese successfully because he had not known the identities of the Rosses. Sister Plante was distressed at the prospect of being forced to betray the privacy of the family she had known for so long, and who had already endured so much tragedy. However, she wished to obey the court, and stated that she would give the information to her attorneys. She spoke to Elaine Ross by telephone and said that Mrs. Ross agreed with her decision and told her, "I will not allow you to lose this case."

At the same time, on July 1 and 8, reporter Bill McNamara published two long articles in the New Bedford Standard Times about Sister Plante's case and "the Ross saga". McNamara had spent the previous year interviewing principals in the story and reading documents and news coverage, but had been unable to persuade an editor to publish a word about the story despite many proposals. His articles provoked a great deal of comment from readers in the following weeks.

Fr. Beaulieu, who had returned from Canada and was staying on Cape Cod, did not appear for his scheduled deposition on July 27. He stated that his attorney, William Dailey, was so busy with an ongoing trial that he was unable to accompany Fr. Beaulieu to the deposition and would have to postpone. Sources from the Fall River area report that Fr. Beaulieu has been experiencing ill-health and has been hospitalized since his return from Canada.

Perhaps the most bizarre twist on the story yet occurred on August 10, 2000 with the publication of an article by Nell Escobar Coakley in the Medford Transcript. Coakley, a former reporter for Ed Rice when he was editor of the Winchester Town Crier has written many articles about Sister Plante's case and has followed the story for years. In her piece headed, "Talk of affair sheds light on Plante case", Coakley cites Ed Florino, Yvonne George, and an unnamed "source close to Mrs. Ross" as suggesting that Elaine Ross had once had an affair with a priest who was now "a high official in the Catholic Church". This affair allegedly took place over thirty years ago while the General was serving in Vietnam and Mrs. Ross was alone at home. Michael was allegedly the priest's son. The story suggests that this baroque revelation explains many mysteries in the saga, including Michael's psychological problems (he knew about the affair), the reason for the "praise campaign" (Mrs. Ross feared that Michael had spilled the beans to the Samaritans volunteers), the urgency the Bishop felt about stopping Sister Plante's "mediation" (he feared the scandal would come out), and the Diocese's current stonewalling tactics to avoid giving any testimony whatsoever in the lawsuit against Robert George.

Yvonne George stated in the article that she doesn't believe former Samaritans/FRNB Director Ellie Leite knew any such dark secrets about Michael, but Elaine Ross was convinced that she might, and "paranoid that the secret was going to come out." Yvonne also says that she was sent to see Bishop O'Malley by Mrs. Ross before Sister Plante's involvement in the "praise campaign" dispute. Bishop O'Malley allegedly expressed concern about the number of "media and TV people" on the Samaritans/FRNB Board, and about Ellie Leite's status as a born-again Christian and former Catholic. "He advised me to tell Mrs. Ross to get the boy, Michael, some help and get him off the hotline."

The Diocese has made no comment about these allegations. It remains to be seen whether Fr. Beaulieu, Sr. Laliberte or Bishop O'Malley himself will ever give deposition testimony regarding Sister Plante's forced leave of absence and subsequent resignation, eviction from her home, blackened reputation, and continued unemployment--all of which are, of course, what this case is really all about.

| BACK | GO TO TOP | NEXT PART |