THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “COUNT VII NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Plaintiff v. All Defendants″

June 1, 2023 By

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

State Law Claims

COUNT VII

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Plaintiff v. All Defendants

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the twelfth a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

212. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

213. Defendants by and through their contact with Plaintiff, as described above, negligently and/or recklessly committed multiple acts of extreme and outrageous conduct which caused severe emotional, psychological, and psychiatric injuries, distress, and harm to Plaintiff, which also manifested in physical injuries to Plaintiff as set forth above in an extreme, outrageous, and harmful manner.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD, LC, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT VIII – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, Plaintiff v. Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber and John Does 1-20” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, News, News Archive, Top Featured Story

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “State Law Claims COUNT VI NEGLIGENCE Plaintiff v. LC, Weber, and John Does 1-20″

June 1, 2023 By

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

State Law Claims

COUNT VI

NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff v. LC, Weber, and John Does 1-20

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the eleventh a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

198. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

199. At all relevant times, Defendant Weber was assigned to the LC DA’s Office as an agent, employee, servant, and/or staff member of LC.

200. At all relevant times, Defendant Weber, as a law enforcement agent of LC, was a mandated reporter pursuant to 63 Pa.C.S. § 6311, et seq.

201. At all relevant times, Defendants LC and Weber owed a duty to investigate reports of criminal activity, including sexual abuse, and, specifically, the sexual abuse of Plaintiff

202. Defendant LC knew, had reason to know, or were otherwise on notice of the conduct of Weber, who failed to investigate and/or refer for investigation reports of child sexual abuse, including Plaintiff. Yet Defendant LC failed to take reasonable steps and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to prevent Weber from dereliction of his duties as a law enforcement officer tasked with reporting and investigating allegations of child sexual abuse.

203. Furthermore, at no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendant LC have in place a system or procedure to supervise and/or monitor its employees, agents, and/or staff to ensure allegations of child sexual abuse were reported and investigated.

204. Moreover, as set forth above, the abuse of Plaintiff was purposefully shielded from the appropriate authorities. For years, Defendant LC failed to do anything to properly investigate Plaintiff’s abuse or discipline any of the students and employees or staff members that not only created an environment where such abuse was permitted to occur but also who conspired to cover-up the abuse that occurred while under their supervision. Defendant’s knowing acquiescence and silence with respect to the known, or reasonably knowable, activities its agents and/or employees who concealed information from law enforcement and conspired with school administrators to cover-up Plaintiff’s sexual abuse and subsequent harassment, constituted a course of conduct through which acts of sexual violence and mental torment and the violation of the sanctity of children were condoned, approved, and effectively authorized.

205. Through its failure to timely reprimand and sanction the acts referenced above, and for all of the other reasons set forth herein including, without limitation, its failure to take the steps necessary to prevent the occurrence of such reprehensible acts, Defendant LC ratified said actions and, accordingly, is vicariously liable for the actions of their employees, including Weber.

206. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to adequately and properly:

a. Employ processes that screen out and/or prevent the hiring of incompetent employees such as Weber;
b. supervise its agents, employees, servants, and/or staff members, including Weber, and other individuals that knew or should have known that B.M. sexually abused Plaintiff;
c. train its agents, employees, servants, and/or staff members, including Weber, and other individuals that knew or should have known that B.M. sexually abused Plaintiff;
d. employ policies that screen out and/or prevent the retention of employees who condone and cover-up sexual abuse;
e. investigate employees’ background and/or information it knew or should have known during the course of their employment, including that they condone and cover-up sexual abuse.

207. The negligent, reckless, intentional, outrageous, deliberately and recklessly indifferent and unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants as set forth above and herein, consisted of inter alia:
a. failing to report allegations of sexual abuse pursuant to 63 Pa.C.S. § 6311, et seq.
b. failing to open an investigative file on an allegation of child sexual abuse;
c. failing to generate any written reports on an allegation of child sexual abuse at or around the time the allegation was made;
d. failing to contact and/or coordinate with outside law enforcement agencies regarding an allegation of child sexual abuse;
e. failing to inform any prosecuting authority of an allegation of child sexual abuse;
f. permitting and/or allowing an environment in which Weber violated or engaged in conduct, in concert with others, that would constitute violations of Pennsylvania criminal statutes prohibiting Unsworn Falsification (18 Pa.C.S. § 4904), and/or Tampering with Evidence (18 Pa.C.S. § 4910), and/or Intimidation of Witnesses (18 Pa.C.S. § 4952), and/or Obstructing Administration of Law (18 Pa.C.S. § 5101), and/or Official Oppression (18 Pa.C.S. § 5301), constituting negligence per se;
g. failing to properly and adequately supervise and discipline its employees to prevent the above described unpermitted, harmful, and unlawful conduct;
h. failing to adopt, enforce, and/or follow adequate policies and procedures for the protection and reasonable supervision of agents and/or employees, including Weber, and, in the alternative, failing to implement and comply with such procedures which had been adopted;
i. creating an environment that facilitated dereliction of duties as described above and throughout this Complaint;
j. failing to adopt, enforce and/or follow policies and procedures to protect minors from unpermitted, harmful, and unlawful conduct on the part of Defendant’s agents and/or employees;
k. violation of duties imposed by Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 302B, 314, 315, 317, 323, 324A, 343, 344 and 371 and Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 as adopted in Pennsylvania;
l. failing to warn Plaintiff of the risk of harm posed by Weber after Defendants knew or should have known of such risk;
m. failing to provide Plaintiff with any assistance in coping with the injuries sustained;
n. ratifying B.M’s conduct;
o. failing to adopt, enforce and/or follow policies and procedures to communicate with victims of crime and/or utilize victim assistance programs or agencies to do so;
p. failing to warn Plaintiff of the risk of harm that Plaintiff may suffer as a result of further contact with B.M.;
q. failing to adopt/implement and/or enforce policies and procedures for the reporting to law enforcement, Office of Children and Youth, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and/or other authorities of harmful acts to children;
r. failing to report B.M.’s harmful acts to authorities both within LC and/or other authorities, including but not limited to the MBPD;
s. failing to implement adequate and proper policies and/or by-laws regarding sexual abuse and/or harassment and/or violating its own policies and/or by-laws regarding sexual abuse and/or harassment;
t. failing to implement adequate and proper policies and/or by-laws regarding the recognition of criminal offenses, the retention and/or spoliation of evidence, interviewing witnesses, contacting and cooperating with victims of crime, contacting and cooperating with outside law enforcement agencies when necessary, and other functions essential to law enforcement and/or violating its own policies and/or by-laws regarding use of computers, cell phones, social media and communication by students;
u. violating the requirements of Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law, 23 § 6311(a) and (b), and/or the Educator Discipline Act, 24 P.S. §§ 2070.1 et seq. constituting negligence per se;
v. ignoring, concealing, or otherwise mitigating the seriousness of the known danger that B.M. posed;
w. failing to investigate the sexual abuse that was committed by B.M. on Plaintiff;
x. failing to conduct an unbiased and non-discriminatory investigation of Plaintiff’s abuse;
y. failing to afford Plaintiff due process and equal protection under the law in the scope of said investigation;
z. violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights;

aa. failing to take any law enforcement action against B.M. knowing that he sexually abused a student and disseminated video depictions of that abuse on social media;
bb. failing to adequately and properly train its employees regarding sexual abuse of minors; and
cc. negligently managing and/or operating its county detectives, including Weber.

208. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, Plaintiff was harmed as a result and has sustained physical and emotional injuries, embarrassment, mental anguish, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life and life’s pleasures.

209. Plaintiff has been and will likely, into the future, be caused to incur medical expenses and Plaintiff may likely incur a loss of earning capacity in the future.

210. Defendants knew or should have known about the severe risk of their failure to take any appropriate precautions outlined above and acted with a reckless disregard for such risk for which Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby seeks punitive damages pursuant to the requirements of Pennsylvania law.

211. Defendants’ actions and failures as described herein are outrageous and were done recklessly with a conscious disregard of the risk of harm to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby seeks punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants LC, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT VII – NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, Plaintiff v. All Defendants” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, News, News Archive, Top Featured Story

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “State Law Claims COUNT V – NEGLIGENCE Plaintiff v. WASD, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20″

June 1, 2023 By

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

 

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

State Law Claims

COUNT V – NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff v. WASD, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the tenth in a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

177. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

178. At all relevant times, Defendants owed a duty to maintain a safe educational, athletic, and school environment for the students at WAHS, specifically Plaintiff.

179. At all relevant times, Defendants had a duty to protect and safeguard Plaintiff from hurt, harm, and danger while he was under their supervision.

180. At all relevant times, Defendants occupied a position of in loco parentis, and was under a duty to protect Plaintiff, and to provide him with safety and supervision akin to that which would have been provided by his own parents.

181. At all relevant times, Defendants had a duty to ensure that its employees were properly supervising students in their custody and care to protect them from the exact type of sexual abuse to which Plaintiff was subject.

182. At all relevant times, Defendants had a duty to provide for Plaintiff’s basic human needs, including the safety of his person and his educational environment.

183. By accepting custody of the minor Plaintiff, Defendants established an in loco parentis relationship with Plaintiff and in so doing, owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from injury.

184. At all relevant times, Defendants knew or should have known that their agents, employees, servants, and/or staff members were not qualified to supervise minor students in an environment where a lack of supervision created a risk of foreseeable harm to said minor students, including Plaintiff.

185. Defendants knew, had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice of the conduct of their agents, employees, and/or staff members who failed to protect the safety of children in their school, including Plaintiff. Yet Defendants failed to take reasonable steps and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to prevent acts of unlawful sexual abuse and to prevent or avoid placement of Plaintiff in functions or environments in which he would be endangered and abused.

186. Furthermore, at no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a system or procedure to supervise and/or monitor its staff and students to ensure that children, including Plaintiff, were not abused.

187. Moreover, as set forth above, the incidents of abuse occurring when Plaintiff was in the care and custody of Defendants were purposefully shielded from the appropriate authorities. For years, Defendants failed to do anything to properly investigate Plaintiff’s abuse or discipline any of the students and employees or staff members that not only created an environment where
such abuse was permitted to occur but also who failed to properly investigate reports of Plaintiff’s abuse which occurred while under their supervision. Defendants’ knowing acquiescence and silence with respect to the known, or reasonably knowable, activities its students during an out-of-state athletic trip and at their school thereafter constituted a course of conduct through which acts of sexual violence, hazing, mental torment, bullying, harassment and the violation of the sanctity of children were condoned, approved, and effectively authorized.

188. Through its failure to timely reprimand and sanction the acts referenced above, and for all of the other reasons set forth herein including, without limitation, its failure to take the steps necessary to prevent the occurrence of such reprehensible acts, Defendants ratified said actions and, accordingly, is vicariously liable for the actions of their employees, including Dr. Brandon
Pardoe, Roger Freed, Sean McCann, Ryan Miller, Fred Holland, and John Does 1-20.

189. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to adequately and properly:
a. Employ processes that screen out and/or prevent the hiring of incompetent employees such as Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20.
b. supervise its agents, employees, servants, staff members, administrators, teachers, coaches, and/or students, including B.M., Plaintiff, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20, and other individuals that knew or should have known that B.M. sexually abused Plaintiff;
c. train its agents, employees, servants, staff members, administrators, teachers, coaches, and/or students, including B.M., Plaintiff, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20, and other individuals that knew or should have known that B.M. sexually abused Plaintiff;
d. employ policies that screen out and/or prevent the retention of employees who condone and cover-up sexual abuse;
e. investigate employees’ background and/or information it knew or should have known during the course of their employment, including that they condone and cover-up sexual abuse.

190. The negligent, reckless, intentional, outrageous, deliberately and recklessly indifferent and unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants as set forth above and herein, consisted of inter alia:
a. permitting B.M. to sexually abuse a minor student;
b. permitting B.M. to exercise authority, care, supervision, guidance, and/or control over Plaintiff at the time he sexually abused Plaintiff;
c. permitting B.M. to engage in illegal sexual conduct with another student within the course and scope of a school-related function while both B.M. and Plaintiff were in the care and custody of Defendants;
d. permitting and/or allowing an environment in which B.M. violated or engaged in conduct that would constitute violations of Pennsylvania criminal statutes prohibiting Institutional Sexual Assault (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3124.2(a.2)(1), and /or Indecent Assault (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3126), and/or Indecent Exposure (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3127), and/or Sexual Extortion (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3133), and/or Sexual Abuse of Children (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6312), and/or Transmission of Sexually Explicit Images by a Minor (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6321), constituting negligence per se;
e. permitting and/or allowing an environment in which the Individual Defendants violated or engaged in conduct, in concert with others, that would constitute violations of Pennsylvania criminal statutes prohibiting Unsworn Falsification (18 Pa.C.S. § 4904), and/or Tampering with Evidence (18 Pa.C.S. § 4910), and/or Intimidation of Witnesses (18 Pa.C.S. § 4952), and/or Obstructing Administration of Law (18 Pa.C.S. § 5101), and/or Official Oppression (18 Pa.C.S. § 5301), constituting negligence per se;
f. failing to properly and adequately supervise and discipline its employees and/or agents to prevent the sexual abuse that occurred to Plaintiff;
g. failing to adopt, enforce, and/or follow adequate policies and procedures for the protection and reasonable supervision of children who attend Defendants’ school, including Plaintiff, and, in the alternative, failing to implement and comply with such procedures which had been adopted;
h. failing to implement, enforce, and/or follow adequate protective and supervisory measures for the protection of students at Defendants’ school, including Plaintiff;
i. creating an environment that facilitated sexual abuse of students, including Plaintiff;
j. creating an environment that facilitated the bullying and harassment of students, including Plaintiff;
k. failing to adopt, enforce and/or follow policies and procedures to protect minors against harmful influence and contact by other students, including B.M.;
l. violation of duties imposed by Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 302B, 314, 315, 317, 323, 324A, 343, 344 and 371 and Restatement (Second) of Agency §213 as adopted in Pennsylvania;
m. failing to warn Plaintiff of the risk of harm posed by B.M. after Defendants knew or should have known of such risk;
n. failing to provide Plaintiff with any assistance in coping with the injuries sustained;
o. ratifying B.M.’s conduct;
p. failing to warn Plaintiff of the risk of harm that Plaintiff may suffer as a result of further contact with B.M.;
q. failing to warn or otherwise make reasonably safe the property which Defendants controlled, leading to the harm of Plaintiff;
r. failing to adopt/implement and/or enforce policies and procedures for the reporting to law enforcement, Office of Children and Youth, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, authorities within Defendants’ school, and/or other authorities of harmful acts to children;
s. failing to report B.M.’s harmful acts to authorities within Defendants’ school and/or other authorities, including but not limited to the MBPD;
t. failing to implement adequate and proper policies and/or by-laws regarding sexual abuse and/or harassment and/or violating its own policies and/or by-laws regarding sexual abuse and/or harassment;
u. failing to implement adequate and proper policies and/or by-laws regarding use of computers, cell phones, social media and communication by students and/or violating its own policies and/or by-laws regarding use of computers, cell phones, social media and communication by students;
v. violating the requirements of Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law, 23 § 6311(a) and (b), and/or the Educator Discipline Act, 24 P.S. §§ 2070.1 et seq. constituting negligence per se;
w. ignoring, concealing, or otherwise mitigating the seriousness of the known danger that B.M. posed;
x. failing to prevent the sexual abuse that was committed by B.M. on Plaintiff;
y. allowing B.M. to remain at school after knowing that he sexually abused a student and disseminated video depictions of that abuse on social media;
z. failing to properly supervise and/or discipline its employees who created an environment in which B.M.’s abuse of Plaintiff was permitted to take place;
aa. failing to adequately and properly train its employees regarding sexual abuse of students; and
bb. negligently managing and/or operating Defendants’ school.

191. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, Plaintiff was subjected to sexual abuse in an environment Defendants knew or reasonably should have known such abuse was likely to occur.

192. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, video depicting Plaintiff’s sexual abuse was disseminated, which caused Plaintiff to be subjected to ridicule, bullying, and harassment at Defendants’ school.

193. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, the harassment of Plaintiff became ongoing and continued, unabated, for months, resulting in him leaving the school district.

194. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, Plaintiff was harmed as a result and has sustained physical and emotional injuries, embarrassment, mental anguish, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life and life’s pleasures.

195. Plaintiff has been and will likely, into the future, be caused to incur medical expenses and Plaintiff may likely incur a loss of earning capacity in the future.

196. Defendants knew or should have known about the severe risk of their failure to take any appropriate precautions outlined above and acted with a reckless disregard for such risk for which Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby seeks punitive damages pursuant to the requirements of Pennsylvania law.

197. Defendants’ actions and failures as described herein are outrageous and were done recklessly with a conscious disregard of the risk of harm to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby seeks punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT VI – NEGLIGENCE, Plaintiff v. LC, Weber, and John Does 1-2” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, News, News Archive, Top Featured Story

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “State Law Claims COUNT IV VICARIOUS LIABILITY Plaintiff v. Defendants WASD and LC”

June 1, 2023 By

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

 

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

State Law Claims

COUNT IV

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Plaintiff v. Defendants WASD and LC

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the ninth in a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

171. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

172. Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 (the “Individual Defendants”) engaged in unpermitted, harmful, and unlawful conduct which not only facilitated the sexual abuse of Plaintiff, but also engaged in such conduct to cover-up the abuse of Plaintiff in violation of Pennsylvania State law. Said conduct was undertaken while the Individual Defendants were employees and/or agents of Defendants WASD (Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, John Does 1-20) and LC (Weber), while in the course and scope of employment with Defendants WASD and LC, and/or was ratified by Defendants WASD and LC.

173. Prior to or during the time that the Individual Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged above, Defendants WASD and LC knew, had reason to know, or were otherwise on notice of the unpermitted, harmful, unlawful, and negligent conduct of the Individual Defendants. Defendants WASD and LC failed to take reasonable steps and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of criminal sexual misconduct, hazing, harassment, bullying, and the unlawful suppression of information related to such instances in the future by the Individual Defendants. Furthermore, at no time during the period of time alleged did Defendants WASD or LC have in place a system or procedure to supervise and/or monitor the students in their care on out-of-state athletic trips to ensure that criminal sexual misconduct did not occur; nor did Defendants WASD or LC have in place a system or procedure to supervise and/or monitor their employees, representatives, or agents to ensure that they were not suppressing information related to student criminal sexual misconduct and/or obstructing investigation into same.

174. Defendants’ WASD and LC knowing acquiescence and silence with respect to the known, or reasonably knowable, negligence acts and omissions of the Individual Defendants constituted a course of conduct through which acts of sexual abuse and obstruction of justice were condoned, approved, and effectively authorized.

175. Through their failure to timely reprimand and sanction the acts referenced herein, and for all of the other reasons set forth in this Complaint including, without limitation, their failure to take the steps necessary to prevent the occurrence of such reprehensible acts, Defendants WASD and LC ratified said actions and, accordingly, are vicariously liable for the actions of its agents, employees, volunteers, staff members, administrators, teachers, coaches, and representatives, including the Individual Defendants.

176. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life; were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiff’s daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; has sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD and LC in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT V, NEGLIGENCE, Plaintiff v. WASD, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, News, News Archive, Top Featured Story

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “COUNT III VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Plaintiff v. All Defendants Violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Rights to Equal Protection and Due Process”

June 1, 2023 By

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

 

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Plaintiff v. All Defendants

Violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Rights to Equal Protection and Due Process

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the eighth in a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

154. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

155. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects Plaintiff from the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and guarantees Plaintiff equal protection of the law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires the Defendants, including WASD, LC, Dr. Brandon Pardoe, Roger Freed, Sean McCann, Ryan Miller, Fred Holland, William Weber, and John Does 1-20 to establish policies and practices to protect Plaintiff from known harms and known patterns of constitutional deprivations.

156. The Fourteenth Amendment also requires the Defendants, including WASD, LC, Dr. Brandon Pardoe, Roger Freed, Sean McCann, Ryan Miller, Fred Holland, William Weber, and John Does 1-20, to not maintain and enforce deficient policies, practices, and customs which deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under the law,
including but not limited to failing to train employees and failing to supervise employees.

157. Defendants failed, with deliberate indifference, to provide a safe custodial setting for Plaintiff, by failing to properly train, supervise, and discipline staff at WASD and LC, failing to properly investigate claims of child abuse related to students at WASD, and failing to appoint the proper individuals conduct an adequate, unbiased, and independent investigation of said abuse, as required by law. As a proximate result of Defendants’ policies, practices and customs, the staff at WASD and LC, acting under color of state law, subjected Plaintiff to sexual and emotional abuse, a failure to protect from harm, and other abuses alleged in this Complaint. Defendants WASD, LC, their respective employees, and Dr. Brandon Pardoe, Roger Freed, Sean McCann,
Ryan Miller, William Weber, Fred Holland, and John Does 1-20 violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights when subjecting him to sexual abuse and harassment, and/or endorsing the abusive environment, and/or taking no action to prevent such abuse despite their knowledge of its occurrence and of the abusive environment festering at WAHS.

158. The Defendants’ failure to properly train and supervise their employees was pervasive and was done with deliberate indifference towards the rights of Plaintiff.

159. If the Defendants had properly trained and supervised their employees, Plaintiff’s constitutional rights after the assault would not have been violated and the continued injury and abusive actions towards Plaintiff would not have occurred.

160. Defendants’ failure to properly train and supervise their employees caused Plaintiff to suffer constitutional deprivations, including a violation of his due process and equal protection rights.

161. Defendants’ failure to train and supervise its employees, among other failures, was a widespread custom, policy, and/or practice of Defendants.

162. Defendants acted or failed to act under the color of state law, when they were required to keep minors, including Plaintiff, safe from harm.

163. Defendants acted or failed to act under the color of state law, when they discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his race by treating a similarly situated white victim of abuse more favorably by conducting an investigation into his assault and affording him compensation for his abuse. Plaintiff’s abuse and harassment was, instead, covered up by Defendants and he was not afforded due process nor equal protection under the law.

164. Defendant WASD and its agents, administrators, teachers, and coaches, including but not limited to, Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, and Holland, knew of the custom of hazing and violence that took place on the WAHS Myrtle Beach trip and purposefully took no action to stop it. The inaction and deliberate indifference of the Defendants regarding the hazing and abuse is an effective acceptance of such behavior. Defendants condoned or ratified said conduct through their actions and inactions.

165. Defendant WASD’s unconstitutional customs, policies, and/or practices caused a pattern of similar constitutional violations to students who were abused on the annual Myrtle Beach trip for years, if not decades. WASD’s failure to train and supervise its employees to prevent, report, investigate, and/or address such abuse constitutes a pattern and practice resulting in a systematic violation of students’ constitutional rights, including the rights of Plaintiff.

166. Defendant LC and its agents and employees, including Defendant Weber, knew of the deficiencies in its customs, policies, and procedures violated Plaintiff’s right to non-discriminatory police protection and the non-discriminatory investigation or prosecution against individuals. These rights were violated by Defendants LC’s and Weber’s custom or policy of conducting or permitting faulty investigations by county detectives, and LC’s failure to train its officers, specifically detectives, regarding reporting and investigating sexual assault cases involving minors.

167. Defendant LC’s unconstitutional customs, policies, and/or practices caused a pattern of similar constitutional violations to children who have suffered abuse and sexual abuse in Lycoming County for years, if not decades. LC’s failure to train and supervise its employees— specifically, its county detectives—to properly report, investigate, and/or address allegations of abuse constitutes a pattern and practice resulting in a systematic violation of children’s constitutional rights, including the rights of Plaintiff. In fact, LC DA Ryan Gardner admitted that LC’s policies and procedures, in effect at the time of Plaintiff’s abuse and harassment, were deficient to adequately ensure that its county detectives were exhibiting proper conduct within the
course and scope of their employment.

168. Defendants’ acts and omissions as set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint shock the conscience, deprived Plaintiff of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws and due process, and caused Plaintiff grave physical, emotional, psychological and other harm.

169. The acts and omissions by the Defendants WASD, LC, Dr. Brandon Pardoe, Roger Freed, Sean McCann, Ryan Miller, Fred Holland, William Weber and John Does 1-20 were made in a willful disregard for the safety of Plaintiff and a reckless or callous indifference for his protected rights.

170. The acts and omissions by the Defendants WASD, LC, Dr. Brandon Pardoe, Roger Freed, Sean McCann, Ryan Miller, Fred Holland, William Weber and John Does 1-20 as described in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages and injuries and are therefore liable to Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD, LC, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“State Law Claims, COUNT IV VICARIOUS LIABILITY Plaintiff v. Defendants WASD and LC” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, News, News Archive, Top Featured Story

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “COUNT II VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Plaintiff v. Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 Civil Rights Conspiracy”

June 1, 2023 By

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

 

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Plaintiff v. Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20

Civil Rights Conspiracy

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the seventh in a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

149. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

150. The Defendants, acting within the scope of their employment and under color of state law, agreed among themselves and with other individuals to act in concert in order to deprive Plaintiff of his clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

151. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Defendants engaged in and facilitated numerous overt acts, including, without limitation, the following:

a. Intentionally or with deliberate indifference failing to comply with their duty to keep minor students in their custody and care safe from harm;
b. Intentionally or with deliberate indifference creating an environment wherein Plaintiff was sexually assaulted;
c. Intentionally or with deliberate indifference creating an environment wherein Plaintiff was harassed, ridiculed, bullied, and tormented;
d. Instructing individuals to destroy evidence of the assault of Plaintiff;
e. Attempting to silence witnesses from coming forward about the assault and harassment of Plaintiff;
f. Failing to comply with the requirements of 63 Pa.C.S. § 6311, et seq., requiring the Defendants to report allegations of child abuse to the proper authorities;
g. Failing to notify law enforcement officials of the assault of Plaintiff;
h. Failing to cooperate with law enforcement officials regarding the investigation of the assault of Plaintiff;
i. Failing to conduct an unbiased investigation into the assault of Plaintiff;
j. Intentionally treating a similarly situated white victim of abuse better than Plaintiff, who is black;
k. Affording a white victim of abuse due process in vetting his allegations and compensating him $10,000.00 for said abuse;
l. Intentionally or with deliberate indifference exhibiting a racial bias against Plaintiff;
m. Purposefully discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of his race;
n. Failing to keep Plaintiff and his family apprised of the status and/or outcome of the investigation;
o. Falsifying records and/or fabricating information in official investigatory documents;
p. Committing offenses which would violate the laws of the United States, including but not limited to 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 249, and 1503;
q. Committing offenses which would violate the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including but not limited to 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 4904, 4910, 4952, 4958, 5101, and 5301

152. The acts and omissions by the Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 were made in a willful disregard for the safety of Plaintiff and a reckless or callous indifference for his protected rights.

153. Defendants’ acts and omissions, as described above, were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendants knew, or should have known, that their actions and/or inactions would result in Plaintiff’s grave physical, emotional, psychological and other harm.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT III, VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Plaintiff v. All Defendants Violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Rights to Equal Protection and Due Process” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, News, News Archive, Top Featured Story

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “COUNT I, VIOLATION OF TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972, (20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)) Plaintiff v. WASD”

June 1, 2023 By

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

 

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

“COUNT I

VIOLATION OF TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972, (20 U.S.C. § 1681(a))

Plaintiff v. WASD”

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the sixth in a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

 

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

126. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

127. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq., provides, in relevant part, that no person in the United States, shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

128. If a funding recipient does not engage in harassment directly, it may not be liable for damages unless its deliberate indifference subjects its students to harassment.

129. A federal funding recipient may be held liable for the harassment of a victim when the recipient exercises substantial control over the harasser and the context in which the harassment occurs. For example, if the continued harassment occurs on school grounds, within the context of a school-related function, or otherwise while in the course and scope of an environment controlled by the federal funding recipient.

130. While a recipient school cannot be held vicariously liable for the specific acts of sexual harassment or violence, they can instead be held liable under Title IX for their own conduct.

131. Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination for purposes of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq., and Title IX proscribes harassment with sufficient clarity to serve as a basis for a damages action. Moreover, an implied private right of action exists under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq., and money damages are available in such suits.

132. Upon information and belief, Defendant WASD is a recipient of federal education funding.

133. As stated above, Plaintiff was in the care and custody of Defendant WASD when he was abused by a fellow student, also in the care and custody of WASD, in an environment controlled by WASD—an out-of-state athletic team trip sponsored and supervised by WASD.

134. Plaintiff was subject to sexual abuse in the form of an indecent assault wherein a fellow student sat on his head and placed his penis on Plaintiff’s face, making skin-to-skin contact with Plaintiff.

135. WASD employees permitted this abuse to occur at a school function due to their deliberate indifference towards the supervision of Plaintiff, the perpetrator B.M., and the other children in the care and custody of WASD. The acts and omissions of Defendant WASD created an environment where this type of sexual abuse was a foreseeable consequence of their actions.

136. WASD also knew or should have known of the regular instances of hazing, bullying, assaultive behavior and/or sexual assaultive behavior that occurred on the annual WAHS baseball trip to Myrtle Beach. Such abuse occurred for years, if not decades, and WASD exhibited a deliberate indifference to such conduct occurring to children in its care and custody, including Plaintiff, on these annual school-sponsored trips.

137. Upon information and belief, Defendant WASD was made aware of Plaintiff’s sexual abuse at or near the time of the abuse actually occurring in March 2018. In any event, WASD was, at the very least, notified of the sexual abuse of Plaintiff by way of a Child Line report on May 18, 2018.

138. When informed of the specifics of the abuse and that there was proof of the abuse, documented on at least one student’s phone, WASD administrators and coaches instructed students to destroy that evidence and keep quiet about what had occurred but did nothing to actually ensure said videos were prevented from being disseminated, did not discipline any students involved, and failed to control the situation immediately after it occurred.

139. Due to these failures, Plaintiff’s abuse was publicized within the WAHS community, he was subject to ridicule, name-calling, bullying, torment, and harassment from other students. This harassment was communicated to WASD. In response, WASD did nothing—which allowed the harassment to continue and worsen in severity.

140. Thereafter, and in conjunction with agents and/or employees of LC, Defendant WASD failed to conduct any meaningful investigation into the sexual abuse and harassment of Plaintiff. What is more, WASD actively conspired to cover-up the abuse and harassment of Plaintiff with its inadequate investigation.

141. Due to the sexual abuse and subsequent harassment Plaintiff endured, he was forced to transfer out of the school district.

142. Defendant WASD’s failure to protect Plaintiff from abuse and harassment and its failure to investigate rises to the level of deliberate indifference by attempting to destroy and/or suppress evidence, attempting to silence witnesses, failing to meaningfully discipline B.M., failing to keep Plaintiff and his mother apprised of any actions taken within the investigation and after the conclusion of said investigation, and other acts and omissions described throughout this Complaint.

143. The deliberate indifference, omissions, actions, and failures to act described above caused Plaintiff to suffer sexual abuse and harassment.

144. Defendant WASD, by and through the acts of its employees, agents, servants, staff members, teachers, and coaches had a duty to protect the life, liberty, and property of Plaintiff John Doe, and because of its failure to take any precautionary measures to supervise children in their care and custody, Plaintiff suffered sexual abuse.

145. Defendant WASD, by and through the acts of its employees, agents, servants, administrators, staff members, teachers, and coaches had a duty to protect the life, liberty, and property of Plaintiff, and because of its failure to take remedial measures with regard to the known instances of misconduct by B.M. and other students involved in the assault of Plaintiff, Plaintiff suffered additional harassment in school.

146. Defendant WASD, by and through the acts of its employees, agents, servants, administrators, staff members, teachers, and coaches failed to comply with Title IX by failing to take any meaningful action with regard to prior reports and observations of inappropriate conduct and/or sexual abuse by students on the Myrtle Beach trip, including B.M., and continued to allow B.M. to stay enrolled at WAHS as a member of the Millionaires baseball team where he, and others to whom he disseminated the video of Plaintiff’s abuse, had the opportunity to harass, ridicule, bully, shame, and torment Plaintiff.

147. As a direct and proximate cause of the affirmative acts and omissions of Defendant WASD and its employees, agents, servants, staff members, teachers, and coaches that rise to such a level of deliberate indifference, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment,
loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life; was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; has sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling.

148. Plaintiff’s injuries are severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and as a direct result of Defendant WASD’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff experienced a complete loss of educational benefits and opportunities afforded to him.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant WASD in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT II, VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff v. Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 Civil Rights Conspiracy” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, News, News Archive, Top Featured Story

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “IV. The Cover-Up is Exposed by the PA OAG”

May 15, 2023 By

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

 

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

 

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

 

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

“IV. The Cover-Up is Exposed by the PA OAG”

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the fifth in a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

114. Ultimately, however, on or about July 1, 2021, the OAG ended its investigation into the cover-up without filing criminal charges without explanation.

117. The OAG warrants were made publicly releasable in September of 2021. Immediately after reviewing them, DA Gardner met with Defendant Weber on or about September 28, 2021, at which point Defendant Weber claimed he was retiring from his employment with LC.

118. Despite all of this, and the information contained in the OAG search warrants, on or about October 1, 2021, Defendant WASD issued another press release in which the District stated that it “stands by its position that it and its administrators followed all proper procedures and protocols to appropriately respond to the incident in question.”

119. Defendants WASD and LC, directly and by and through their agents, employees, administrators, staff, and/or representatives were deliberately indifferent towards the sexual abuse and hostile educational environment Plaintiff suffered thereafter.

120. Furthermore, Defendants WASD and LC, directly and by and through their agents, employees, administrators, staff, and/or representatives exhibited a racial bias against Plaintiff in their disparate treatment of Plaintiff, who is black, and Male Victim #1, who is white. Plaintiff was treated less favorably than a similarly situated white victim of the same abuse and, shockingly, less favorably than the white perpetrator of crimes against him.

121. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants WASD and LC were acting by and through its employees, servants, and agents, in the operation of WAHS and LC DA’s Office, and the hiring, admitting, assigning, retaining, and supervising of administrators, teachers, coaches, staff, faculty members, and law enforcement officials therein. Accordingly, the Defendants are liable vicariously and derivatively for the negligent acts and omissions of these employees, servants, and agents while engaged in the operation of WAHS and LC DA’s Office and the hiring, admitting, assigning, retaining, and supervising of administrators, teachers, coaches, staff, faculty members, and law enforcement officials, including Dr. Brandon Pardoe, Roger Freed, Sean McCann, Ryan Miller, Fred Holland, and William Weber, under theories of respondeat superior, master-servant, agency, and/or right of control.

 

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

IV. The Cover-Up is Exposed by the PA OAG

108. On or about May 8, 2020, recently elected LC District Attorney Ryan Gardner (“DA Gardner”) referred the investigation of Plaintiff’s assault and the subsequent response to it to the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”).

109. DA Gardner referred to the events in Myrtle Beach as “criminal sexual misconduct” and indicated that “the appearance of impartiality was severely compromised due to the previous joint investigation by [WASD] administration and this Office,” referring to LC DA’s Office.

110. The OAG assumed jurisdiction over the investigation of Plaintiff’s assault and Defendants’ cover-up of said assault on May 27, 2020.

111. In the course and scope of this investigation, OAG agents obtained several search warrants (4) to seize and search Defendant Pardoe’s’ phone, Defendant Weber’s phone and emails, an unredacted version of the letter George Lepley sent to Defendants Pardoe and McCann in May 2018, and any/all files and/or records pertaining to the 2018 WAHS baseball team Myrtle Beach Trip. Defendant Weber and WASD Superintendent Bowers were personally served with these warrants on or about September 3, 2020. These warrants were under seal until September 2021.

(4) See copies of these search warrants attached hereto as Exhibits “C”, “D”, and “E”.

112. Prior to the application of these warrants, OAG investigators were able to inspect the file from the LC DA’s Office, which was maintained by Defendant Weber. The file contained notes indicating that students were instructed to delete videos, that the school district was aware of the assaults while administrators were still in Myrtle Beach, that Defendant Pardoe himself told students to get rid of images, and that Coach Ryan Miller was also aware of the assault(s).

113. Moreover, the OAG conducted several interviews of key witnesses, including Plaintiff, Videographer #1 and his mother, and LC DA Jeff Yates, who confirmed that Defendant Weber told him he did not know about allegations in August 2018 after the “Millionaire Mayhem” article was published.

114. Ultimately, however, on or about July 1, 2021, the OAG ended its investigation into the cover-up without filing criminal charges without explanation.

115. DA Gardner subsequently issued a statement announcing the OAG’s conclusion was reached due to the failure of the LC District Attorney’s Office to create, implement, and enforce any policies governing the conduct of county detectives—specifically, the conduct of Defendant Weber. DA Gardner claimed that those “deficiencies” were identified in January 2020 and, subsequently, policies and procedures were implemented to correct said deficiencies.

116. Therefore, DA Gardner admitted that LC’s policies and procedures were deficient to adequately ensure that its county detectives were exhibiting proper conduct within the course and scope of their employment.

117. The OAG warrants were made publicly releasable in September of 2021. Immediately after reviewing them, DA Gardner met with Defendant Weber on or about September 28, 2021, at which point Defendant Weber claimed he was retiring from his employment with LC.

118. Despite all of this, and the information contained in the OAG search warrants, on or about October 1, 2021, Defendant WASD issued another press release in which the District stated that it “stands by its position that it and its administrators followed all proper procedures and protocols to appropriately respond to the incident in question.”

119. Defendants WASD and LC, directly and by and through their agents, employees, administrators, staff, and/or representatives were deliberately indifferent towards the sexual abuse and hostile educational environment Plaintiff suffered thereafter.

120. Furthermore, Defendants WASD and LC, directly and by and through their agents, employees, administrators, staff, and/or representatives exhibited a racial bias against Plaintiff in their disparate treatment of Plaintiff, who is black, and Male Victim #1, who is white. Plaintiff was treated less favorably than a similarly situated white victim of the same abuse and, shockingly, less favorably than the white perpetrator of crimes against him.

121. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants WASD and LC were acting by and through its employees, servants, and agents, in the operation of WAHS and LC DA’s Office, and the hiring, admitting, assigning, retaining, and supervising of administrators, teachers, coaches, staff, faculty members, and law enforcement officials therein. Accordingly, the Defendants are liable vicariously and derivatively for the negligent acts and omissions of these employees, servants, and agents while engaged in the operation of WAHS and LC DA’s Office and the hiring, admitting, assigning, retaining, and supervising of administrators, teachers, coaches, staff, faculty members, and law enforcement officials, including Dr. Brandon Pardoe, Roger Freed, Sean McCann, Ryan Miller, Fred Holland, and William Weber, under theories of respondeat superior, master-servant, agency, and/or right of control.

122. Defendants’ actions and inaction enabled the harassment of Plaintiff to continue for months, as he was called “dick lips” and other derogatory references to his assault for months after, until he was forced to leave WASD and go to another school district. As a result of the abovedescribed conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life; was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; has sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling.

123. As a direct and proximate result of the sexual abuse by B.M.—enabled by the failures of the Defendants—and the Defendants’ subsequent acts and omissions, Plaintiff suffered physical and emotional injuries, as more fully set forth in this Complaint. As a result of the abuse, dissemination of said abuse, and cover-up of said abuse via the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff was severely mentally, psychologically, and emotionally damaged.

124. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of selfesteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. The significant emotional and psychological injuries sustained by Plaintiff dramatically transformed his personality. Throughout his life since the abuse, Plaintiff has struggled with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.  As a result of these problems Plaintiff has suffered extreme difficulty in interpersonal relationships, among other problems.

125. All of the above physical, psychological, and emotional injuries were proximately caused by the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and other tortious and outrageous acts or omissions of the Defendants as set forth in this Complaint. Plaintiff’s injuries were caused solely by the negligence of WASD, LC, and the individual Defendants as set forth more fully herein and were not caused or contributed thereto by any negligence on the part of Plaintiff.

“COUNT I, VIOLATION OF TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972, (20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)) Plaintiff v. WASD” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, News, News Archive, Top Featured Story

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “III. Material Misrepresentations Regarding the Investigation of Plaintiff’s Assault”

May 15, 2023 By

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

 

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

 

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

 

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

“III. Material Misrepresentations Regarding the Investigation of Plaintiff’s Assault”

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the fourth in a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

86. On August 24, 2018, the “Millionaire Mayhem” story1 broke—discussing some of the above information. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Weber was contacted by the author of the report, journalist Todd Bartley (“Bartley”), and admitted he was in possession of at least one video of the assault. Defendant Weber then stated that the video would not be sent to MBPD.

87. On September 28, 2018, Det. Glenn Porter of the MBPD wrote a report indicating he was notified via a request from Bartley regarding the assault of Plaintiff and others at the Atlantica Resort in March 2018. Det. Porter’s report indicates that the MBPD was never informed of the assault, its filming, or its distribution on social media until Bartley’s request came to them.

88. Det. Porter and Det. Kerry Aiesi of the MBPD then called Defendant Pardoe, who told the two law enforcement officers that Defendant Weber would be the person best suited to answer their questions. Pardoe never informed these law enforcement officials that he had conducted his own investigation, which included interviews of Plaintiff, B.M., and Videographer #1.

89. Defendant Pardoe therefore purposefully omitted relevant information to law enforcement officials seeking to investigate the sexual assault of a child. He did this despite MBPD 1 See Bartley, Todd, Millionaire Mayhem, TalkWilliamsport.com, August 24, 2018, describing what happened to Plaintiff as “criminal” and that they would adopt the case because it occurred in their jurisdiction.

92. Moreover, multiple WAHS school resource officers confirmed to MBPD that they too had no knowledge of the incident. Therefore, WASD did not involve WAHS’s own school resource officers in an investigation of the criminal behavior of one of their students.

94. On or about October 3, 2018, MBPD Det. Porter spoke with Defendant Weber directly. Weber admitted that he was familiar with the allegations surrounding Plaintiff’s assault because it was reported via Child Line. Weber said he received the Child Line report in mid-May of 2018; however, he did not complete a report, but “facilitated the handling of this incident along with the school,” referring to WAHS. Additionally, Weber told MBPD that he did not see anything criminal with what happened in Myrtle Beach “based on Pennsylvania standards” and believed that the matter “appeared resolved”.

95. At best, Defendants Pardoe and Weber withheld vital information from law enforcement regarding what they knew about Plaintiff’s assault and their subsequent “investigation” of the allegations. However, Defendant Weber knowingly provided false information to ADA Yates.

104. Defendants Pardoe, McCann and Miller—all WASD employees—knew of the allegations in March 2018 shortly after they occurred. Defendant Pardoe’s own nephew was present for some or all of the criminal sexual behavior, thus making him a personally biased investigator—on top of the apparent racial bias he and others exhibited in the disparate treatment of Plaintiff and Male Victim #1. Moreover, WASD had no communication with Plaintiff or his mother since their meeting in late-May, 2018, and they were never informed of the breadth of information the District possessed, the ultimate outcome of the District’s investigation, nor the reasoning behind said outcome.

106. Defendants WASD and LC therefore effectively considered the matter closed without having spoken to Plaintiff in over one and a half years, holding any formal disciplinary hearings for those involved, including B.M., or involving outside law enforcement agencies.

107. B.M. was, however, criminally charged in or around February 2021 in South Carolina for his actions in Myrtle Beach in 2018 as a result of an investigation conducted by the MBPD.”

 

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

III. Material Misrepresentations Regarding the Investigation of Plaintiff’s Assault

86. On August 24, 2018, the “Millionaire Mayhem” story1 broke—discussing some of the above information. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Weber was contacted by the author of the report, journalist Todd Bartley (“Bartley”), and admitted he was in possession of at least one video of the assault. Defendant Weber then stated that the video would not be sent to MBPD.

87. On September 28, 2018, Det. Glenn Porter of the MBPD wrote a report indicating he was notified via a request from Bartley regarding the assault of Plaintiff and others at the Atlantica Resort in March 2018. Det. Porter’s report indicates that the MBPD was never informed of the assault, its filming, or its distribution on social media until Bartley’s request came to them.

88. Det. Porter and Det. Kerry Aiesi of the MBPD then called Defendant Pardoe, who told the two law enforcement officers that Defendant Weber would be the person best suited to answer their questions. Pardoe never informed these law enforcement officials that he had conducted his own investigation, which included interviews of Plaintiff, B.M., and Videographer #1.

89. Defendant Pardoe therefore purposefully omitted relevant information to law enforcement officials seeking to investigate the sexual assault of a child. He did this despite MBPD 1 See Bartley, Todd, Millionaire Mayhem, TalkWilliamsport.com, August 24, 2018, describing what happened to Plaintiff as “criminal” and that they would adopt the case because it occurred in their jurisdiction.

https://talkwilliamsport.com/millionaire-baseball-mayhem-in-myrtle-beach/, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

90. Det. Tiffany Whitmire of the MBPD then emailed Defendant Weber requesting further information.

91. The same day, Sgt. Reeder of the Williamsport Police Department confirmed that their department did not take a report on Plaintiff’s assault. Therefore, no one from LC nor WASD even contacted the local police department regarding the assault of Plaintiff.

92. Moreover, multiple WAHS school resource officers confirmed to MBPD that they too had no knowledge of the incident. Therefore, WASD did not involve WAHS’s own school resource officers in an investigation of the criminal behavior of one of their students.

93. In September 2018, Lycoming County Assistant District Attorney Jeff Yates (“ADA Yates”)—who, at this time was the lead attorney responsible for prosecuting juvenile cases in Lycoming County—informed MBPD that he too had no knowledge of Plaintiff’s assault and only learned of the allegations after receiving an email from Bartley requesting a comment. ADA Yates relayed to MBPD that he spoke with Det. Weber after reading the “Millionaire Mayhem” article and, shockingly, was told by Weber that he too had no knowledge of the allegations—which is objectively false.

94. On or about October 3, 2018, MBPD Det. Porter spoke with Defendant Weber directly. Weber admitted that he was familiar with the allegations surrounding Plaintiff’s assault because it was reported via Child Line. Weber said he received the Child Line report in mid-May of 2018; however, he did not complete a report, but “facilitated the handling of this incident along with the school,” referring to WAHS. Additionally, Weber told MBPD that he did not see anything criminal with what happened in Myrtle Beach “based on Pennsylvania standards” and believed that the matter “appeared resolved”.

95. At best, Defendants Pardoe and Weber withheld vital information from law enforcement regarding what they knew about Plaintiff’s assault and their subsequent “investigation” of the allegations. However, Defendant Weber knowingly provided false information to ADA Yates.

96. Additionally, Defendant Weber’s assessment of the evidence in Plaintiff’s assault is indicative of his bias and discriminatory intent and/or his recklessness, gross negligence, and/or negligence with respect to his ability to objectively analyze and investigate reports of criminal sexual conduct as an agent of LC.

97. On or about October 11, 2018, Weber sent his report and video of the assault to MBPD by regular mail, which was received by MBPD on or about October 16, 2018.

98. As noted above, in this report, Defendant Weber asserts that: (1) in mid-May 2018 he told CYS that he would look into the matter due to his “familiarity” with the WAHS baseball program and his awareness of the annual Myrtle Beach and “what usually goes on” there; (2) he notified Defendant Pardoe of the allegations, but stated that he had no jurisdiction over the case and would only assist to make referrals “if need be”; (3) he met with Plaintiff and his mother, including the fabricated detail that Plaintiff was not harassed after video of the assault was published on social media; and (4) his ultimate assessment of the matter was that it was “clearly” a “hazing/bullying issue” that Defendant WASD “properly handled,” thus not requiring him to make any referrals whatsoever.

99. Defendant Weber’s October 2018 report further indicates that it was based on his “limited note taking and [his] memory from May 2018” as he “did not prepare a report at the time” he learned of the assault.

100. Defendant Weber’s report is completely devoid of any allegations regarding the other students assaulted in Myrtle Beach, including Male Victim #1, who was alleged to have been sodomized by B.M. at the Altantica Resort—an allegation that was received by CYS and was communicated to Defendant Weber in mid-May 2018.

101. As discussed above, Male Victim #1’s abuse was handled much differently, and more seriously, by Weber and WASD as his allegation was vetted and it was determined, through investigation, that he was indeed a victim of abuse—which resulted in Male Victim #1 being compensated by WASD agents, employees, and/or representatives.

102. Defendant WASD’s first official statement with respect to Plaintiff’s assault and any subsequent “investigation” was not released until January 9, 2020 and makes several material misrepresentations concerning the District’s response to Plaintiff’s assault.

103. WASD’s statement (2) reads, in relevant part: Near the end of the 2017-2018 school year, local law enforcement brought to the district’s attention an alleged incident involving indecent and inappropriate behavior by a baseball player during the team’s spring trip to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The information had not been previously reported to any district administrator or employee. Once the district was contacted, a prompt investigation was completed and appropriate discipline was issued. In addition to the district’s own investigation, the matter was investigated by outside agencies, including the Lycoming County District Attorney’s office and law enforcement in Myrtle Beach. When contacted by Myrtle Beach authorities, the high school principal immediately referred them to the district attorney’s office and the district’s school resource officers, who serve with the Williamsport Bureau of Police.

(2) See A true and correct copy of Defendant WASD’s Statement on the “Myrtle Beach Incident,” attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Holland authored all or the majority of this statement.

It is important to note that the district first became aware of this incident after law enforcement had already been contacted and a ChildLine report made.

The report to ChildLine was not duplicated by the district, as it had already been reported.

The district’s investigation was conducted by the high school principal, district administrators and district legal counsel. Once it became clear which students were and were not involved in the incident, it was apparent that the high school principal had no personal conflict of interest or personal relationships with the students involved.

The principal was permitted by the district’s solicitor to participate in the investigation, and his actions were appropriate and thorough. As an added measure of diligence, a second administrator3 also participated in the investigation.

The district has communicated with the families of all students involved in the incident to the full extent to which we have been able . . . . [T]he district worked directly with the families of the students involved to provide the most comfortable and appropriate educational setting for the students following the incident, and has at all times aimed to act in the best interest of the students.

The Williamsport Area School District does not condone inappropriate and indecent behavior. The district has fully conducted an investigation of this incident and has transparently cooperated and participated with law enforcement officials.

104. Defendants Pardoe, McCann and Miller—all WASD employees—knew of the allegations in March 2018 shortly after they occurred. Defendant Pardoe’s own nephew was present for some or all of the criminal sexual behavior, thus making him a personally biased investigator—on top of the apparent racial bias he and others exhibited in the disparate treatment of Plaintiff and Male Victim #1. Moreover, WASD had no communication with Plaintiff or his mother since their meeting in late-May, 2018, and they were never informed of the breadth of information the District possessed, the ultimate outcome of the District’s investigation, nor the reasoning behind said outcome.

Upon information and belief, “second administrator” refers to Defendant Freed.

105. On or about February 4, 2020, the WASD School Board held a meeting wherein board member Adam Welteroth made a motion to have an unbiased third party investigate the 2018 Myrtle Beach assaults since the District remained silent for months while being subject to many Right to Know requests. His motion was not seconded by a single member of the WASD School Board.

106. Defendants WASD and LC therefore effectively considered the matter closed without having spoken to Plaintiff in over one and a half years, holding any formal disciplinary hearings for those involved, including B.M., or involving outside law enforcement agencies.

107. B.M. was, however, criminally charged in or around February 2021 in South Carolina for his actions in Myrtle Beach in 2018 as a result of an investigation conducted by the MBPD.

“IV. The Cover-Up is Exposed by the PA OAG” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, News, News Archive, Top Featured Story

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “II. The Response of WASD and LC to the Sexual Assault of Plaintiff”

May 13, 2023 By

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

 

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

 

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

 

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

“II. The Response of WASD and LC to the Sexual Assault of Plaintiff”

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the third in a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

“60. In the report Weber would author almost five months later, he recounted this meeting with Plaintiff and his mother on or around May 30, 2018, and falsely reported that Plaintiff did not feel that the video of his assault was passed around much as nobody had mentioned it to Plaintiff during school. This is an outright lie.

61. Weber concluded his assessment of the evidence in Plaintiff’s case by stating “Clearly this is a hazing/bullying issue that the school properly handed.” Accordingly, Defendant Weber felt “there was no referral to be made.” Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Weber was directed to reach such a conclusion by WASD agents and employees, including Pardoe, before the CYS report was ever made.

76. Weber and WASD’s “investigation,” which included these meetings between Holland, Lepley, Pardoe, Weber, and others, resulted in a payment of $10,000 being made to Male Victim #1. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that this payment was made to Male Victim #1 by WASD employees and/or agents for the abuse to which Male Victim #1 was subject.

78. Plaintiff finished out his freshman year at WAHS but thereafter left WASD due to the repeated harassment he received after his assault during the school year and over the summer. That Plaintiff–a victim of assault–was harassed until he was forced to change schools was never addressed by WASD, despite its central role in enabling it to occur at WAHS in the first place.

79. Defendant WASD knew that Plaintiff was being called derogatory names, harassed, and bullied at school because students were able to view and share videos of his abuse. Yet, Defendant WASD did nothing to address said harassment nor discipline any students who engaged in such behavior. Therefore, WASD, through its agents, employees, teachers, administrators, and coaches not only caused the harassment to occur but also permitted it to endure.

80. The only punishment WASD imposed upon B.M., Videographer #1, and anyone else involved in or present for the criminal sexual abuse of Plaintiff and other students, the recording of said vile acts, and the subsequent publication of those videos, was a two-game suspension from the WAHS baseball team. Both B.M. and Videographer #1 were permitted to play in Millionaires games for months after the assaults, including in the twelve-day period between when the Child Line Report was made and the suspensions were enforced.

In fact, B.M. was permitted to play in and receive gold medals

for winning the PIAA District II/IV District Championship

on May 28, 2018, after WASD learned he sexually abused a teammate.

81. Neither B.M., Videographer #1, nor any other student involved in or present for the criminal sexual abuse of Plaintiff and other students was ever brought before the WASD School Board for a disciplinary hearing for possible expulsion, in contravention to well-established WASD policies and procedures, despite the WASD Superintendent being directly notified of
conduct which would warrant such a reaction.

82. For conduct that would later be referred to as “indecent and inappropriate” by Defendant Holland and “criminal sexual misconduct” by LC District Attorney Ryan Gardner, WASD imposed virtually no punishment for those who committed it.

85. At all relevant times, Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, and Weber were duly authorized actual and/or apparent agents, servants and employees of WASD and LC, respectively, and were acting within the course and scope of their actual and/or apparent agency and/or employment with their respective employers.”

 

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

II. The Response of WASD and LC to the Sexual Assault of Plaintiff

58. In contrast to the Defendants’ response to the assault of Male Victim #1, not a single individual from Defendants WASD or LC reached out to Plaintiff or his family in the immediate aftermath of the Child Line report. Plaintiff’s family themselves had to contact the school district by placing a call to WAHS Assistant Principal Defendant Roger Freed (“Freed”) on or about May 21, 2018. On this date, Freed denied any knowledge of the assault despite the school’s principal, Defendant Pardoe, being officially made aware of it on May 18, 2018, at the very latest.

59. On or about May 30, 2018, Defendants Pardoe, Weber, and Freed met with Plaintiff’s family at WAHS in Pardoe’s office. At this meeting, Plaintiff described what happened to him and provided Weber and Pardoe the names of those involved. Additionally, a video depicting the assault of Plaintiff in possession of the LC DA’s Office was also shown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff confirmed it was him in the video being assaulted. Pardoe and Weber then promised Plaintiff and his mother that they would get back to them—that they would first question those involved and keep them updated thereafter. Plaintiff’s family never told Weber or any employee of WASD that they did not want to press charges against those responsible for Plaintiff’s assault.

60. In the report Weber would author almost five months later, he recounted this meeting with Plaintiff and his mother on or around May 30, 2018, and falsely reported that Plaintiff did not feel that the video of his assault was passed around much as nobody had mentioned it to Plaintiff during school. This is an outright lie.

61. Weber concluded his assessment of the evidence in Plaintiff’s case by stating “Clearly this is a hazing/bullying issue that the school properly handed.” Accordingly, Defendant Weber felt “there was no referral to be made.” Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Weber was directed to reach such a conclusion by WASD agents and employees, including Pardoe, before the CYS report was ever made.

62. In notes that Defendant Weber took contemporaneous to his meeting with Plaintiff and his family—not discovered until they were obtained via a search warrant issued by the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General—he wrote that B.M. admitted to the sexual assault.

63. This meeting was the last time anyone from WASD had any contact with Plaintiff and his mother regarding the assault and the investigation into the assault.

64. On or about the same day, May 30, 2018, Defendant Pardoe also met with Videographer #1 in his office at WAHS. At this meeting, Videographer #1 admitted to filming the assault and explained what happened. Pardoe then explained to Videographer #1 that he would be suspended from the baseball team for two games because he had to deal with a consequence of what occurred. Defendant Weber never interviewed Videographer #1.

65. At some point close in time to the meeting with Videographer #1, Defendant Pardoe actually came to the home of Videographer #1’s parent(s) and met Videographer #1’s mother. Defendant Pardoe told her to please not talk about what happened, that he had the situation under control, that the case was “not going to go anywhere” and not to worry about anything. Defendant Pardoe then apologized to the mother of Videographer #1 for having her son miss two games in the baseball season.

66. Subsequent to his meeting with Videographer #1, Pardoe sent an email to WASD Superintendent Dr. Timothy Bowers (“Bowers”) informing him that the investigation “with regard to the video taken on the Myrtle Beach trip” had begun—twelve days after receiving the Child Line report from CYS.

67. In this email, Pardoe indicated that he met with Videographer #1, but he does not provide any detail about that meeting. In fact, Pardoe wrote “I can give you more information if we could talk.” Pardoe then states that he requested to meet with B.M., who he refers to as “the student that was videoed doing the act to the other student,” (referring to Plaintiff John Doe) and B.M.’s parents. Pardoe then suggests meeting with the WASD Solicitor Defendant Fred Holland (“Holland”) because B.M. appeared to be hiring an attorney to represent B.M. regarding his assault of Plaintiff and Male Victim #1. At the conclusion of this email, Pardoe says that he has a recommendation for the interim until he and Bowers could meet in person but does not elaborate further.

68. On May 31, 2018, George Lepley wrote a letter addressed to Defendants Dr. Brandon Pardoe and Sean McCann, the WAHS Athletic Director, regarding “Misconduct Myrtle Beach.” In this letter, Lepley states that he was contacted by the parents of B.M. regarding “potential criminal charges” and was now representing B.M.

69. Furthermore, Lepley wrote to Pardoe and McCann that “a substantial number of players engaged in the exact same conduct” he then described as “inappropriate.” Lepley also identified B.M. in the video of the assault. However, Lepley then threatened WASD with civil action and deposing “any and all witnesses” if his client, B.M. was criminally prosecuted for what occurred on the Myrtle Beach trip. Lepley concluded: “Our goal is to make sure that one person is not singled out for conduct committed by a substantial number of team members.”

70. Lepley then asserted that he would be present for any meeting between WAHS administrators and B.M.

71. On or about June 1, 2018, Pardoe emailed WASD Superintendent Bowers informing him that a meeting was scheduled for June 5, 2018, with B.M., his parents, and B.M.’s attorney, George Lepley. B.M.’s mother was apparently very defensive in a conversation with Pardoe and informed him that they would not meet with Pardoe without Lepley present. Pardoe also indicated that both B.M. and Videographer #1 would be suspended from baseball practice and play until WASD’s “investigation” was complete.

72. Furthermore, in his email to Bowers, Pardoe notes that both Defendant Holland and Defendant Weber had spoken to Lepley regarding the matter and that “both of these conversations went well.”

73. On or about June 4, 2018, Defendant Holland submitted an invoice for services rendered of 0.80 hours and noted that a telephone conference referred to as “Investigation” occurred on May 31, 2018. This conference call included Defendant Pardoe and Lepley.

74. On June 5, 2018, the WASD School Board was formally notified of the Myrtle Beach assaults, despite the fact that WASD and its agents, including but not limited to Pardoe, McCann, and Miller knew of the assaults immediately after they occurred. Plaintiff avers that members and agents of WASD, in fact, knew immediately about the Myrtle Beach assaults.

75. On or about July 3, 2018, Holland submitted a second invoice for a meeting he attended on June 5, 2018, regarding a voicemail left by Plaintiff’s family. That same day, Holland attended a meeting with Defendant Pardoe and Lepley at WAHS, which lasted for approximately 1.8 hours.

76. Weber and WASD’s “investigation,” which included these meetings between Holland, Lepley, Pardoe, Weber, and others, resulted in a payment of $10,000 being made to Male Victim #1. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that this payment was made to Male Victim #1 by WASD employees and/or agents for the abuse to which Male Victim #1 was subject.

77. The Defendants therefore conducted some form of an unbiased and legitimate investigation only into the white victim’s abuse and, at the conclusion of that process, acknowledged wrongdoing and the need to compensate that victim. In contrast, Plaintiff’s
allegations were minimized and dismissed, as Plaintiff was kicked off the team and ostracized by WAHS until he was forced to change schools. Plaintiff avers that this disparate treatment occurred due to his race.

78. Plaintiff finished out his freshman year at WAHS but thereafter left WASD due to the repeated harassment he received after his assault during the school year and over the summer. That Plaintiff–a victim of assault–was harassed until he was forced to change schools was never addressed by WASD, despite its central role in enabling it to occur at WAHS in the first place.

79. Defendant WASD knew that Plaintiff was being called derogatory names, harassed, and bullied at school because students were able to view and share videos of his abuse. Yet, Defendant WASD did nothing to address said harassment nor discipline any students who engaged in such behavior. Therefore, WASD, through its agents, employees, teachers, administrators, and coaches not only caused the harassment to occur but also permitted it to endure.

80. The only punishment WASD imposed upon B.M., Videographer #1, and anyone else involved in or present for the criminal sexual abuse of Plaintiff and other students, the recording of said vile acts, and the subsequent publication of those videos, was a two-game suspension from the WAHS baseball team. Both B.M. and Videographer #1 were permitted to play in Millionaires games for months after the assaults, including in the twelve-day period between when the Child Line Report was made and the suspensions were enforced. In fact, B.M. was permitted to play in and receive gold medals for winning the PIAA District II/IV District Championship on May 28, 2018, after WASD learned he sexually abused a teammate.

81. Neither B.M., Videographer #1, nor any other student involved in or present for the criminal sexual abuse of Plaintiff and other students was ever brought before the WASD School Board for a disciplinary hearing for possible expulsion, in contravention to well-established WASD policies and procedures, despite the WASD Superintendent being directly notified of
conduct which would warrant such a reaction.

82. For conduct that would later be referred to as “indecent and inappropriate” by Defendant Holland and “criminal sexual misconduct” by LC District Attorney Ryan Gardner, WASD imposed virtually no punishment for those who committed it.

83. Moreover, Defendant Pardoe, in conjunction with Defendants Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and others who knew about the assault even prior to the May 18, 2018, Child Line report, conducted a biased and discriminatory investigation which included attempts to destroy evidence and silence witnesses. This conduct resulted in Defendants compensating a white victim of sexual abuse, while Plaintiff, a black victim, was immediately kicked off the baseball team, and left to be ridiculed, harassed, and bullied until he was forced to change schools and leave the school district.

84. Defendant Weber, the LC law enforcement officer in charge of investigating or, at the very least, referring the investigation to a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the matter, likewise conspired with Defendants Pardoe, Freed, Holland and others to destroy evidence, silence witnesses, and conduct a biased and discriminatory investigation against Plaintiff. In so doing, Defendants LC and Weber violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

85. At all relevant times, Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, and Weber were duly authorized actual and/or apparent agents, servants and employees of WASD and LC, respectively, and were acting within the course and scope of their actual and/or apparent agency and/or employment with their respective employers.

“Part III: Material Misrepresentations Regarding the Investigation of Plaintiff’s Assault” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, News, News Archive, Top Featured Story
« Previous Page
Next Page »