The victim is identified as Jane Doe… Clara Rivera convinced Doe’s mom to allow her daughter to attend the Ignite Summer Internship in Gainesville… The summer internship housed kids as young as ten years old… ISM was marketed as a minstrel (sic) college that housed students who were minors and adults together… When Doe arrived at the summer internship, she was housed with a much older minor girl who has been identified as MG… MG reportedly sexually abused Doe throughout the Summer Internship.
Doe’s mom became concerned for her daughter’s well-being after one phone call, prompting her to call Clara Rivera to report her safety concerns. Clara Rivera promised to investigate the matter. The lawsuit states, "Ms. Rivera and her husband, Refuge of Hope employee/volunteer/agent Mariano Rivera, then traveled from New York to Florida to see Jane Doe at the Ignite Life Summer Internship. During that trip, the Riveras, in their capacity as agents for defendants, learned or should have learned information that Jane Doe was being sexually abused by MG. Rather than take sufficient action to end the sexual abuse of Jane Doe, the Riveras each separately isolated and intimidated Jane Doe to remain silent about her abuse by MG to avoid causing trouble for Refuge of Hope and the Ignite Life Summer Internship.”
The lawsuit states the Riveras lied to Doe’s mother, allowing her daughter to remain a victim of MG’s sexual abuse… In August 2018, Refuge of Hope hosted a barbecue at Brook View Rye… The lawsuit states Mariano and Clara Rivera invited their church’s children to the barbecue but did not invite parents to attend… Mariano and Clara Rivera reportedly left Doe unsupervised with MG at the barbecue despite knowing about the sexual abuse, allowing it to happen again… The lawsuit reports that Doe also endured sexual abuse from the adult son of Refuge of Hope Associate Pastor Ruben Tavarez, Ruben Tavarez Jr.
Too bad that character clause can’t be applied retroactively. Ironic given that Ichiro may become the 2nd unanimous player to be elected to the HoF today.
FWIW: this is apparently from a press release by the plaintiffs’ lawyer.
Right now, this story is a lawyer looking for big bucks from the Rivera family. Let’s hold off on the tar and feathering until all the facts come out. And at least until there is reporting from a reputable outlet.
It was a joy watching Mariano pitch all those years, but if the story holds water, well, fuck him. There are already troubling things that have oozed out about his personal life. Still, I hope it’s just someone looking for a payday.
This would be my take as well. To be sure, it could be a legitimate complaint. At the moment, though, it sounds like this could easily be a mom discovering that her daughter is - of her own will and intention - experimenting with her own sexuality.
For example, daughter finds out that an older girl is a lesbian and asks if they can kiss, so she can see whether she’s drawn that direction. Maybe the boy said something as simple as, “I like it when you wear a skirt.” And Mom is interpreting that as the boy trying to groom her for his sexual interests.
For pretty much any situation, you need an impartial and reasonable inquisitor to take a look and judge the situation. This is just one side - the mom - putting down her view.
The mom might be right. I’d expect that it’s something less, by at least a little, since lawsuits incline themselves to maximalist positions.
There are all sorts of red flags in there that can’t be waved away like that. For instance:
ISM was marketed as a ministerial college that housed students who were minors and adults together. For example, Hemenez was in his mid to late 20s when he was an ISM student while other students were of high school ages. Kids as young as 16 would be in the same class as full-grown adults. Hemenez took advantage of being a volunteer to sleep in the same room with the younger boys.
Did Mom or the lawyer just make that up? If so, they’re potentially on the hook for perjury. Whether this man was sleeping in the same room with the kids, or not, can be corroborated.
The lawsuit states Doe could only call her parents “sporadically.” Former ISM students who gave interviews on GnvInfo have corroborated this, stating the pastors took students’ phones away until a student having a lawyer for a father caused them to change the rule.
Sounds like there’s plenty of corroboration for this one, unless they’re totally making it up.
When Doe arrived at the summer internship, she was housed with a much older minor girl who has been identified as MG.
Sounds like a bad idea in the first place, doesn’t it?
This continued until Tavarez Jr. sexually exploited her and continued his sex abuse by engaging in graphic electronic communications with Doe.
Doe’s mother found out about Tavarez Jr. exchanging inappropriate pictures with her daughter
There are certainly red flags. The issue I have with this and all other reporting of civil case initial filings is there is a lot of leeway with what they can put in. Officially they can’t put in anything that is known to be false. However they can put in stuff they don’t know for sure if they have enough proof to bring it to open court. And of course we only hear one side. I’m assuming this came out before there were even any depositions.
The part that gives me pause is where it says that Rivera “knew or should have known.” There is a lot of room in “should have known.” It’s reasonable to assume something bad happened. It’s a lot less clear who knew and who should have known. It appears that Mariano is a more of a figurehead but his wife is more deeply involved in the organization.
Yeah, I stayed away from that part for exactly that reason - it’s easy to say what someone ‘knew or should have known’; there’s a lot of room for supposition there. But whether or not an adult was rooming with children, whether a much older child was rooming with a much younger one, whether the kids were denied access to their phones on a continuing basis (as opposed to during class or worship time), and whether graphic photos were sent, these are claims of fact that are either true or false, and all seem like they should be easily verifiable or demonstrated to be without basis.
And a lawyer doesn’t help his case by throwing in a bunch of such claims that wind up in the latter category. So as someone who doesn’t have to withhold judgment until proof beyond a reasonable doubt* is demonstrated or not, I’d be warning parents to keep their kids the hell away from this place.
Coming back to this:
It appears that Mariano is a more of a figurehead but his wife is more deeply involved in the organization.
AFAIAC, if you’re putting your name at the top of the letterhead, you’d better be ready to accept responsibility for what the organization does. And in this case, he’s not Joe Blow, it’s his name that’s drawing people in, so I’m even less inclined than I would otherwise be to let him off the hook due to being a figurehead. Nuts to that.
*ETA: This isn’t a criminal case, so the standard isn’t ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ I shouldn’t have used that wording.
There was a bit of a kerfluffle this week when Ichiro Suzuki was elected into the HoF 1 vote short of unanimity. The only player to ever do that was Mariano Rivera.
Deacons and elders were black, Asian and white. Jackie Robinson preached about not casting the first stone. Duke Ellington performed his second sacred composition in a pink tuxedo. The Rev. Fay Hill, a decorated paratrooper in World War II, battled the Mob with the aid of U.S. Treasury agents and young congregation mothers who spied on reputed criminals with binoculars and walkie-talkies, driving all over Westchester and the Bronx, often with their youngsters in the back seat.
[T]he church’s rebirth, led by Rev. Clara Rivera, whose husband, Mariano, was the last major leaguer to wear Jackie Robinson’s retired uniform number.
At some point after Disney’s version of those church ladies was released, the building was sold to the city and stood vacant for several years until bought by the Riveras and undergoing a nearly complete restoration.
Joseph A. Ruta, an attorney for the Riveras, said in a statement that any allegations that they “knew about or failed to act on reports of child abuse are completely false.” Ruta said the couple learned of the allegations in 2022 after receiving a letter from an attorney requesting a financial settlement.