AA and sponors being sued for the wrongful death of Karla Brada at the hands of long time AA member Eric Allen Earle.
Parents of murdered Saugus woman sue AA
Lawsuit claims 12-step program did not adequately warn of danger
By Jim Holt October 27th 2014
Parents of murder victim Karla Brada are suing the Santa Clarita Valley office of Alcoholics Anonymous and the couple allegedly assigned to serve as AA sponsors to both Brada and her killer, The Signal has learned.
A wrongful death civil suit filed by Sylmar residents Hector and Jaroslava Mendez was served on named AA sponsors Patrick and Joanne Fry, on the local AA office in Santa Clarita and on Alcoholics Anonymous World Services Inc., based in New York City, local attorney Tom Noland said. NA Daytona Meetings in Holly Hill Florida.
“This lawsuit is to help other people,” Brada’s mother, Jaroslava Mendez, said Monday, adding she believes the civil action will improve the way AA operates.
Last month a San Fernando Superior Court jury found Eric Earle guilty of murdering Brada by wilfully and deliberately smothering her to death between the night of Aug. 31, 2011, and the morning of Sept. 1, 2011, inside the couple’s condominium. He was sentenced Monday to 26 years in prison. AA Daytona Meetings in Holly Hill Park.
The lawsuit alleges the Frys were aware of Earle’s “violent criminal history and specifically his violent history as to violent crimes against women.”
“If this is going to continue with AA, that they’re sending criminals there, then we need to make people aware of that so that they (AA members) know they may be sitting next to a criminal,” Jaroslava Mendez said referring to her daughter’s killer.
In a news release issued Monday by the District Attorney’s office, spokesman Ricardo Santiago described Earle as “a Saugus man with a history of domestic violence.”
Evidence presented at the criminal trial revealed Earle not only assaulted his girlfriend before her death but also assaulted his estranged wife.
Brada’s parents identify Patrick and Joanne Fry as AA sponsors who “provided counseling to members attending meetings and specifically became sponsors for Karla H. Brada and Eric Allen Earle,” according to a copy of the civil suit obtained by The Signal.
In their lawsuit, Brada’s parents allege the AA couple sponsored both Brada and Earle and “facilitated a romantic relationship between them.” Efforts to contact the Frys last week and again Monday were unsuccessful.
A manager at the Santa Clarita Valley office of Alcoholics Anonymous said Monday she is aware of the lawsuit against the office and the sponsors but knows nothing of the claims made in the suit.
“I am also a sponsor,” said the manager, who asked to be identified only as Joanne M. “And, as a sponsor, we lead members through a 12-step program.”
In her 33 years with AA, she said, she did not know of a sponsor intentionally leading any member in the wrong direction.
According to Brada’s parents, the defendants named in the suit “undertook the care, treatment and counseling” of Brada in April 2011.
“The defendants … so negligently, carelessly, recklessly, wantonly, and unlawfully treated, counseled and failed to report apparent abuse of the decedent thereby allowing the abuse to continue and escalate as to directly and proximately cause death of the decedent,” according to the lawsuit.
Brada’s parents filed a similar suit naming Alcoholics Anonymous in 2012, but that suit was withdrawn.
The couple filed the most recent lawsuit with Superior Court in May but it wasn’t served on the defendants until recently.
jholt@signalscv.com
661-287-5527
on Twitter @jamesarthurholt
Hi,
It’s me again. Here’s the link to ‘Justia US Law’.
I entered ‘cases involving alcoholics anonymous’ and there was a whole host of selections. Everything from individuals trying to claim aa a’s 5th step as privileged communications(s) to child custody cases to attorney’s requesting that the law licenses being reinstated as a result of finding “serenity” in the program and on and on and on………………
http://law.justia.com/lawsearch?query=cases%20involving%20alcoholics%20anonymous
It just amazes me how many times courts have addressed this issue, and yet courts and employers still have the audacity and arrogance to continue to mandate people to 12 step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.
More and more people need to stand up for their rights, and now that one man has won 2 million dollars for being mandated to a 12 step rehab and then sent back to jail when he did fall in line with 12 step speak- it should bring more people to demand a non religious option and not be forced to AA/NA. Not everyone needs to sue, many need to just stand up for themselves, document their request for a secular/ non-religious program, rehab or meetings!
This is an issue with the court not with AA though. Sue the courts/state, yes; but, one shouldn’t sue AA because AA forces no one to attend their meetings. Also, AA is not religious.
Well that id your opinion that AA is not religious. Many others including the court system disagrees with you John.
AA actually teaches it’s members how to go to the courts and convince to send to them their violent criminals etc. What other corporation do you know in this country that has no responsibility to it’s members?
I believe the number is ZERO. Nada! Get real John, you need a reality check. You cannot corral a million people into rooms with known violent backgrounds including pedophiles with women and children and think you have no responsibility. That is not how the world works.
Holy cow Marchon, you’ve done good. 🙂
Hi Anti D.
I wasn’t sure where to post this information, but here’s more on the Ronald Boobar case (the creep that killed a 14 year old girl):
http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/1994/637-a-2d-1162-0.html
He tried to appeal based on (amongst other reasons) confidetial privilage, but his conviction was upheld.
It just seems that the Mendez family might be up against some major challenges. I’m not sure what the law says in CA about this issue, but the Supreme Court in Maine saw right through this…..thank goodness.
Here it is-
IV. The Alcoholics Anonymous Testimony
One of the State’s witnesses, Joseph Sapiel, testified that he is a member of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and that nine days after the discovery of Rebecca’s body, Boobar called him for a ride to an AA meeting in Millinocket. Sapiel testified that Boobar told him that he was a suspect in a murder case, that he had been with the victim and two of her friends, and that he had “gone parking” with the victim after dropping off her two companions. According to Sapiel, Boobar stated that he was spending time with the *1169 victim in order to help her with her drug problem and with the fact that she was pregnant.[5] Another prosecution witness, Daniel DesIsles, testified that, like Sapiel, he was acquainted with Boobar through their membership in AA. According to DesIsles, he was serving as a volunteer leader of AA meetings at the Penobscot County Jail at the time of Boobar’s arrest, and that Boobar had called him from the jail on the day after his arrest. At Boobar’s request, DesIsles met with the defendant at the lockup. DesIsles testified that during this meeting, Boobar twice made statements that DesIsles interpreted as admissions to killing Rebecca.[6]
Boobar objected in a timely manner to the admission of the Sapiel and DesIsles testimony as privileged pursuant to federal and state law and the Maine Rules of Evidence, and excludable as unfairly prejudicial pursuant to Rule 403. He renews these objections on appeal. It is Boobar’s contention that because his conversation with DesIsles took place in the jail while DesIsles was acting in his capacity as an AA leader, disclosure of his statements to DesIsles is illegal pursuant to the federal law guaranteeing confidentiality of federally-funded substance abuse treatment programs, 42 U.S.C.A. § 290dd-3 (1991), recodified as 42 U.S.C.A. § 290dd-2 (Supp.1993). However, as the jail administrator testified at the hearing on Boobar’s motion in limine to exclude this evidence, the Penobscot County Jail was not the recipient of any federal funds for substance abuse treatment programs at the time of Boobar’s incarceration there. Moreover, the federal statute he cites does not operate as a rule of evidentiary privilege or exclusion; rather it provides for a civil fine in the event of a violation.
The Maine statutes cited by Boobar are similarly unavailing. 32 M.R.S.A. § 13862 (Supp.1993) sets forth an evidentiary privilege for certain information disclosed to licensed counselors and therapists. Boobar concedes that Sapiel and DesIsles were not licensed counselors, but suggests that this is a “distinction without a difference” because the legislature declared that the counsel and therapist licensure statute shall not be construed to prevent peer groups or self-help groups from performing counseling. See 32 M.R.S.A. § 13856(6) (Supp.1993). It is not reasonable to conclude, however, that by the language of section 13856(6), the legislature intended to sweep information disclosed to peer counselor or self-help groups like AA within the privilege set forth in section 13862. Similarly, and contrary to the assertion of Boobar, the statute governing confidentiality of inmate records, 34-A M.R.S.A. § 3003 (1988 & Supp.1993), and the statute setting forth a limited privilege for disclosures to licensed social workers, 32 M.R.S.A. § 7005 (1988), plainly do not apply to these circumstances.
Finally, contrary to Boobar’s contentions, the trial court correctly concluded that M.R.Evid. 503, governing disclosures by patients to psychotherapists, and M.R.Evid. 505, governing disclosures to clergy acting as spiritual advisers, do not apply, and correctly admitted the DesIsles testimony.[7] Boobar *1170 concedes that DesIsles is not a psychotherapist or a member of the clergy, but argues that he may assert the Rule 503 and 505 privileges in light of the language in each rule protecting disclosures or persons he “reasonably believed” to be a psychotherapist or member of the clergy.
As to Rule 503, we note that the “reasonable belief” language, by its terms, applies only to persons authorized to practice medicine and not to psychologists. Boobar does not contend that he reasonably believed DesIsles to be a medical doctor. As to the religious privilege, there is nothing in the record to suggest that as an Alcoholics Anonymous counselor, DesIsles was representing himself as a member of the clergy. The purpose of the “reasonable belief” statute in both rules is to protect disclosures made to impostors or persons otherwise misrepresenting themselves as medical professionals or members of the clergy. See Maine Evidence § 503.2 at 5-24 (noting the parallel between this language and the language in M.R.Evid. 502, governing lawyer-client privilege, and the unfairness of imposing on a patient the responsibility for knowing that he or she is being treated by an impostor). Although DesIsles, in his AA work at the jail, performed some of the same functions that a psychotherapist or member of the clergy might engage in, this does not serve to create a reasonable belief that he was actually functioning as a psychotherapist or member of the clergy. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting the Sapiel or DesIsles testimony. Moreover, Boobar has advanced no credible argument as to why the court abused its discretion in not excluding this testimony as unfairly prejudicial pursuant to Rule 403.
Well I think AA will be up against more. They had been warned prior to her death about safety issues in AA, and even a board member had brought up major safety problems in AA, yet his peers on the board voted to do nothing! Considering not only one, but 2 sponsors were enmeshed in their lives up until the very end will play a role.
I believe the fact that AA does NOT warn members of the dangerous violent felons that they cater to, and that they have a ZERO safety policy will come back to haunt AA in spades.
I agree with you Anti D. We know that ZERO safety policy practice is the central issue, but I sitll have to ask myself, why won’t these Arrogant A-holes (new name for AA) concede that point? It’s simple, precautionary, and just the right thing to do.
I will do my best in my own back yard so to speak, about addressing this concern. I’ve had conversations with our local DA, police chief and PO’s office. I will divert, when possible, young (as well as old) vulnarable people to the alternatives when and as often as I can. I want to prevent another sad case like Ms. Karla’s if I can.
Thank you for anything you can do in your area. The only reason I think AA will not concede so far that a safety policy is in order, is that that they thought it would mean they were accepting some sort of responsibility. They cling to this fable that AA is an upside down organization, where the top actually serves the bottom. But the reality is you cannot run an organization like that. But by trying to brainwash the public that they are somehow bulletproof, it has worked for some time. But in my opinion along with the attorney suing, they of course do have responsibilities!
The gig is up, and I have no doubt that things will never be the same in AA World Services. They will be forced to change.
You guys are ridiculous. You mean to tell me that if you actually think about what an alcoholic is and does that someone coming to AA wouldn’t reasonable think that they may be surrounded by screwed up people? Many people who come to AA aren’t living the greatest lives themselves and probably hang out when drinking in way more suspicious places surrounded by way more suspicious people than in AA. LOL. Sue the state for mandating people to go to AA, but you can’t sue AA for people who willingly go becuase AA forces no one to be there. FACTS
Actually AA IS being sued. So they can be sued, and I hope this will change how 12 step programs do business. No more co mingling minors with violent felons and sex offenders. Or rapists and wife beaters with women!
Two older cases, but disturbing nonetheless. It baffles me that judges would permit the argument confidential privelege within the context of “group thereapy as it applies to AA.
http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1621&context=lawreview&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DNew%2520Mexico%2520Alcoholics%2520Anonymous%2520Meetings%2520and%2520Crime%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D21%26ved%3D0CB0QFjAAOBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.stjohns.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1621%2526context%253Dlawreview%26ei%3D56ZWVOP3Bo-iyASU24LQBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFSJwaeHJy0We0L9bZbijoFw9UdNA%26sig2%3DrcNntDHa42nZT3Sfp7NWHQ#search=%22New%20Mexico%20Alcoholics%20Anonymous%20Meetings%20Crime%22
Justice for Karla Brada — One AA Monster Stopped — Finally.
Posted by cougarblogger on October 27, 2014 in 12 Step Truth – Dangerous Cult, AA Murder, Controversy, Family, Truth regarding Alcoholics Anonymous
I do not believe in the death penalty. I believe it makes us all murderers. An eye for an eye makes everyone blind. Although, I would enjoy smothering this monster with a pillow myself until his feet quit kicking. But state sanctioned murder is still murder.
I do believe in locking people up for the rest of their lives, making them pay with their freedom for their atrocities. Eric Allen Earle is done. I hope someone gives him some rope and a place to hang himself. I hate to think of him with three hot and a cot but it is a vast improvement from illegally mandating him to AA where he was able to get away with murder for years.
In this case, this particular monster was mandated to AA 12 step meetings over and over and his rap sheet includes attempted murder of his ex-wife (smothering her with a pillow in front of their children) and a restraining order from his own father after he almost beat him to death. Earle spent over 20 years getting away with victimizing vulnerable women in AA financially, physically and emotionally. AA allows convicted criminals to literally get away with murder under the guise of anonymity. This one monster is off the streets for good. In fact, his sponsor talked Karla out of pressing charges for battery after Earle beat her weeks before he killed her.
There is much work to be done however. Karla’s family is also suing AA for harboring a criminal. They are culpable since they actively recruit from drug courts, jails and prisons. The despicable practice of mandating murderers and rapists to 12 step programs must stop. You, nor anyone else, is safe in AA.
Please see here the video from CBS news reporting on his sentencing. We have a long way to go but this is a start.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/10/27/man-gets-26-years-to-life-in-prison-for-girlfriends-murder-in-2011/
Today is a victory and the battle rages on. http://cougarblogger.com/2014/10/27/aa-harbors-murderers/
–Laura Tompkins
It is about time AA and the AA sponsors are getting sued for the wrongful death of AA. They have a duty of care for those they cater to, and AA has failed miserably to protect the vulnerable from harm.