Karma Alert: Accused Teacher Files Federal Lawsuit Against ‘Spotlight’ Lawyer Garabedian for Extortion and Defamation [w/ COURT DOCS]

Mitchell Garabedian

His turn in the 'Spotlight': Lawyer Mitchell Garabedian

In a stunning lawsuit filed just last month in Philadelphia federal court, an accused boarding school teacher accuses the notorious Church-suing tort lawyer Mitchell Garabedian, who was profiled in the 2015 anti-Catholic film Spotlight, of defamation and "extortionary demands."

The lawsuit against Garabedian stems from accusatory letters sent by Garabedian in 2018 to a Pennsylvania boarding school on behalf of a client who claims that the accused teacher abused him when he was a student there decades ago in the mid-1990s. In one of his letters, Garabedian demanded $1 million "for settlement."

The accused teacher vehemently denies the abuse allegations against him, declaring that the charges are "completely false and defamatory."

News of the lawsuit was first reported by Victor Fiorillo at Philadelphia magazine.

Peeling back the onion

The most notable feature of the teacher's lawsuit against Garabedian is that it provides an eye-opening inside look into how devious and flimsy these abuse claims from decades ago can be. According to the suit:

● Garabedian did not even perform any kind of investigation into whether his client's claims were true or not, sending his accusatory letters to the school "without even obtaining the readily available school records of [his] client; records that would have shown [his client's] claims to be false." The lawsuit added, "Even a minimal investigation would have confirmed the falsity of [Garabedian's] malicious statements."

● Between the two letters he wrote to the boarding school, Garabedian changed the original dates for which he claimed the abuse occurred, apparently because his original dates would have made his client's claims impossible.

● Garabedian made a $1 million demand for money for his client even though he knew that the statute of limitations had long passed (by nearly a decade) to file a civil claim.

● "Garabedian had an improper motive for [his accusations], which were motivated by malice to leverage the fear of the statements being published for a quick extortionate payout."

In other words, Garabedian essentially believed he could shake down the boarding school by merely sending it a couple letters saying, "I'm Mitchell Garabedian, and I want a million dollars."

[**Click to read the lawsuit yourself : Doe v. Garabedian, et. al, April 2019 (pdf)**]

Shining the light on darkness

Kudos to the teacher for fighting back against Garabedian and the bogus accusations against him. He is represented by James Beasley, Jr., a highly respected Pennsylvania attorney.

And the time is now long overdue for the media and the culture as a whole to return to due process of law and begin scrutinizing these claims about abuse committed many decades ago. There is surely massive fraud being committed.

Time to wake up.


  1. Shawn R Johnson says:

    Nothing changes with these guys does it?  Just like Michael Avenetti. I wonder if Garabedian is feeling a taste of his own medicine for a change?

  2. peoples clown says:

    Yes, guess he'll have to hold his nose and swallow it! Now that he's in the "spotlight" ,it'll be interesting to see his song and dance. Covington Catholic, Nick Sandman , last week, brought a lawsuit against n.b.c. , for 275 mil. Its good to have push back!

  3. malcolm harris says:

    There it is again?…bad karma?.   The worst of these dubious lawyers are so overconfident, that they don't even consider it might all boomerang against them. But why am I feeling  so pleased?. Perhaps it's a kind of poetic justice?.

  4. Dan says:

    If this is some wild attempt to claim that because this case is "devious" or "flimsy", then 99.9% of the "abuse claims from decades ago" against the guilty catholic hierarchy must be "devious and flimsy", well that would be terribly disingenuous and outrageous. You shouldn't cherry pick the very few false claims of deceiving victims or their lawyers in order to state that all the rest of the accusations must be "devious and flimsy". This would be wrong and false. And have you yet to realize that when the Church is pressed to give up a list of predators, they're more than happy to divulge only the names of those who are dead, past the statute of limitations or clergy they may not like? We're not stupid!

    The statute of limitations shouldn't apply to cases where victims reported the abuse in a timely fashion and it's been hidden in the Church records for decades. That's why the Church needs to hand over all their records, if they ever want transparency or forgiveness and mercy for their sins. We all know that's never going to come from a Church bent on lies, deception, dishonesty and darkness. They're not fooling anyone besides themselves.

    P.S. There you go, Julie, another donation you can brag and boast about. No credit from God!

    • malcolm harris says:

      'Dan' talks about cases in which "the abuse was reported in a timely fashion and been hidden in Church records for decades". What he omits to mention is that the accuser had the option of going to the police, or a lawyer, if unhappy  with the Church's response. As for the records help by the Church, well it might only amount to a note about a phone call received. Together with a brief summary of the investigation carried out. But 'Dan' is so biased that he thinks that each and every complaint must be true. Because in his personal fixation, the Church is always guillty.  Garabedian is working on the same presumption, because blatant bigotry has helped to make him rich. Hopefully he has now overreached himself, and has stumbled badly into the mire of lawsuit. Serves him right.

    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, It's pretty damn stupid to state, "But 'Dan' is so biased that he thinks that each and every complaint must be true. Because in his personal fixation, the Church is always guilty." 

      'Dan' stated plain as day, "You shouldn't cherry pick the very few false claims of deceiving victims or their lawyers in order to state that all the rest of the accusations must be 'devious and flimsy'."  So in other words, 'Dan' doesn't believe that the Church is always guilty. In reality, even Dave has come up with very few cases where he believes the perpetrators were innocent, especially compared to the admitted pedophiles and perverts in your Church who have admitted guilt or were found guilty. Even some of the perps Dave believes are innocent pertaining to one accusation, were later or previously found guilty for other crimes of abuse against innocent children. I think you should keep your untrue comments (i.e."biased") about me to yourself, because you deceived catholics are some of the most biased blind fools I've ever met. Also I question your forgiveness for others, as your Church so falsely claims. They want forgiveness for their filthy crimes and their poor handling of such, but don't think they're supposed to forgive others. Hypocrites!

    • Dan says:

      And Malcolm, Are you aware that there were several U.S. District Attorneys who refused to prosecute the crimes of the Church, for whatever reasons. Bribes, payoffs or political advancement, etc. Kamala Harris being a guilty party of such when she was a DA. Now she's running for president. That should be a really honest campaign? So please refrain from claiming the victims could have gone to the police, after the Church accused them of being liars, didn't believe their accusations or threatened to excommunicate them. Some went to the police just to be sloughed off, as the cops, DA's and judges defended or helped the Church hide their criminals, so they could cop a plea deal and secretly settle out of court. No jail time! Stop with your foolish assumptions.

      P.S. Little did parents or victims realize that being excommunicated from the perverse Church would have been doing them a favor.

    • LLC says:


      “If this is some wild attempt…” = had you read the post in its entirety, you would’ve realized that this is not the case. This is a post about a layer trying to extort money from a teacher accused of abusing a student, accuse that has been strongly denied by the teacher. This case evokes the unfortunately increasing lawsuits against businesses over ADA violations. Since it is often cheaper to settle the lawsuit than to fight it, most businesses choose this route, and ambulance-chasers a-la Garabedian know it. Unfortunately, some Catholic Dioceses, when confronted with the prospect of a long trial against biased media and judges, also select not to fight.

      Since your premise is incorrect (as usual; no surprise there), the rest of your post can then be ignored. Only few points worth highlighting:

      “You shouldn't cherry pick” = nor should you

      “deceiving victims” = by definition, deceivers are not victims.

      “to state that all the rest of the accusations must be "devious and flimsy" = interesting, because this is exactly your modus operandi. You extrapolate a guilty verdict to the entire Catholic Church based on very few Catholics guilty of these awful crimes.

      “And have you yet to realize […] they may not like” = factually incorrect

      “We're not stupid!” = also, factually incorrect

      “That's why the Church needs to hand over all their records” = another interesting, albeit asinine, comment. So, in your silly opinion, the Church should divulge private records of millions of faithful employees, volunteers, missionaries and so forth, who have nothing to do with these crimes. Nicely done, brother Dan. Now the criminal system is completely and utterly paralyzed by data overload, and no justice at all can be served.

      “if they ever want transparency or forgiveness and mercy for their sins” = since you have abundantly demonstrated in this blog that nothing the Church does will ever satisfy you, this is a null point. Fortunately, you are not God.

      One last note, if I may: please drop the plurale maiestatis. For multiple reasons: you are a church of one, so it is mathematically incorrect. Second, very little in your post hints at anything majestic. Finally, it makes very easy imagining you, sitting on a throne of some sort (I’ll leave the kind of throne to everyone’s imagination…) pontificating, and it’s not a pretty vision.

  5. malcolm harris says:

    Dan describes a Church which seems to be the product of somebody's bigoted imagination. In my entire life have never heard of a person, in our parish, of being "threatened with excommunication". If it had happened  the resulting gossip would have been on overdrive. Dan, and others, have built their own fantastic scenario. In which all Catholic parents are so devout that they will put their religious loyalty before their own children.? What utter nonsense, because more than half the parents don't even go to mass on Sunday. Which tells you something about their lukewarm faith.  If anybody had molested their kids it would have been all over the town…. and you can take that to the bank. What this is really about is clearly revealed in Garabedian's dubious activities…..described in the lawsuit he is now facing.

    • Dan says:

      So accusing me of being "biased" wasn't good enough, so now you've added "bigoted". Do you even realize how well those words describe you? Keep looking at the evils of your Church with rose-colored glasses. "Deceiving others while being themselves truly deceived!" You're only fooling yourself and your fellow brainwashed catholic sheep. The rest of us are tired of all your excuses and lame programmed accusations. What's next? Witch hunt or fake news?

      "More than half the parents don't even go to mass on Sunday." And you're positive that it's not because they're tired of witnessing the hypocrisy of your hierarchy and their false belief system? Read the Bible Catholics and open your eyes to the truth.  servant of the Lord

  6. Terik Ororke says:

    Lawyers provide a service and many of them supposedly have profited millions thanks to their clients. The problem is that it is easy to attack dead priests or those accused of something 40 years ago knowing that the victim will always be believed unless the victim is actually the accused priest. Why do you think there are movements to allow look back on these incidents when time was always available for them to be reported? The fact of shame, or fear, or especially recovered memories just does not hold water. Otherwise, states proposing look back or suspension of statutes would equally apply look back for such things as fraud, malpractice injuries or death, etc. Another factor is the apparent lack of media attention given to abusive public school teachers that total way more than clergy abuse but they  are shielded by their unions or a state that gives them some form of sovereign immunity.