In the new lawsuit, the alleged victim says former House Speaker Dennis Hastert sexually abused him at a motel on a wrestling trip he organized as a coach. | AP Photo Alleged Hastert victim files $1.8 million lawsuit

A former student of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert filed a lawsuit Monday demanding that the ex-speaker pay more than $1.8 million to fulfill an agreement he allegedly made to pay $3.5 million to compensate for sexual abuse committed against the man three decades ago.

The lawsuit refers to the man suing Hastert simply as "James Doe," but the events outlined in the suit make clear he is the "Individual A" referred to in a federal indictment of Hastert last year for illegally structuring bank withdrawals and lying to the FBI. Hastert pleaded guilty to the structuring charge and is set to be sentenced on that charge Wednesday.


In the new lawsuit, the alleged victim says he was 14 years old when Hastert sexually abused him at a motel on a wrestling trip he organized as a coach, leading to a lifetime of problems. "For many years to follow, Plaintiff suffered severe panic attacks which lead [sic] to periods of unemployment, career changes, bouts of depression, hospitalization, and long-term psychiatric treatment," the suit says.

Federal officials say Hastert paid out $1.7 million before he was confronted by the FBI in 2014 over the unusual cash withdrawals. A court filing earlier this month related to Hastert's sentencing revealed that the alleged victim was still pressing for the remainder of the alleged settlement.

The suit was filed Monday in county court in Yorkville, Ill., the same town where Hastert taught and coached from 1965 to 1981. The complaint describes Doe as an Illinois resident and calls Hastert a "trusted friend of Doe's family."

A lawyer for Hastert did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on the newly-filed suit.

Federal prosecutors said in a court filing earlier this month that they believe Hastert had sexual contact with at least four boys during his time as a coach and teacher. One of those alleged victims is expected to appear at the sentencing Wednesday, but he is not the one who filed the new lawsuit.

Asked if Doe might show up Wednesday, his lawyer said no.

"He doesn't have any plan to appear at the sentencing," said Chicago attorney Kristi Browne. "He's really not the type of person who is seeking out publicity at all. He's putting his faith in the criminal justice system to do whatever is appropriate."

In theory, Hastert faces up to five years in prison on the structuring charge he pleaded guilty to. However, the defense is seeking probation. And prosecutors have stopped short of clearly recommending prison time, instead urging a sentence of between zero and six months in custody. After pleading guilty in October, Hastert suffered a series of health woes including a lengthy hospitalization, a small stroke, a blood infection and spinal surgery.

The lawsuit says Doe kept silent about the alleged abuse for decades, but confronted Hastert in 2008 after being "made aware for the first time that Hastert had abused someone else, too."

"During their discussions, Hastert acknowledged the life-long pain and suffering he caused Plaintiff," the suit says. Eventually, the pair entered into "an oral contract" through which Hastert agreed to pay $3.5 million, the complaint says.

Doe says he proposed vetting the deal through "two close confidantes of Hastert's, but Hastert preferred to keep the negotiations strictly confidential promising to 'pay every last dollar' of their agreed monetary settlement."

Doe says he kept up his end of the bargain by not disclosing "his claims or the facts underlying his claims to anyone until he was required to truthfully answer questions from law enforcement personnel pursuant to the federal criminal investigation."

The suit seeks the unpaid $1.8 million plus interest. However, it's unclear how much money Hastert has left after running up legal bills for the last year or more as he battled the federal criminal case against him. He had between $4 million and $17 million when he left office in 2007, according to federal financial disclosures. Hastert then embarked on a lobbying career, but there are no public figures on how much he earned in that work.

The case is set for its first hearing Thursday morning before Kendall County Circuit Judge Robert Pilmer. At issue will be plaintiff Doe's request to not have his real name appear in court papers.

There was little in the way of negotiation between the two sides before the suit was filed, Browne said.

"We sent them a confidential settlement demand. They did not give us the courtesy of a response," she said. "Certainly, his attorneys have not said anything to me about him not having any money."

Since the accusations against Hastert went public last May, some have suggested the ex-speaker was the focus of an extortion plot. Indeed, that's how Hastert initially described his situation to the FBI.

"My client didn't threaten anyone," Browne said. "Extortion would require a wrongful purpose in requesting the money. Seeking compensation is not a wrongful purpose. ... [The FBI and U.S. Attorney's office] found what happened here was not extortion."

The lawsuit is certain to fuel questions about the enforceability of an oral agreement like the one Hastert and the alleged victim reportedly struck.

"Oral agreements are absolutely enforceable," Browne said. "Mr. Hastert specifically requested that nothing be put in writing. So, that's the situation we're in."

However, a provision in Illinois law known as the statute of frauds bars claims over oral agreements that can't be fulfilled in the course of one year. Longer-term agreements are supposed to be reduced to writing. Presumably, Hastert could have paid the $3.5 million in a year, but he did not. The suit says the payments stretched from June 2010 to December 2014.

It's also unclear from the suit whether Doe was promising to keep silent just while Hastert was paying out or forever. A promise to never talk about the abuse would arguably extend the oral contract beyond a year, undermining Doe's ability to enforce the deal.

One legal expert said judges rarely set aside an oral contract because fulfilling it stretched out for more than a year.

"The statute of frauds is, like in all areas, more complicated than meets the eye," said Widener University law professor Alan Garfield. He said if an oral contract could be fulfilled within a year, it can be enforced, even if it wound up playing out over a longer period. Judges are often quite literal about whether it is possible, the professor added.

"Presumably the person who was suing was promising for the rest of his life not to reveal this secret, but at the time he made the deal he could've died tomorrow," Garfield said. "Then he would have performed on the contract by keeping silent for a day and the money would still be payable."