|
Back to: The Bertolucci lawsuit
Contents of this page: I. Background II. The case: Bertolucci vs. Ananda
Here are the facts leading up to this case III. Constitutional Violations
IV. Judicial Bias and Error
V. Harassment
| |
Printer-friendly version - 15 pages
This document was prepared in February, 1998 just after the trial had ended. Ananda sought to find a national legal foundation who might be able to take our case pro bono, as our own finances were not sufficient. The legal scholars and experts we contacted were appalled at both the outcome of the trial, and the egregious way in which it was handled by the court. They strongly encouraged Ananda to appeal. We greatly desired to appeal, but no longer had the resources to do so, having spent millions so far in defending both the original SRF suit and the Bertolucci suit.
Here is the complete story of the events leading up to the trial, the harrowing courtroom drama, and the startling events immediately after the trial which forced Ananda for a time into Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Anne Marie Bertolucci, Plaintiff, v. Ananda Church of God-Realization; Danny Levin; J. Donald Walters (Swami Kriyananda), Defendants.
Superior Court of California, San Mateo County
Case No: 390 230
Judge Lawrence Stevens
Plaintiff’s attorneys: Michael Flynn and Ford Greene
Defendants’ attorneys: Gordon Rockhill and Jon Parsons
I. Background
II. The case: Bertolucci vs. Ananda
III. Constitutional Violations
IV. Judicial Bias and Error
V. Harassment
I. BACKGROUND In 1920, a teacher of yoga and meditation named Paramhansa Yogananda came to the United States from his native India to share the ancient teachings of yoga in the West. Soon after, he founded an organization called Self-Realization Fellowship (“SRF”) which is still thriving and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. In 1948, a young American man named J. Donald Walters (aka Swami Kriyananda) came to SRF and was accepted by Yogananda as a disciple. In 1952, Yogananda passed away. Kriyananda became a main teacher and minister in SRF, served as head of the monks, and was put on the Board of Directors and appointed vice-president.
In 1963, Kriyananda was expelled from SRF. The conflict was essentially theological: he was a lone voice on the Board of Directors urging a more expansive approach to building SRF and a more creative interpretation and expression of Yogananda’s teachings.
SRF’s complete disapproval of Kriyananda continues unabated to the present day.
In 1968, Kriyananda founded Ananda. What began as one rural community has become several communities and churches, each based on Yogananda’s principles.
The essence of Ananda is to provide environments where people can dedicate themselves whole-heartedly to the spiritual life, while not renouncing the normal lifestyle of home, family, job, etc.
Ananda has grown steadily and now includes the original rural community—now 700 acres with 250 adult residents, and 100 children, schools, business, private homes, publishing company, public meditation retreat, etc.—as well as urban communities in Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Palo Alto, California; Sacramento, California; and Assisi, Italy. The urban communities also include churches where members of the greater congregation and the general public come for Sunday worship and other devotional, educational, and social events.
Worldwide, Ananda has about 2500 members, 600 of whom are full time residents in one of the communities. Others participate as church members, or through the mail with occasional visits, or perhaps as part of one of our small meditation groups scattered throughout this country and Europe. A new community and retreat center is also recently established in Rhode Island.
As a point of information, Ananda’s various branches are all separately incorporated. The only named “Ananda” defendant is the headquarters corporation at Ananda Village called Ananda Church of Nevada City.
Within the non-profit religious corporation called Ananda (in its various locations), Ananda has an IRS approved monastic order. This is a householder order with religious vows, modified to fit our ideal of a modern religious life. For example, instead of the Catholic vows of “poverty, chastity, and obedience,” our vows are “simplicity, moderation, and cooperation” for the postulant stage, with the third vow changing to “cooperative obedience” at the life member stage (about 8-10 years later). Ananda is not economically communal as people retain private property. As well, all financial support of the Ananda church, even among monastics, is entirely voluntary.
Also, within the Ananda church, the designation of “minister” is commonly held. At Ananda Village, for example, there are 250 adults and 175 of them are designated as ministers. But only 6 of those 175 are actually what one would call “vocational pastors.” The others perform pastoral duties very infrequently or, in many cases, not at all. Picturing Ananda Village as an Amish community, where the members, whether ministers or not, work, live, and recreate together, is a helpful model for Ananda’s community life.
SRF has been continually dismayed by Ananda’s growth, and Kriyananda’s many books and increasing world-wide fame. They consider themselves to be the “one true church” as far as Yogananda’s teachings are concerned. Although there are several small Yogananda based groups or teachers in America, Ananda is by far the greatest threat, as far as SRF is concerned, to their efforts to maintain the “purity of Yogananda’s teachings.”
In 1990, SRF filed a lawsuit against Ananda, using copyright, trademark, and intellectual property laws in an attempt to regain the religious monopoly they enjoyed before Ananda was founded. SRF claimed exclusive rights to Yogananda’s name, image, and likeness, his writings, and voice recordings, and certain key words, most notably “Self-realization,” which Ananda considers to be a generic term and the name of the religion Yogananda founded.
As the federal judge in that case observed, SRF was trying “to put Ananda out of business.”
After years of extremely hard-fought litigation, SRF lost on virtually every count, including rights they never knew were in jeopardy, such as copyrights on much of Yogananda’s original writings. As part of Ananda’s defense, evidence was presented that proved that SRF had improperly registered the copyrights to those works and the court canceled them.
The loss of the word “Self-realization” hit SRF particularly hard. Ananda knew that their one possibility of getting it back was the concept of “tarnishment,” if our use of a “confusingly similar” name tarnished their reputation. Ananda believes that this facet of that case, plus their hope to destroy Ananda, comes to bear in the lawsuit described next. II. BERTOLUCCI v. ANANDA ET AL. Here are the facts leading up to this case:
An affair with a married man
A married man, Danny L., who was also a designated minister but not a pastoral minister, had a consensual affair with a relatively new member, Anne Marie Bertolucci, while both were residents at Ananda Village. The affair lasted mid-April to the end of November, 1993. During most of that time, they both worked at Crystal Clarity Publishers, Ananda’s publishing house. Danny L. was the salesman, Bertolucci worked in the ordering department. At no time did Danny L. have any ministerial or employment authority over her, although she later claimed he did.
The lovers let a few people know they were “attracted,” but kept their sexual contact a secret until near the end of the relationship. Around August, Bertolucci was transferred to another department at Ananda Village, but the lovers continued to meet secretly.
Kriyananda, the founder and spiritual director of Ananda, spoke to both of them several times during the affair (which was presented to him by them as an “attraction”). Without interfering with their free choice, he did his best to inspire them to give it up. On his own, Danny L. decided to make a firm choice to remain with his wife and his child.
Kriyananda encouraged Bertolucci to give up the affair
Kriyananda met with Bertolucci the day after Danny L.’s decision. He encouraged her to give up her pursuit of Danny L. She was very angry, and stated that she was determined to marry Danny L. anyway. Kriyananda told her, that in that case she would have to move to another Ananda community, to enable things to cool down. He suggested she go to Seattle or Assisi, but she chose Palo Alto, and he didn’t dispute her choice. He stated that he could not stand by and watch her destroy Danny L.’s marriage.
Bertolucci lived in the Ananda community in Palo Alto from December, 1993 to August, 1994. Gradually she became increasingly disenchanted, and in November 1994, filed this lawsuit, citing fraud, negligent supervision, sexual harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Bertolucci connects with SRF
She was supported in the filing of this suit by members of SRF who have for many years dedicated themselves to attacking Ananda. Under the auspices of one such person, Eric Estep, Bertolucci went to SRF headquarters and met with several members of their Board of Directors. Normally, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to meet with the Board. However, given her story, she was immediately ushered in to see the President of the Board. Very shortly thereafter Bertolucci filed this suit. Estep also introduced Bertolucci to Ford Greene, who is a self-styled vigilante who has dedicated his legal career to “cult-busting” and “guru hunting.”
SRF members have also been the process servers throughout this case, serving the first papers on Kriyananda and most of the subsequent subpoenas delivered to Ananda Village residents.
Sensational accusations well beyond the actual charges in the suit
Given the true purpose of the lawsuit, its claims went way beyond Bertolucci’s assertion of unwanted sexual advances from Danny L. It was a total attack characterizing Ananda as the worst kind of abusive cult imaginable, saying Ananda represents nothing less than a sham religion designed for the systematic exploitation of women and that Kriyananda was the worst sexual predator of all.
It was clearly written to be sensational, and, from the beginning, those responsible (Flynn, Estep and his SRF compatriots, and Bertolucci) have done their best to get media coverage. At a certain point, Ananda obtained a sealing order on the depositions, but that still left a great deal of sensational material available to the press and the public.
Bertolucci also alleged that she was brainwashed by our spiritual practices, subject to coercive persuasion and otherwise lost her free will. She alleged she was fraudulently induced to join Ananda because we presented ourselves as a bona fide spiritual group when in fact we were only recruiting her for the sexual pleasure of Kriyananda, Danny L. and the other ministers.
From the beginning, Bertolucci and her affair with Danny L. were just a means of getting to their real objective: Kriyananda and Ananda as a whole. In order to give strength to their claim that it was anything but a consensual affair, they needed a “pattern and practice.” They set out to prove that Kriyananda had a “30 year history of sexual predation.”
Kriyananda and his monastic vows
A few facts: Kriyananda was made a monk by Yogananda in 1948 (at the age of 22) and he kept that monastic status, even though he was expelled from the monastery in 1962, until he formally renounced his vows in 1981. (He did reassume them in 1995, but that is outside the scope of this case.)
We follow a monastic tradition rooted in India, wherein a renunciate is called a “sannyasi” or, more commonly, a “swami.” “Swami,” however, also means “teacher.” This distinction becomes important later in the case.
During his 32 years as a monk, Kriyananda admits that he was strong in many of the monastic precepts of non-attachment, dedication to God, etc., but celibacy was more of a struggle. And, as he puts it, not often, but a few times over that three decade period, he slipped. He never gave up his determination ultimately to succeed, however. This becomes germane later in the proceedings, as the “slip” was alleged to constitute fraud.
Renunciation of monastic vows
In 1981, he fell deeply in love with a woman named Kimberly Moore. He began a very public relationship with her, announced in the national Yoga Journal Magazine that he had given up his monastic vows and was living as a householder with Kimberly.
The relationship, however, was short lived. Kimberly left after less than a year. In the very difficult year that followed, Kriyananda became involved briefly with three different women—Kamala Wiley, Denise Petersen, and Deborah Donie-Seligson—who offered him a sexual relationship. He openly admits it was unwise of him to accept the sexual relationships they freely and enthusiastically offered him, but he did. Neither lasted for more than a few months and he was greatly relieved when they were over.
Consensual relationships — until the Bertolucci lawsuit began
There was no hint from the women that these relationships were anything but consensual. These women maintained friendly contact with Ananda and Kriyananda for years afterward. It was not until the Bertolucci case began that their stories changed. All of these women testified during this case that Kriyananda had abused them sexually and emotionally.
Was the use of the word “Swami” grounds for fraud, as plaintiffs claimed?
In 1981 when Kriyananda renounced his monastic vows he gave up the title of “Swami,” because he wasn’t a sannyasi anymore. From that point on, he published his books simply as Kriyananda or Sri Kriyananda, and was always publicly presented in that way. Most who knew him well, however, had grown used to calling him simply “Swami” and continued to do so as a sign of respect. Too, one orthodox meaning of “Swami” is “teacher” which exactly captures the heart of his relationship with Ananda members.
This continuation of the name “swami” was a key in this litigation and became the focal point of the fraud claim. This, in spite of the fact that in 1985, Kriyananda married, and although that marriage eventually ended in divorce, during the entire time Bertolucci was at Ananda, Kriyananda was a married man. He made it well known and public that he was no longer vowed to celibacy. Nonetheless, Bertolucci claimed his being called “Swami” indicated fraud.
Damages
The compensatory judgment was received 2/5/98. The total was $625,000—$30,000 of that was against Danny L., the rest was almost evenly divided between Kriyananda and Ananda Church. The punitive damages were awarded on 2/19/98 and were for $1,000,000 solely against Kriyananda. Even this was based on deception of the jury by Flynn and the judge, as will be explained later on.
SRF introduces “Tarnishment” into their ongoing litigation against Ananda
In about 1995, SRF began to introduce the facts of the Bertolucci case into their own litigation against Ananda and in various ways tried to use it to prejudice that case. SRF is appealing the judgment against them, but Ananda’s victory was so clear-cut that they are unlikely to prevail. We expect that they will try to use the Bertolucci verdict in some way to re-open the question of our similar names based on a moral tarnishment argument. III. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS 1. Pre-Trial Motion to Exclude Beliefs & Practices Denied
Judge denied Ananda’s pre-trial motion to exclude testimony about our religious beliefs and practices by saying that he needed to know the context in which the claims were made.
2. Plaintiff Allowed to Describe and Characterize Ananda’s Beliefs and Practices
Plaintiff Bertolucci testified for eight days. Most of the first four days were about Ananda’s religious beliefs and practices. Our attorney continuously objected and finally established a standing objection, but the judge overruled him completely.
Plaintiff listed various classes that she took and described in some detail her version of what she had been taught. She also brought forth sections from various writings from Ananda: books, pamphlets, class handouts, charts, home-study lessons.
She significantly misrepresented what she was taught. Even when she quoted directly, she then interpreted what she read so as to completely distort the meaning. She often used esoteric concepts and Sanskrit words unknown to the jury. As a result they literally had no idea what she was saying. She would then explain the terms in a way that made Ananda seem like a coercive religious organization that specifically exploited females, when in fact, Many of Ananda’s leading ministers and managers are women, and women are treated in every way equally with men.
The transcript will show the extent of her testimony. Here are just a few of the highlights:
Plaintiff said Ananda’s central spiritual practice of meditation and chanting made her into a sponge. She claimed she completely lost her ability to discriminate, that it took down all her defenses and boundaries. The effect, she claimed, was instantaneous. After the first meditation class she said she was never herself again until months after she left Ananda, three years later. This is the first time in 30 years anyone had ever made such a remark about Ananda’s meditation techniques, which are considered so benign and mainstream that they are routinely taught in such places as corporations, hospitals and the U.S. military. Plaintiff claimed she was told to seek frequent guidance from Ananda ministers who would always know better than she would what was right. This teaching later was used to explain how Danny L., as a minister, had such power over her. These claims would be readily dissolved were you to actually visit Ananda. It is a standing joke at Ananda that members are all so independent and stubborn about expressing their own ideas, no one could possibly mistake Ananda for a cult. Ministers often express complete astonishment when a counselee actually seems interested in their counsel. People at Ananda are like people everywhere—slow to change, and confident of their own opinions. Plaintiff claimed that our teaching, encouraging people to be positive and to avoid negative attitudes, meant that she was forbidden to question or criticize anything that was taught her. This is simply untrue. Swami Kriyananda discourages “yes-men” and the fiercely independent nature of Ananda members would bridle at such a lifestyle. Yes, people are encouraged to be positive
in their criticisms rather than simply complaining without offering a solution. In this way, Ananda resembles any organization in America. But at Ananda, even those with exceptionally carping spirits are tolerated well beyond the norm. (For more, see Eric Estep) The nature of the guru-disciple relationship, and concepts such as attunement and surrender, were distorted to seem like they were tools of coercive persuasion. Interestingly, Bertolucci’s own attorney, associated for a long time with SRF, knew that these criticisms (false though they were) would apply equally to SRF, since both groups follow the same teachings. His prosecution was a show, calculated to persuade an unknowing jury. A true fact about Ananda is that those who become involved have the opportunity to take several different vows, each representing an increasing level of commitment. Plaintiff distorted the voluntary nature of these vows and the implications of each one to make Ananda seem like a coercive religious organization.
A true fact is that Ananda has a monastic order (a householder, not a celibate order). Sections from “The Rules of Conduct for Ananda Members” were read and plaintiff interpreted them in ways unrelated to how they are actually implemented and lived.
Like every monastic order that has ever existed since the dawn of time, all monastic order members pledge some form of obedience to a spiritual superior. In Ananda’s case, the pledge is “cooperative obedience” to the “Spiritual Director.” This vow, which is spiritual and ecclesiastic in nature was characterized to mean that every individual within Ananda was entirely under the personal control of Kriyananda. It was also interpreted to have vast administrative and financial implications. None of this is actual doctrine or practice. No monastic order anywhere operates differently than Ananda’s order, unless their vows are stricter. This was one of many arguments designed to persuade a jury, none of whom had any experience understanding religious organizations, that Ananda was a “cult.”
3. Ananda’s Religious Beliefs and Practices Were A Constant Theme
This vow of “cooperative obedience” was also used repeatedly against defendant’s witnesses to persuade the jury that no one from Ananda could be believed, because that vow meant members had to lie to protect Kriyananda.
Plaintiff’s attorney also asserted that everyone from Ananda had their mind “bent” and therefore could not be believed.
Several very damaging witnesses appeared for plaintiff’s side, claiming they had coercive or abusive sexual relations with Kriyananda. Each intermingled in her testimony aspects of Ananda’s religious beliefs or practices. They made the false claim, for example, that Kriyananda is the guru, and, as such, had to be obeyed no matter what. Therefore, they said, they had no choice but to submit to his will. In some cases, they further testified that other church leaders encouraged them to submit to his sexual desires based on this same guru doctrine.
4. The Meaning of the Word “Swami” was Central to the Fraud Claim
“Swami” is a Sanskrit word with several meanings. The most common is “celibate monk,” defined as one who has taken what are called “sannyas vows” or simply “swami vows.” Plaintiff frequently presented evidence of this definition. However, “swami” also means simply “teacher,” and is commonly used in India as an honorific whether the person is a monk or not. Ananda presented this fact.
Kriyananda was a swami in the sense of celibate monk from 1968 to 1981, when he formally and publicly renounced his “sannyas vows.” Thereafter, in his writing and lectures and formal title, he became simply “Kriyananda,” or “Sri Kriyananda.” [In 1995, he again resumed his vows.]
However, he had always been addressed personally as “Swami.” There was much public discussion in 1981 about what he should be called in person since he had renounced his vows. The fact that “swami” also means teacher was cited as a reason to continue calling him what he had always been called.
During the entire time plaintiff was involved with Ananda, Kriyananda was married, and his marriage was a well-known public fact. However, he was still called Swami, meaning teacher, so plaintiff asserted this was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent his true status. This was a major component of her fraud claim, in spite of the fact he had even published an article describing his marriage, and the meaning of the term “Swami”, in the Yoga Journal, the most wide read magazine of it’s kind in the United States.
The jury, then, was being asked to decide what the word “Swami” actually meant. IV. JUDICIAL BIAS AND ERROR From the very beginning of this trial, the judge exhibited a clear overwhelming bias against Ananda. The transcript is permeated with examples of his attitude, some more egregious than others. Here are a few highlights:
1. Harsh Sanctions Limited Cross-Examination of Key Witnesses
A number of women testified that they had been the object of unwelcome or abusive sexual conduct from Kriyananda. Ananda, however, received sanctions from the trial judge that prohibited us from cross-examining any of these witnesses about their specific claims of sexual misconduct. This sanction was given, even though the judge himself described the allegations against Kriyananda as the key to the whole case, which in fact they proved to be.
Because the women knew they would be unchallenged, they spoke freely, expanding their stories greatly even from their own depositions. Ananda was able to impeach them on peripheral issues but were powerless to point out the discrepancies at the heart of their testimony.
Offers of proof were given throughout this phase of the trial. (See Ananda Answers Charges of Sexual Misconduct)
Nor was Ananda allowed to present any affirmative defense, for example, calling as witnesses some of the seventy women who had submitted declarations saying that charges of sexual misconduct against Kriyananda ran entirely contrary to their years-long experience of him.
The one such witness who was brought to the stand by Ananda was prevented by the judge from giving the heart of her testimony. Other defense witnesses were also prevented at times from saying things that were damaging to the credibility, or contradicted the claims, of those women who said they had been sexually exploited by Kriyananda.
Only Kriyananda himself was allowed to testify and defend himself against these charges, although originally it seemed as though the sanction would preclude even that.
Why did the judge sanction Ananda in this way?
The Trash Incident
In an attempt to link plaintiff’s attorneys to Self-Realization Fellowship, Ananda engaged a private investigator. The investigator suggested retrieving trash as a way to get information. Ananda gave strict instructions: “nothing illegal.” Ananda’s investigator subcontracted the job, that investigator subcontracted it again. At each level the instruction was repeated: “nothing illegal.” The man who actually did the job, however, reached inside a gate, even though he knew that his action was questionable. Furthermore, the investigator was spotted by plaintiff’s attorneys.
Eventually a single small bag of trash was delivered to Ananda. The documents in the bag proved useless. There was some information about the Bertolucci suit, but nothing not known to Ananda. The papers were viewed by one individual, and then filed away. The project was dropped.
Plaintiff’s attorneys pursued the matter. Two years of legal wrangling eventually revealed Ananda as the client, just as this trial was beginning. All three investigators testified under oath that they were strictly instructed to do nothing illegal. The actual perpetrator said he consciously and deliberately disregarded instructions.
Plaintiff demanded the return of the papers, saying they were covered by earlier discovery orders from the court. In fact, there had never been any order that covered them. Papers were returned and viewed by the court.
Ananda showed how the information was not significant, was personally known to them, was already a part of the case, or revealed within a month of the time the documents came into Ananda’s hands. The judge however decided the documents had given Ananda a tremendous advantage. To right the balance he issued the sanctions.
Even plaintiff’s attorney said he had never seen such harsh sanctions issued. Ananda filed a writ to get a stay of the trial to appeal these sanctions, but the trial had already started and the writ was denied.
Later, when the judge saw that it was a difficult to determine the exact parameters of the sanction, he said, on record but out of the jury’s hearing, that he should have ruled that the jury had to consider the allegations against Kriyananda as proved.
The unchallenged testimony of these women against Kriyananda was undoubtedly the pivotal issue that caused Ananda to lose this case.
2. Events From 1982 and Earlier Were Allowed into Evidence—Plaintiff Allowed to Mischaracterize Defense Actions
The judge denied defendant’s pre-trial motion to exclude evidence of Kriyananda’s sexual history earlier than the mid-eighties. As a result, direct testimony was given by a number of women about what they described as unwelcome or abusive sexual contact with Kriyananda from 1968-1982. Except for plaintiff herself, there was no direct testimony by any woman claiming any contact after 1982, although plaintiff’s attorney constantly characterized Kriyananda as having a 30 year history of sexual abuse.
Plaintiff’s attorney often referred by name to several other women, who, he claimed, had sexual relations with Kriyananda. All of them were easily accessible to plaintiff for testimony, but only one of them was called by plaintiff and she emphatically denied that there had ever been such contact.
Hearsay evidence was introduced. One witness claimed that Kriyananda himself had confessed to several other affairs and described himself to her as having a severe sexual problem. She also testified that other church leaders had told her they knew about Kriyananda’s “problem.” Kriyananda and those leaders denied they had ever said such things to her.
Plaintiff often pointed out to the jury that Ananda never called any of these other named women as witnesses to refute the charges, implying that if they had truly been innocent our attorneys would have called them. Of course, Ananda were prevented from doing so by the judge’s sanction, but the judge allowed plaintiff’s attorney to mischaracterize the situation many times.
3. Jury Instructions
In the beginning of the trial, the judge explained the sanctions, saying that Ananda had taken trash.
When the judge instructed the jury before their deliberations, he told them that in determining liability they could take into account the fact that Ananda had taken documents from plaintiff’s attorneys’ office. Not only did he exaggerate the misconduct, he also made it a determining issue when in fact it was not part of the case at all.
4. Evidence Not Allowed
To prove her fraud claim, plaintiff put into evidence copies of Kriyananda’s autobiography which include references to him as “Swami Kriyananda,” both as author and in the text. These books were published in 1976, before he renounced his vows. Sometime after 1981, new covers were put on the same text, so the author was listed differently, but the inside still had many such references. The publications director later testified that it had been simply too expensive also to change the text.
The director also offered into evidence twenty-nine other books written by Kriyananda and printed since he renounced his vows that contained no reference whatsoever to “Swami” Kriyananda. Most, in fact, listed J. Donald Walters, his English name, as author. The obvious intent of this evidence was to show that plaintiff, who actually worked in the publications business, had ample proof right in front of her that he was no longer a swami.
The judge, however, refused to allow the witness to circulate or even show these books to the jury. He wouldn’t even let her take them out of the bag.
Later, he allowed Ananda to copy the cover and title page of each book and put those into evidence, but the jury was never made aware of this exhibit by having it presented in open court.
5. Coaching by the Judge, Acting as Attorney for the Plaintiff
Many times throughout the trial the judge coached the plaintiff’s attorneys, helping them to figure out what questions to ask and how to ask them. Early on in the trial he informed plaintiff’s attorney that they had not yet positioned themselves properly to obtain punitive damages and then instructed them how to go about it, saying that even though certain deadlines had passed he would be willing to give them extensions if they asked.
He suggested to plaintiffs that they should also investigate the assets of branch churches that were not named defendants in this case. When the directors of these separate corporations protested, the judge responded that he knew all about Ananda, and he ordered them to produce documents and come to the deposition.
6. Actions by Defendants After the Filing of the Lawsuit Were Used Against Them to Prove Guilt
The primary evidence plaintiff put forth to show that the leaders of the church were engaging in a cover-up of Kriyananda’s guilt, were letters, transcripts of meetings, and other communications from the church leaders to the church members after the lawsuit was filed which vigorously and continuously denied the charges. Ananda’s attorney protested that these documents were not admissible, but the judge over-ruled him. As a consequence, the church was found guilty of negligent supervision.
7. Pre-trial Sanctions Against Plaintiff Were Reversed
A discovery referee was put in place early on to resolve the many conflicts. Plaintiff’s non-cooperation was deemed “egregious” and monetary ($9,000) and preclusion sanctions were issued. At first these sanctions were upheld on appeal, but after the trial began, they were again appealed and the monetary award was reduced to $3,000, and the preclusion sanctions were lifted. Later the trial judge commented that the actions of the defendant (referring to the “trash incident”) were so much worse than the plaintiff’s that it was only right that the sanctions against plaintiff should be reduced. He said this, despite the fact that Ananda had already been very harshly sanctioned.
We have no evidence that the trial judge influenced the decision made by another judge to lift the preclusion sanctions, but it is our belief that the trial judge played a role.
At the very least, this shows his bias.
8. Plaintiff’s Case Overly Long—Ananda Pressured to End Quickly
The judge told the jury that the case would end on December 9, but the plaintiff didn’t even rest until December 12. During that time, the judge made no significant effort to curtail plaintiff’s case. Four days later, the court recessed until January 5. From that point on, the judge began aggressively to press for a speedy end to the trial.
Plaintiff’s cross-examinations were consistently two or three times as long as defendant’s direct and although the judge made an occasional comment, he never did anything to curtail them.
Finally, toward the end, the judge simply announced emphatically that the case would be over by a certain date, and, for fear of antagonizing the judge further and having his displeasure reflected in the jury instructions, Ananda cut out witnesses in order to finish on time.
Whether this actually influenced the outcome is unknown, but it is further evidence of the judge’s bias.
9. Judge Not in Control of His Courtroom
Plaintiff’s attorneys were given enormous latitude in the content and manner in which they presented their case. Defendant’s objections seldom resulted in any significant change. Even though the judge from time to time would reprimand plaintiff’s attorneys, he did nothing to enforce his words. Finally, halfway through the trial, the judge threatened sanctions, and there was some relief from their most egregious misconduct.
Although this is not likely to be grounds for reversal, the cumulative effect was very prejudicial for Ananda, especially since the judge was strict with Ananda in almost exactly equal proportion to the latitude he gave plaintiffs. V. HARASSMENT BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS 1. Plaintiff’s Two Attorneys are Self-Declared “Cult-Busters” and “Guru-Hunters”
Ananda is not the first religious group these men have targeted. Ford Greene said “The reason I went to law school is to do guru-hunting. These guys are public health hazards.” Michael Flynn said “I believe in spirituality and God when practiced correctly.” Although they claim they investigate before filing suit, it is clear that they shoot first and ask questions later, if at all. (See San Francisco Chronicle, “Veteran Guru Hunters”).
2. Using the Legal System to Harass and Destroy
One February 17, just before the punitive damages phase of this case ended, plaintiff served a new lawsuit on Kriyananda, alleging malicious prosecution for a cross-complaint filed and then dropped, and for conversion relating to the taking of the trash. Since the cross-complaint was for defamation, the effect of this lawsuit would be a complete retrying of the same issues. Although Kriyananda is the only one served as of this date, the papers name several Ananda churches, their leaders, both as directors and as individuals, Ananda’s house counsel, and both of Ananda’s attorneys of record in this lawsuit. The suit asks for $37 million in damages.
Testimony in this case put Ananda’s net worth at just over a million dollars, and Kriyananda’s net worth at virtually nothing. [Although plaintiff did try to establish a resale value of $800,000 for Kriyananda’s copyrights on the books he has written, the valuation was questionable.]
Plaintiff’s attorneys continually assert that Ananda is hiding its millions. But, in fact, Ananda is on the verge of bankruptcy. Clearly their intent is not to get money but to destroy Ananda completely. [Note: Soon after this document was written, Ananda went into Chapter 11 Reorganization in September, 1998. We emerged from bankruptcy in December, 1999.
Almost immediately after the trial ended, plaintiff’s attorneys placed enormous pressure on Ananda with the threat of this new lawsuit asking $37 million in damages. Ananda was forced, greatly against its wishes, to agree to a settlement. The settlement required by plaintiffs to end their continuing threat of additional lawsuits was payment of $1.8 million to be paid over 5 years. Ananda has been making payments on this settlement since then, and projects that it will take the community as long as 12 more years before all of its legal debts for both this case and the SRF lawsuit are paid off. The strain on Ananda has been enormous. Yet, incredibly, Ananda’s work continues to grow. Despite the fact that Ananda is still alive and kicking despite a massive legal assault, we pray earnestly that the reader may never have to experience anything like this.] 3. Another Religious Group is Involved
Ananda Church of Self-Realization is the second generation of Self-Realization churches worldwide. The first generation, Self-Realization Fellowship (“SRF”), headquartered in Los Angeles, California, enjoyed a monopoly on the teachings of Paramhansa Yogananda, the guru both groups follow, from its founding in 1920 until Ananda’s founding in 1968.
Kriyananda was originally part of SRF, but was expelled by them in 1962 because of theological differences. Ever since Ananda’s founding SRF has spoken against us.
In 1990, they took their cause to the courts, using intellectual property laws to secure legally what they have long-claimed spiritually: exclusive rights to the teachings both groups follow. If they had prevailed, Ananda would have been forced to cease to function as a church.
Fortunately, SRF failed completely, losing rights they didn’t even know were in jeopardy, such as copyrights to many of Yogananda’s books that they had falsely appropriated after his death. The case ended in October 1997, although certain issues are on appeal, but SRF has little chance of prevailing.
The Bertolucci case was filed at a time when SRF was losing badly. Most of Bertolucci’s supporters, and most of her key witnesses, are SRF members who have long been harassing Ananda.
We have much evidence that SRF is involved in this case. For example, a major SRF donor was illegally brought into Kriyananda’s deposition, and was introduced as a paralegal. Shortly after the deposition a valuable piece of property was deeded over to that donor from SRF for the sum of $1. That donor was already a client of Mike Flynn, who was defending him in a case that involved land owned by SRF that the donor was using for his herb farm business.
The original papers and most of the subpoenas in this case have been delivered to Ananda members by prominent members of the local SRF group. One of those members testified under oath that, at SRF’s request, he has long been spying on Ananda and reporting his findings to leaders that organization.
SRF attempted to bring the mere fact of this suit into their federal action against Ananda, but the judge would not allow it to muddy the water.
Although they haven’t acted yet, we believe SRF may attempt to use this verdict, under the theory of “tarnishment,” to win back certain rights they have lost. (For more on this, see The SRF Connection)
4. Direct Harassment of Ananda Members — Plane Drops Leaflets
All through the SRF lawsuit, and continuing into this one, Ananda members have received a total of approximately ten letters detailing how and why Swami Kriyananda is spiritually and personally unworthy to be the leader of Ananda. One letter concentrated on how much greater SRF and its leaders are, and suggested Ananda’s members take Ananda away from Kriyananda and give it to SRF. Since the Bertolucci suit, the letters have dealt more with the lurid sexual allegations against Kriyananda. The declarations of the women accusing him were mailed anonymously.
Sometimes the letters are unsigned, often they come from Eric Estep, a man well-known to Ananda as the leader of a band of 10-15 SRF members who form the “Ananda Awareness Network.” Through their web site and various other means, they keep up a constant attack on Ananda.
Bertolucci herself received one of Eric’s letters in 1994, contacted him, and through him was introduced to members of the SRF Board of Directors, the attorneys who now represent her, and the group of SRF members who have been her support throughout this case.
Letters have been sent by U.S. mail, placed directly in community mailboxes, put on windshields of cars parked at the Palo Alto church during a concert Kriyananda was giving, and, most spectacularly, dropped out of an airplane flying dangerously low over Ananda Village. The leaflets fell near a group of school children. One nine-year old after reading the leaflet asked her mother, “Why do they hate Swami?” and “Are they going to shoot him?”
The plane flew so low a member was able to get the license number and confirmed that the pilot was named Mike Flynn. When this and other details of harassment were filed with the court, plaintiff responded with a declaration from Mike Flynn, Jr., plaintiff’s attorney’s son, saying he did in fact fly the plane and drop the leaflets. He did it, he said, because he had heard that Kriyananda was exhibiting increasingly erratic behavior. He felt that Kriyananda, like many leaders suddenly exposed, was going to self-destruct and take Ananda members with him, as in Jonestown and Heaven’s Gate. He further claimed that communication within Ananda was so tightly controlled, he felt this was the only way he could warn us.
Furthermore, he feared for his father’s life, having witnessed a lifetime of attacks on him as he courageously took on these dangerous cults. Recently, he said, gunshots had been fired into their house. There was no evidence of any kind provided to corroborate these statements.
The judge took no action of any kind, but accepted at face value what Mike Flynn, Jr. had written. This was merely a small part of what turned into a vicious cycle of the judge’s believing whatever the plaintiff’s attorney’s said despite our previous innumerable proofs of fabrication on their part.
The FAA is investigating the airplane incident. Ananda is completely open to the public. Ananda neighbors shop at a small grocery store on Ananda property daily. Thousands of guests drive to Ananda’s meditation retreat. Guests walk happily throughout the property day and night, year-round. One scarcely knows how to respond to charges when they are so far from the truth. 5. Suppression of Kriyananda’s Writings
During the punitive damages phase of the trial, plaintiff’s attorney argued strenuously to attach an artificially high value ($600,000-800,000) to Kriyananda’s copyrights, his only asset. This, despite the fact that the Ananda publishing house that sells the books has lost money on them virtually every year in operation. Upon reflection, it seems to us he is seeking to force the sale of the copyrights. It has occurred to us that it would suit SRF’s purposes perfectly to gain possession of those copyrights in order to suppress Kriyananda’s writings.
Top | Back to: The Bertolucci lawsuit | Home | Bertolucci Lawsuit | Ananda's Critics | Testimonials | Swami Kriyananda | News | Contacts | Directory/Site Map Updated: February 12, 2005
www.anandaanswers.com/pages/blBL.html |
