About us

Women testify

Walters testifies

In the Press

Legal Issues



Bankrupcy Motions

Motion 6/97

The following legal document contains allegations of sexual abuse by Swami Kriyananda, aka J. Donald Walters, founder of Ananda, known as the Ananda Church of Self-Realization. The Ananda Awareness Network's primary goal is to provide alternative information about Ananda, the Ananda Church of Self-Realization and Swami Kriyananda, aka J. Donald Walters.
AAN believes information and alternative views should be available to those who wish, so a more fully informed choice can be made about one's current or future relationship with Ananda.


Plaintiff, vs.

ANANDA CHURCH OF SELF REALIZATION, a California not-for-profit corporation; CRYSTAL
CLARITY PUBLISHING, a California corporation; DANNY defandant, individually and ) as an employee
DONALD J. WALTERS, individually, and an employee of ANANDA CHURCH OF SELF

Case No. 390 230


Date: June 17, 1997

Time: 9:00

Dept: Law & Motion

Discovery cut off: July 28, 1997 Trial Date: September 29, 1997

I. Introduction:

Defendant Ananda Church ("Ananda") has moved for summary adjudication as to the first and second
causes of action of the second amended complaint. Ananda does not deny that conduct constituting sexual
harassment took place. Instead, it contends that it has no liability for such conduct on the sole ground that
it is specifically excluded from the reach of the statute. It claims that it is not an "employer" inasmuch as it
describes itself as a "religious association or corporation not organized for private profit." Ananda's motion
must be denied. Before it can annex to itself the extraordinary protections accorded to bonafide religion, it
must show that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether the beliefs for which it seeks protection are
truly and sincerely held. Under the facts of this case, Ananda cannot make such a showing because while
it may preach celibacy and sexual restraint, for decades it has fostered and promoted on an ongoing and
repeated basis the sexual exploitation of young women by it's leader, James Donald Walters.


There is a triable issue of fact whether or not Ananda Church is a bonafide religious organization. As part
of obtaining its nonprofit religious status from the IRS it held itself out as having celibacy be its core belief
and practice.

A. Celibacy Is Represented To The Internal Revenue Service As The Core Belief And Practice Of
Ananda Church Upon Which Its Non Profit Religious Status Is Predicated.

Ananda was formed to teach and promote the practice of yoga. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.1 )
Thomas Oesterle was secretary/treasurer of Ananda Church from 1989-1994. He interacted with the
Internal Revenue Service in an effort to obtain a private letter ruling that Ananda Church qualified as a
non-profit religious organization. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.2) In the July 26, 1991 letter that
Ananda received from the Internal Revenue Service as a nonprofit religious corporation it was confirmed
"The vow of self-control requires members to hold physical self-pleasure in check and to direct their
energy to the soul."

(Separate Statement Fact No.12.3) The letter confirmed that "members of the order live within the order's
strict set of rules as set forth by their superiors' directives within the order." (Separate Statement Fact
No.12.4) The letter confirmed that "the order in this case is not a separate legal entity from the church.

PG 2

Order is directly under the control and supervision of church, which in turn draws it's leadership and
management exclusively from order membership. (Separate Statement of Fact No.12.5) The letter
confirmed that "the vows of self-control, cooperative obedience, and service, as well as adherence to the
many restrictive rules of the order demonstrate the moral and religious discipline of members." (Separate
Statement Fact No. 12.6) If the "purposes, character, or method of operation [of Ananda] is changed" it
can effect Ananda's tax exempt status. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.7)

B. The Belief And practice Of Kriya Yoga Advocates Celibacy As The Method of Personal Development.

Jyotish John Novak, one of the original organizers of Ananda, is on the board of directors of defendant
Ananda Church as well as its vice-president, head of the ministry office and along with Swami and his
wife was one of the members of its spiritual directorate. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.8) Defendant
Swami Kriyananda Walters conferred the right on Jyotish to administer Kriya Yoga." (Separate Statement
Fact No.12.9) The technique of "Kriya Yoga" is Ananda's "most sacred technique." (Separate Statement
Fact No. 12.10) Plaintiff was a student of Kriya Yoga, a "Kriyaban." (Separate
Statement of Fact No.l2.11) Kriya Yoga is based on the belief that its goal is to raise one's "life force" or
"prana" from the base of

the spine at the genitals up through the spine through the cerebral cortex and medulla oblongata out
through the Christ center and direct it to God."(Separate Statement Fact No.12.12) Thus, Kriya Yoga
does not believe in releasing the life force through the genitals, instead seeking to bring the life force up
through the "higher chakras." ."(Separate Statement Fact No.12.13) Thus, which means members should
be restricting sexual relations and directing their energy to the soul." (Separate Statement Fact No.12.14)


C. Engaging In Sex With "Kriyabans" Is Not Within Ananda's Corporate Purpose:

For Walters to have sex with devotees is beyond the scope of the corporate purpose (Ex. 1-Oesterle Depo.
87:5-88:7) and religious practice at Ananda Church. (Separate Statement of Fact No. 12.15) Jyotish
refused to answer whether to reverse the process of Kriya Yoga would corrupt a devotee and betray the
goal of Kriya Yoga. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12. 16)

D. Swami Walters Has Historically Used His Authority As Spiritual Director Of Ananda And The
Fiduciary Relationship Of Counselor To Obtain The Sexual Services Of Young Female Ananda Followers
Known As "Kriyabans:"

Defendant Walters, also known as "Swami Kriyananda," is the founder and spiritual director of Ananda
Village in Nevada City. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.17) In 1955 Donald Walters took lifetime
monastic vows of poverty and chastity, (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.18) When Walters took said
monastic vows in 1955, he became a "swami" which meant that he was "chaste" and "celibate." (Separate
Statement Fact No. 12.19) Starting at least in the late 1960's Walters repeatedly abused the trust of young
female Ananda devotees reposed in him for the purpose of his own individual selfish sexual gratification.
Indeed, Walters is "on the most destructive, predatory end of the spectrum" of clergy sex offenders who
repeatedly and deliberately "seeks vulnerable women to exploit for his own sexual gratification. (Separate
Statement Fact No. 12.20)

Walters admits under oath that in 1969 while he was a "swami" to whom XXX Slavonic had come for
"spiritual training," he had sexual intercourse with her to whom he referred as his "disciple." (Separate
Statement Of Fact No. 12.21)

Walters admits under oath that in 1981 in Hawaii he had sexual intercourse with Woman #3 while she still
was married to and living with her husband. Walters characterized this seduction of her subsequent pursuit
as something that was "spiritual." (Separate Statement of Fact No.12.22) Walters admits under oath that in
1981 or 1982 he had sex with Woman #1 and Woman #2 together at the same time. (Separate Statement
of Fact No. 12.23) Walters admits under oath that on at least eight occasions when he asked her to
massage him, Woman #1 masturbated him to ejaculation as his sexual servant. Walters admits that
Woman #1 masturbated him countless times short of ejaculation. Walters was Woman #1's counselor.
(Separate Statement Fact No.12.24) Walters admits


under oath being naked and having Woman #2, who was in spiritual training at Ananda massage him with
oil. Her massage routine included sexually servicing Walters by masturbating him to ejaculation. Walters
admits to having sexual intercourse with her as well as a method of "trying to cure" himself from his
relationship with Woman #3. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.25) Walters has admitted having sex with
SW and KD for many years. He has admitted that he has "sexual problems." (Separate Statement Fact
No. 12.26) Ananda devotee EB has admitted that she is sexually intimate with Swami Walters. (Separate
Statement Fact No. 12.27) During a spiritual counseling session regarding defendant minister defendant
relentless sexual attentions toward her, the Swami massaged plaintiffs neck and placed her face on his
hardening penis. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.28) Ananda leader, Jyotish Novak, admitted that it
would probably be better if Kriyananda admitted his sexual problems." (Separate Statement Fact No.

E. In Addition To Preaching The Benefits Of Kriya Yoga While Practicing Promiscuous Sex. Walters
Fraudulently Held Himself Out As A Celibate Religious Leader By Referring To Himself As "Swami"
Kriyananda And Wearing The Ochre Robes Of A Monastic Renunciant:

Defendant Walters defined a "swami," as a man "vowed to renunciation, including the practice of
celibacy." (Separate Statement Fact No.12.30) At the Ananda community Walters would wear the orange
robes of a monastic renunciate. (Separate Statement of Fact No. 12.31)

Walters never told the Ananda community that he engaged in sexual relationships with female Ananda
devotees. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.32) To his public at Ananda Walters said that the declarations
of Woman #3, Woman #1, Woman #2, Woman #4, Woman #5, Woman #6, and DK were 95 percent
false. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.33) in discovery, Ananda Church failed to produce a letter written


Walters on March 25, 1995 by A C, Monastic Training Program in which she states:

"When I visited Ananda in 1970 before moving here, I remember Gurupod saying, not as rumor, but more
as information he'd heard directly from you, something like: Swami was teaching yoga in the cities but had
to pull back because he was having

problems with sexual energy. I understood him as meaning, not just temptation, but sexual practice....
Over the years I've wondered about it. Also, over the years women have said things to me, or I've
overheard, or I've seen interactions between you and others that went along with that statement of
Gurupod's. ... I know you probably feel that the women involved shared in your choice, since you are
always respectful of people and genuinely kind. Still, the fact is ... you are our teacher, and

any woman would have to be confused by having sex with their spiritual teacher." (Separate Statement
Fact No.12.34) The highest officials in the Ananda organization, Jyotish John Novak, Devi Novak, Vidura
Jon Smallen, Thomas Oesterle and Catherine Peroginog are not willing to confront Swami Walters
regarding his sexual use of female Kriyabans and ask him about it. Without so inquiring or conducting any
investigation at all, they take Walters' word for it and instead indiscriminately condemn Woman #3,
Woman #1, Woman #2, Woman #4, Woman #5, Woman #6, and DK as incredible because each had
been "hysterical" "unstable" and "lied" about Walters' sexual interactions with them.

(Separate Statement Fact No.l2.35) The Ananda officials conducted no investigation into Swami Walters
misconduct. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.36) Instead, they wrote a letter to the Kriyabans in the
Ananda community the members of whom had taken vows

of obedience in which they stated that the declarations of the women regarding Walters' sexual use of
them were "lies and distortions" and should not be read. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.37) Indeed,
Spiritual Director Devi Novak knew that the letter

which is Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 56 would be distributed to young women who had sought
counseling for relationship problems.

(Separate Statement Fact No, 1 2.3 8)

Despite Walters' admissions that he had engaged in sex acts with Woman #3, Woman #1, Woman #2,
Woman #4, Woman #5, Woman #6, no Ananda official made any effort to inform Ananda members and
trainees that Walters had been sexually serviced by any unstable woman or other devotee.(Separate
Statement Fact No.12.39)


Spiritual Director Jyotish Jon Novak believes that plaintiff allegation that Walters has engaged in an
ongoing, systematic pattern of exploitation, harassment and coercion of women is a lie. (Separate
Statement Fact No.12.40) Spiritual Director

Devi Novak never thought that Anne Marie plaintiff wanted to tell the truth so that other young female
trainees would know that the swami was sexually serviced by parishioners. Instead, she though Anne
Marie was trying to destroy Ananda. (Separate

Statement Fact No. 12.41) Indeed, despite Walters' sworn admissions that the declarations were in large
part true, Spiritual Director Jyotish Jon Novack believes that the declarations of Woman #3, Woman #1,
Woman #2, Woman #4, Woman #5, Woman #6, and DK were an attack on Ananda by Satan. (Separate
Statement Fact No.12.42) He believes that even if the declarations of Woman #3, Woman #1, Woman
#2, Woman #4, Woman #5, Woman #6, and DK were true no one would have a duty to expose Walters'
conduct. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.43) Spiritual Director Jyotish Jon Novak cannot conceive that
Walters may be sick. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.44) Prior to the instant lawsuit, the issue of sex
between Swami or Ananda ministers and devotees was never discussed by Ananda officials. (Separate
Statement Fact No.12.45) The only thing that was ever discussed was how to protect Ananda ministers
from unfair charges of sexual abuse as those by AMB (plaintiff). (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.46)

G. Walters Exercises Absolute Control Over Ananda Church With Respect To Which He Has An Alter
Ego Relationship

"Above all leader at Ananda is the Spiritual Director," defendant Walters. (Separate Statement Fact No.
12.47) Ananda is governed by the Spiritual Directorate consisting of Swami Walters, Jyotish Novak and
Devi Novak. Jyotish Novak was Walters "right-hand man from the beginning." Jyotish and Devi liaison
between Walters and the Ananda community. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.48) Walters directs the
Spiritual Directorate. It decides who will be ministers and makes personnel decisions such as the demoting
of Anandi Cornell after she wrote Walters a letter criticizing him for his history of using female Ananda
devotees to sexually


service himself. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.49)

Ananda members take the following oath:

"As a means of attaining Self-realization, I offer my cooperative obedience and loyalty to Ananda, to those
members who are responsible for guiding the community in its various aspects, and, above all, to the living
representative of the Ananda line

of gurus, the Spiritual Director of Ananda World Brotherhood Village." Defendant Walters is the "living
representative" and "Spiritual Director." (Separate Statement Fact No.l2.50) Elizabeth XXX testified that
cooperative obedience "means doing

God's will and that God's will was that she should not read the declarations of the women whom Swami
had sexually service him, (Separate Statement Fact No.12.51) Those who guide the community are
Jyotish and Devi Novak, and Vidura and Durga Smallen. Walters made them, and others, a superior form
of minister, "Lightbearers," without advance notice in a mass ceremony. As Walters testified, it is a
"flexible set up." (Separate Statement Fact No.12.52)

Ananda members are required to follow the "Rules of Conduct for Members." (Separate Statement Fact
No.12.53) Per the Rules, failure to manifest the proper attitude can result is being moved out of Ananda
Village. The Rules also require payment of money in order to construct a home which, if the person wants
to move, will be repaid at whatever amount the "community" decides. Once a member has been fully
accepted into the community, he loses any right to be paid for the value of his home. Jobs are controlled
"by the appointed representatives of the community" as is the decision to marry. (Separate Statement Fact


A. There Is A Question Of Fact Whether Or Not Ananda Is A Bony Fide Religion

The First Amendment does not immunize a self-proclaimed religion from governmental authority or cloak
it in utter secrecy. When an organization's religious status is of legal significance, courts may make an
objective inquiry into whether the organization's beliefs are entitled to First Amendment religious liberty
protections. (See, Wisconsin vs. Yoder (1972) 406

PG. 8

U.S. 205, 209-13; Canhuell v. Connecticut (1940)310 U.S. 296.) While it is axiomatic that courts may not
determine whether a given belief is or is not religion (U.S, v. Ballard(1944) 322 U.S. 78, 86-88), the trier
of fact may determine whether a belief is

truly held without violating the First Amendment. (United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, 184 [13
L.Ed.2d 733].)

In United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, the Supreme Court defined religious beliefs meriting First
Amendment protection as those "based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is
subordinate and upon which all else is ultimately dependent." (Id. 380 U.S. at 176.) The Seeger court
required that these beliefs be "sincere" (Ibid,) and stated that "the threshold question of sincerity must be
resolved in every case." (Id. 380 U.S. at 185.) Pursuant to this 'sincerity" standard, courts have not been
willing to accept bare assertions by litigants that their beliefs or conduct are "religious." (See, e.g., Yoder,
406 U,S. at 235 ["Aided by a history of three centuries as an identifiable religious sect and a long history

a successful and self- sufficient segment of American society, the Amish in this case have convincingly
demonstrated the sincerity of their religious beliefs, the interrelationship of belief with their mode of life,
and the vital role that belief and daily conduct play in the continued survival of. . . their religious
organization...."] International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber (1981) 650 F.2d 430,
439-41 ["an adherent's belief would not be sincere if he acts in a manner inconsistent with that belief. . .
or if there is evidence that the adherent materially gains by fraudulently hiding secular interests behind a
veil of religious doctrine."]; United States v. Rasheed (9th Cir. 1981) 663 F.2d 843, 84749 [alleged

belief in "Dare To Be Rich" program not sincerely held because palpably deceitful]; Jones v. Bradley (9th
Cir. 1979) 590 F.2d 294, 295 [proper for court to reach question whether organization is a religion];
United States v. Kuch (D.D.C. 1968) 288 F.Supp. 439, 443 ["Those who seek the constitutional
protections for their participation in an establishment of religion and freedom to practice its beliefs must
not be permitted the special freedoms this sanctuary may provide merely by adopting religious
nomenclature and cynically using it as a shield to protect them when participating in antisocial conduct that
otherwise stands condemned."]; Yarr Schaick v, Church of Scientology of California (D,Mass. 1982) 535
F.Supp. 1125; Founding Church of Scientology v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1969) 409 F.2d 212, cert.

PG 9

denied 396 U.S. 963 (1969).)

In Thsriault v. Silber (W.D. Texas 1975) 391 F.Supp. 578, 580 the court indicated that criminal conduct
by the members of a purported religion caused it to "employ sharp and careful scrutiny of his activities,
including his claim of religious sincerity." The Supreme Court has warned against anything but the most
cautious review and exacting scrutiny when conferring entitlement of religious status because the "absolute
protection afforded belief by the First Amendment suggests that a court should be cautious in expanding
the scope of that protection since to do so might leave government powerless to vindicate compelling state
interests." (McDaniel v. Poly (1978) 435 U.S. 618, 627, n. 7.)

Founding Church of Scientology v. United Slates (D.C. Cir. 1969) 409 F.2d 1 1 46 noted that "[l]itigation
of the question whether a given group or set of beliefs is religious is a delicate business, but our legal
system sometimes requires it so that secular enterprises may not be unjustly enjoy the immunities granted
to the sacred." (Id. 409 F.2d at 1160.) The court concluded that a purported religion would not be entitled
to protection under the First Amendment upon a showing that ". ..the beliefs asserted to be religious are
not held in good / faith by those asserting them, and that forms of religious organizations were created for
the sole purpose of cloaking a secular enterprise with the legal protection of a religion." (Id, at 1 162.)

Thus, a "sincere religious belief is a prerequisite to any free exercise claim." (Sourbeer v. Robinson (3d
Cir, 1986) 791 F.2d 1094, 1102; Martinelli v. Dugger (Il'h Cir. 1987) 817 F.2d 1499, 1503-1504;
PhilbrooR v. Ansonia Board of Education (2d Cir. 1985) 757 F.2d 476, 481- 482.) The cases make clear
that the underlying rationale for the threshold determination of sincerity or bonafides is a necessary and

"rational means of differentiating between those beliefs that are held as a matter of conscience and those
that are animated by motives of deception and fraud. The latter variety, of course, must be subject to
governmental invasion, lest our society abjure from distinguishing between the incantation of sincerely
held religious beliefs' as a talisman for self-indulgence or material gain and those beliefs genuinely dictated
by conscience.

Sincerity analysis is exceedingly amorphous, requiring the fact finder to delve into the claimants most
veiled motivations and vigilantly separate the issue of sincerity from the fact finder's perception of the
religious nature of the claimant's beliefs. This need to dissever is most acute where unorthodox beliefs are

PG 10

There, the fact finder's temptation to merge sincerity and verity is as great as the need to guard against this
conjugation. Accordingly, assessing a claimant's sincerity of belief demands a full exposition of the facts
and the opportunity for

the fact finder to observe the claimant's demeanor during direct and cross-examination. A more cursory
evaluation raises the specter that the sincerity issue was decided by reference to the fact finder's
perception of what a religion should resemble." (Patrick v. LeFevre (2d Cir. 1984) 745 F.2d 153, 157,
emphasis added.)

Thus, simply because an organization calls itself a religion does not necessarily means that it is such.
Indeed, whether or not the organization is a religion, when contested, is a trial question (FVollersheim v.
Church of Scientology (1989)212 Cal.App.3d 872, 887 [260 Cal.Rptr. 3313 [whether or not Scientology
is a religion "remains a very live and interesting question."l) inasmuch as qi]n determining whether
[claimant's] beliefs are to be accorded first amendment protection, the fact finder

must delve into the internal workings of [claimant's] mind and assess the credibility of his claims." (Patrick
v. LeFevre, supra 745 F.2d at 159.)

The case upon which defendant Ananda Church relies in seeking to fall within the exclusion of liability for
sexual harassment of plaintiff predates Seeger and its constitutionally based progeny. Nonetheless, in
Fellowship humanity v. County of Alameda (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 673 1315 P.2d 394, 406], one hears a
foreshadowing of the concern about persons "cynically using [religious status] as a shield to protect them
when participating in antisocial conduct that otherwise stands condemned." (United Stares v Kuch, supra,
288 F.Supp. at 443.) The California Court of Appeal stated:

"Thus, the only inquiry in such a case is the obj ective one of whether or not the belief occupies the same
place in the lives of its holders that the orthodox beliefs occupy in the lives of believing majorities, and
whether a given group that claims the exemption conducts itself the way groups conceded to be religious
conduct themselves. . . . Of course, the belief cannot violate the laws or morals of the community....

(Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, supra, 315 P.2d at 406.)

Under the facts of the Instant case, and applying the sincerity analysis thereto, it is clear that there is an
issue of fact as to whether or not Ananda is entitled to the extraordinary protections of the First
Amendment as well as an an exemption from what appears to have been a systematic sexual abuse and
exploitation of women. On these causes of action summary adjudication should be denied.

PG 11

A. The Religious Corporation Is A Mere Sham For The Swami.

To establish alter ego liability, Ms. plaintiff needs to show that(l)there be such unity of interest and
ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) if the
acts are treated as those of

the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow. Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d
290, 300. "The purpose behind the alter ego doctrine is to prevent defendants who are the alter egos o a
sham corporation from escaping personal liability for its debts." Hennessey's Tavern v. American Air Filter
(1988) 204 Cal.Agp.3d 1351, 1358. "There is no litmus test to determine when the corporate veil will be 1
pierced; rather, the result will depend on the circumstances of each particular case." Mid- Century Ins. Co.
v. Gardner (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1212. Both prongs of the test are met here .

One of the hallmarks of alter ego is the unorthodox handling of corporate funds between the corporation
and the individual. First, the swami owns most or all of the shares in the corporation, and, although there
are two other board members, both are dominated entirely by swami. Second, swami has ignored all
corporate formalities by commingling his personal and corporate funds. The head of Crystal Clarity
Publishers, the d/b/a for Ananda, testified that although the swami received money from Crystal Clarity,
there were no contracts, royalties, written obligations, corporate resolutions or minutes reflecting corporate
authorization to pay the swami any money. Swami received 10% of Crystal Clarity's gross monthly
income as a "tithe" to "Crystal

Hermitage," swami's residence. McGilloway then wrote checks from Crystal Hermitage account to the
swami's personal account. Only McGilloway, her husband and swami had signatory control over the
Crystal Hermitage account.

Although she claimed that Crystal Clarity paid "loans" back to swami, McGilloway , she never saw any
documents purporting to reflect personal loans from the swami to the corporation. McGilloway also
transferred money from the Ananda general account to the swami's personal accounts. She dots not
remember seeing any corporate minutes or authorization for those transfers. Swami also received money
from the "tithe" account, called "Thank You God," a percentage of the general church fund was also

paid to Crystal Hermitage. She then transferred

PG 12

funds without any corporate direction, Thus, it seems clear, and all inferences must be drawn in Ms.
plaintiff favor, that the Swami and Ananda had a unity of interest and ownership that the separate
personalities of the corporation and the individual became merged. (Separate Statement No. f2.22

Establishing the second prong is simple. "The essence of the alter ego doctrine is that justice be done".
Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 301. A grave ~injustice will be done if the Court
does not disregard the corporate entity, since it is possible that the sham corporation may be exempt from
FEHA. As the court is Las Palmas Assoc. v. Las Palmas Center (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 122

"it would be unfair to permit those who control companies to treat them as a single or unitary enterprise
and then assert their corporate separateness in order to commit frauds and misdeeds with impunity." Id, at
1249. For the purposes of summary judgment, this Court must assume that these facts give rise to an alter
ego claim, and thus for this reason the FEHA exemption does not apply because it is Welters who is truly

C. The Alleged Exemption Violates The Equal Protection Clause

The equality guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause is equality under the same conditions, and among
persons similarly situated. Although the Legislature may make reasonable classification of persons and
businesses, the classification must not be arbitrary, and must have a substantial relation to a legitimate
object to be accomplished, 8 Witkin, Summary of California Law, Constitutional Law, 599, p. 51. The
alleged exemption does not pass constitutional muster under either standard of deference set forth in
Board of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 903, 913. The of fundamental
right in this case is the right to redress. Under the strict judicial scrutiny test, an exemption which prohibits
sexual harassment in

the workplace for all corporations other than religious corporations has no relation to promoting the
compelling state interest of preventing sexual harassment. Moreover, even under the "minimum
rationality" test, it is illogical to only permit sexual harassment by non-

PG 13

profits, while prohibiting such conduct for all others. Accordingly, even if Ananda is not the swami's alter
ego, the exemption is unconstitutional.


Because Ms. plaintiff was coercively persuaded and utterly dominated mentally by the defendants until
November, 1994, a question of fact exists as to both her consent and the Knowing of the statute of
limitations. Moreover, as set forth above and

in the Greene Decl., a continuance under Code Civ. P. ~ 437c01) is mandatory.

A claim for battery must describe a harmful contact and a resulting harm, such as emotional distress.
(WeinstocR v. Eissler (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 212, 237.) Although consent is defense, it may be vitiated
by fraud. (See Rains v. Superior Court (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 933, 940.) The facts in this action are
practically identical to those in Rains, except that the "Swami"- disciple relationship substitutes for the
Rains doctor-patient relationship. In Rains, psychiatric patients sued a group of psychiatrists for physically
violent treatment which had been represented as a necessary part of a medical cure. The Court found that
the patients stated a claim for fraud against the psychiatrists because the psychiatrists

     "used the program as a pretext to employ psychological coercion, humiliation, and physical
     violence to subjugate plaintiffs, to coerce plaintiffs to remain in the residential program, to
     serve defendants for no compensation, to give defendants donations, to recruit new patients,
     and to believe their well-being depended upon remaining in the program and loyally serving
     defendants to the exclusion of the outside world."

(Rains, 150 Cal.App.3d at 936,) Because the doctors misrepresented and the patients were "coercively
persuaded" that the physical abuse was "necessary" to attain the promised cure', the Court found that no
true or informed consent could have occurred and a cause of action for battery was stated. Id. Consent
can be vitiated by fraud as to the identity or capacity of the

The specific misrepresentations in Rains were that if the respective plaintiffs enrolled in the defendant
doctors' program, the patients would be cured and transformed into a successful person within a period of
six months to one year. (Id. at 937.) As a result, plaintiffs alleged that they were "forcibly persuaded into
becoming loyal and dedicated followers of defendants, and did believe that personal survival depended on
remaining in defendants organizations and treatment, and did believe they should not return to the outside
world." (Id.)

PG 14

actor, e.g., a physician's touching under the guise of "necessity" is non-offensive while a fake physician's
touching would t~e offensive. (150 Cal.App.3d at 938-39, 941; see also Bartell v. Stale (1900) 106 Wis.
342 [82 N.W. 142], [battery where "magnetic

healer" required an 18-year old girl to disrobe, sit on lap and a flow sexual fondling not a "necessary"
treatment as represented].)

As in Rains, Anne-Marie did not consent to any sexual battery by "Swami" Walters as "Swami" Walters'
identity and capacity as a "swami" and the reasons for her "treatment" through the Ananda Church had
been misrepresented to her. Anne-Marie was coercively persuaded to Submit to the authority of the
Ananda Church leaders, to suspend her thinking and judgment, and that the sexual touching was an
acceptable spiritual treatment or "test" within the church's methods. (See Rains, 150 Cal.App.3d at 936.)
Ms. plaintiff only discovered, after leaving Ananda in November, 1994 that the "swami" was using his
attractive female followers to satisfy his own lustful appetites while controlling their minds and bodies. (Id.
150 Cal.App.3d at 937, 940~41.) Thus, Ms. plaintiff was deprived of the ability to make an informed

For the same reasons, a question of fact exists as to the date that the statute of limitations / for sexual
battery began to run. Although the 5~ rule is that the touching itself begins the statute running, e.g., June,
1993, Ms. plaintiff claims for battery did not begin to run until November, 1994 under the delayed
discovery doctrine, which applies when the plaintiff has not discovered all of the facts essential to the
cause of action. (DeRose v. Carswell (1987) 1 96 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1017.) Inherent in such "discovery"
of the facts is that the touching itself was "harmful." This is consistent with the rule enunciated in Rains.
(Rains, 150 Cal.App.3d at 938- 39.).2 There is no statute of limitations until Ms. plaintiff escaped the

defendants' domination of her and realized the harmful nature of the touching, as well as her lack of
informed consent. A final and most important basis for delaying accrual of the statute is the presence of a

Swami routinely concealed his misconduct with pseudo-spiritual psycho babble. example, he told Woman
#1 that his sexual abuse of her was "just energy going from one part of the universe to another." Woman
#1 Decl., B 17. When she spoke of the misconduct to other Ananda leaders, they told her to "let him have
his way, whatever he wanted. Woman #1 Decl., n 18.

PG 15

fiduciary relationship between Anne Marie and defendant Walters. In Evans v. Eckelman (1990) 2r6
Cal,App.3d 1609, 1615 [265 Cal.Rptr, 605] the court noted that the "is generally applicable to confidential
or fiduciary relationships." In the context of such a relationship "[e]ven where memory of the events
themselves is not suppressed, it may be some time before the victim can face the full impact of the acts."
(Id at 161~.) Since a victim of sexual abuse in a confidential relationship can be manipulated "to prevent
recognition or revelation of the abuse" (Ibid) accrual may be delayed, Just as a child can be taught that
sexual abuse is 'normal or necessary to the relationship" (Ibid), Welters taught Anne Marie the same thing
here - that sex was bad and it was all the fault of the female that the male became aroused, Thus when
Walters rubbed his erect penis on Anne Marie's face, such conduct was not caused because he was a
sexual predator. It was caused by the very fact of her womanhood, The application of the delayed
discovery~f rule in these circumstances "would serve to prevent the molester from using [her] ignorance
and trust to conceal the primary tort." (16id.) Thus, under the instant circumstances "[a]wareness of
wrongdoing is a prerequisite to the accrual of the action under the delayed discovery rule." (Id at 1618.)


Defendant Ananda willfully ignores the manner in which it has been and continues to be used by
defendant Welters. Ananda no more merits First Amendment protection that does a child molester.
Indeed, as Walters' alter ego, it merits such protection

less. "Thus, it is that the unmistakable stench of the skunk is found emanating from that which Defendant]
has declared a rose." (~heriatclC v. Silber, supra 391 F.Supp, At 582.) Summary adjudication as to all

causes of action must be denied.

Dated: June 3, 1997

Ford Greene, Attorney for Plaintiff