Subject: [khalsa-council] Observations on recent court visit:
Dear Khalsa Brothers and Sisters,
I was present at the recent hearing on the lawsuit initiated by the previous
SDI directors. The judge dismissed the entire complaint. After
criticizing the poor quality of the complaint she gave the lawyers for the
plaintiffs a lecture on how to properly plead a case. Then she gave them the
opportunity to present a new complaint by January 8th. As a new observer to
such proceedings I wanted to share a personal - not a legal or SDS perspective
on it.
The request for relief from the court needs to make
sense. It needs to have a specific legal form which requires a "cause of
action" sustained by specific facts that support that claim. The dots must
be connected so that the judge or a person with neutral mind can make an informed
judgment. In this case they did not connect the dots.
I was fascinated to hear the judge
say that this complaint was so poorly constructed that no intelligent person
could make any sense of it or understand even what is being asserted. She said
it was a wandering, long novel. She also said that you can't litigate a
case with "War and Peace."
She instructed the plaintiff's
lawyers for over 45 minutes in the basics of legal pleading Law 101. She then
dismissed the case in total. After dismissing the complaint she offered them
the opportunity to file an amended complaint and approach the court again. It
was not a question of the length of the complaint. It was so poorly conceived
that it could not be understood!
She also instructed them that she
would not entertain claims or discussion in their new complaint of religious
issues of orthodoxy vs. progressive views nor claims that imply any
fraud. She then rejected their requests for full discovery and granted
the limited right of allowing only the attorneys to view the organizational
documents of SSSC, SDS, and UI (i.e., the articles of incorporation, bylaws and
minutes). She refused to allow plaintiffs themselves access to these
documents. She then instructed the removed SDI board that it must also allow
the attorneys for the Defendants the right to view the same documents of SDI.
Fascinating.
It is probably impossible not to
view all this without a bias or distortion of the reality and the
implications of the proceedings. I have a position in this. I want to support the
vision and teachings of the Siri Singh Sahib and protect his organizations and
assets from misuse and theft by illegitimate groups and misguided individuals.
I am also acutely aware of the need for kindness and clarity between all
parties no matter the beliefs and accusations. I certainly see the partial
truths and systematic manipulation through fear and exaggeration in many of the
reports and emails. As I have said before, emails are not the right forum -in
any case- for complicated legal discussions.
So my recommendation is for those
interested in the legal discussions and process to wait a week or so; do not
leap to judgment; and read the actual transcript of the judge at the hearing.
She was clear, concise, instructive and neutral.
And so we should all be.
Respectfully in Naam,
MSS Gurucharan Singh Khalsa
1st Rebuttal
Subject: [khalsa-council] What I find fascinating
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 7:55 PM
M.S.S. Gurucharan Singh ji:
I have had an opportunity to re-read and review your recent e-mail posting
entitled “Observation on recent court visit.” Apparently you found the
proceedings “fascinating”.
Let me express what I find fascinating:
I find it fascinating that you can say: “As I have said before, emails are not
the right forum -in any case- for complicated legal discussions.” at the end of
an e-mail you wrote discussing complicated legal issues.
I find it fascinating that as “new observer” who wants to share a “personal
–not a legal or SDS perspective” you spend a lot of your e-mail discussing
specific legal rulings made regarding pleadings, discovery, dismissal and
amending of pleadings which were presumably made on the basis of the Oregon
Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable case law, and Rules of Court. Perhaps you
can tell me where to get a copy of that seminal legal treatise entitled: “legal
pleading-Law 101” which forms the basis of your expertise.
I find it fascinating that you can
say: “I want to support the vision and teachings of the Siri Singh Sahib and
protect his organizations and assets from misuse and theft by illegitimate
groups and misguided individuals.” and yet you work at the behest of the
members of Unto Infinity who have abandoned SSS’s teachings and are who are
making in my opinion a concerted effort to drain this organization of its
financial and other assets.
I find it fascinating that you can say: “ I
certainly see the partial truths and systematic manipulation through fear and exaggeration in many of the
reports and emails.” in an e-mail that contains in my opinion your own partial
truths, efforts at manipulation and exaggeration. I find it fascinating that
you can state: “It is probably impossible not to view all this without a bias
or distortion of the reality and the implications of the proceedings”, and then
as a Mukhia Singh Sahib and self proclaimed “Yoga Master” you publish an e-mail
containing your own bias and filtered/distorted view of the proceedings when in
the alternative you could have followed your own “recommendation”, waited “a
week or so” for the judge’s written ruling and hearing transcript to be issued,
paid for copy and sent it out for people to read.
If you have difficulty following
your own advice, can you understand why others may be disinclined to follow
you?
S.S. GURUJODHA S. KHALSA
2nd Rebuttal
On Dec 22, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Hari Nam Khalsa wrote:
Fellow Brothers and Sisters on the Khalsa Council,
My response to Gurucharan's "observations on
recent court visit" will be short and sweet. For my own peace of mind, I want to state the following for the
record. Obviously, I have feelings about this whole matter and have unabashedly
taken a strong position against UI/SDS. That being said, I will try to limit my
comments to what occurred in the courtroom on the day in question. I am an
attorney and have practiced law in the Oregon court system for over 30 years. I
attended the court hearing alluded to in Gurucharan’s email, and as an Oregon
attorney, understood the meaning and implication of every word spoken by the
judge at that hearing. While being more-or- less factually correct, the actual
substance of Gurucharan‘s communication was self-serving and misleading and did
not represent the truth of the matter. The bottom line is that the case was not
thrown out of court; the judge merely wanted the complaint to be worded more
concisely and within certain legal bounds and gave the plaintiffs the right to
do so. This type of procedural process is not uncommon, especially in a
complex case such as this one. It is equally important to mention that since
this is still at the pretrial hearing stage and the facts of the case have not
been brought forward yet, the court has obviously made no findings as to the
merit of the allegations made in the complaint. I would refer everyone reading
this email to the post- hearing email sent by Gurujot Kaur the other day. From
my perspective, that was an accurate and comprehensive statement, both
factually and substantively, as to what actually transpired last week in
Multnomah County Circuit Court. Lastly, it is worth mentioning that not one of
the members of the UI board attended the hearing, even though a majority of
them live right here in Portland. On the other hand, all the members of
"SDS" attended the hearing, for the most part flying in from great
distances to do so. You are free to draw your own conclusions regarding that
fact.
With Love and Blessings,
Hari Nam Singh
|
