Dushkin v. Desai case validates the type of legal claim brought by Mark Miller against Adi Da
Posted by legal eagle
The case cited below shows that fraud claims against Gurus have a valid basis in legal theory, and that Massachusetts courts upheld the right of devotees to bring actions against corrupt Gurus who misrepresent their lifestyle. The kinds of allegations in Dushkin v. Desai sound very similar in principle to the fraud allegations brought by Mark Miller against Adi Da in 1986. It is common knowledge in Adidam that Mark Miller was paid a substantial sum of money as a settlement, and that Adidam was forced to drop the lawsuit they had filed against him a year earlier in 1985. This outcome was not surprising, based on what we know of the law and facts.
Assuming California courts would have similarly upheld the use of the fraud cause of action against Adi Da, the allegations in Miller’s complaint would appear to have been well supported by Adidam’s very public denial of facts about Adi Da’s private behavior to the media in 1985, followed by their later reversal and admission they were lying. One could say that Adi Da and his organization basically proved Miller’s case in print, right before the public eye.
|
Facts |
Fourteen "disciples" of self-proclaimed yoga guru Desai, who ran a non-profit yoga fellowship, lived at his 350 acre estate. While they were there, some for as long as 20 years, they contributed their money and then labor for little compensation, for the chance to follow his guidelines: chastity, poverty, and such. When they discovered that Desai had earned huge sums and had numerous sexual relations, they were disillusioned and sued him on numerous grounds. Desai sought to have the complaint dismissed. |
|
Decision |
The claims for fraud, misrepresentation, and unfair trade practice under Massachusetts' law may go forward. His alleged misrepresentation of his celibacy and poverty could be shown to have been misrepresentation that could cause people to devote resources to his foundation. If they can show that Desai knowingly misled them, there may be grounds for fraud. If they can show that Desai abused their trust and enriched himself in the process, there may be an unfair trade practice in violation of Massachusetts' law. Disillusionment and bewilderment are not grounds for legal action; they must show they suffered from "the deliberate manipulations of a clever swindler." |
|
Citation |
Dushkin v. Desai,
--F.Supp.2d-- (1998 WL 54072, D. Mass.) |